Librisia wrote: I'll be posting revised statements regarding my hypothesis about the male dominance in rpgs tomorrow or the day after.

As veterans of the Forge's culture, can you please advise whether I should post here or the other thread?

Valamir wrote: Of course, most behavior is taught. But the message of tolerance and acceptance is already being widely disseminated, its not like the civil rights movement is still struggling to be heard. I disagree with your conclusion about propating such material. I fully believe that its perfectly fine (in fact, I'm tempted to say its a good idea) to allow the "material that currently teaches it" to propagate, for three reasons.

1) Because while such material is dangerous when viewed in a vacuum as the only source people are exposed to, when forced to stand up side by side with more rational material it is more easily seen for ridiculous nonsense that it is. Racist propaganda shouldn't be rooted out and burned. It should be set side by side with everything else so people can see first hand how stupid it is.

2) Because censureship is probably the most insidious evil a government can allow to be committed on its people. And institutionalized peer pressure to cease and desist certain behavior is just another form of censureship. In fact, in some ways its a worse form of censureship because its really easy to think you're doing the right thing while doing it.

3) Because there is a point where raising public awareness about problems and issues stops being informative and eye opening and starts being irritating;like waving a red flag in front of a bull. All social interaction is an ongoing tacit negotiation between parties. Pissing the other guy off when you're trying to get them to see things your way is just counterproductive. I don't think you and I really disagree on this, rather I think we probably have different ideas of where that line is and how frequently issues of embedded bigotry need to be raised and addressed and how frequently they should be allowed to slide so as to give people time to figure out the answer on their own without pissing them off and building resistance to the cause you're trying to promote.

To bring this back to the point where I started voiceing my frustration on this thread, the idea of going back to point fingers (damning fingers or not) at elements found in roleplaying games (especially when most of those elements are a reach to begin with) is for me well on the "unnecessary" side of that line.

Are you focusing on specific RPGs or on RPGs in general?

There is a wide variety of RPGs out there now, especially if we consider freeware.

Doctor Xero

Hi John,

I guess my difference with your #3 is that I feel most current gamers are not very aware of the bias within RPGs. I have seen this in many discussions. For example, I think that most gamers read the "Star Trek" RPG book and don't notice at all the portrayal of women in it.

Just for information sake, I've generally held that the Heortlings are brown skinned, not white, or pink, as it were. Artists, most European, have tended to draw everyone as pretty much white, though.

Bankuei wrote: Some glaring examples:
-African Gods become demons(Rifts, some D20 products, Vampire)
-Hispanics apparently do not exist in most games, except as street thugs
-Asians apparently use the words "Crimson", "Resplendant" and "Dragon" to describe everything from martial arts to tying their shoelaces.

While this may be a slight exaggeration, its not by much.

Just for information sake, I've generally held that the Heortlings are brown skinned, not white, or pink, as it were. Artists, most European, have tended to draw everyone as pretty much white, though.

Consider how differently a lot of people would view their game if they realized that their heros that they've been envisioning all along didn't look like them.

Hi Chris,

One thing we might want to do in order to keep this thread from devolving into "my view, your view, his view" which tends to happen easily dealing with the topic of social justice, is to to keep it specifically focused on:

-roleplaying games and social justice within it

-what can be done with specific actions(as opposed to what should be done, with no actual steps)

In regards to that, something that I have and will continue to push is for more rounded treatment for folks in general, regarding both artwork and presentation of culture. Another, issue that is also worthy if having more diversity of people involved in the hobby of defining their heroes and their fantasy. If you notice, this is no different than the issues faced by other media.

Chris

One of the initial questions that bothers me regarding the initial conversation is whether a printed item is or isn't it a cigar. This is vitally important, in my opinion, because it leads to the question of "what is acceptable to publish and what is not?"

I know the response is, "Anything that discriminates or promotes a bias against a group." But honestly, the question isn't so easily answered as all that.

Let me segue for a moment and then come back to the above: in the movie "The Animal" there is an African-american character who complains constantly that everything that is happening to him is because he is black...it's all racist. The amusing part is that everything he is complaining about is *good* -- he gets his food first at a restaurant, people apologize to him, he gets a promotion, etc. In other words, despite other possibilities, he chooses to blame the color of his skin for the events.

Here's a much less funny example to highlight my case: an African-American family moved in down the street this past winter. We didn't get along with the family at all nearly all summer. No, it wasn't the fact they were black, it was the fact they were selling drugs and letting their kids run wild (swearing at adults, wrecking property, beating up other kids (including ours), etc).

Towards the end of the summer, the police raided their house, and they were convinced it was our doing. Soon thereafter, they were evicted and they blamed us for that as well because we were "nigger-haters" and "racists."

We had nothing to do with the police raid that resulted in their eviction. In truth, I learned from a number of sources that the police had been watching that house all summer, collecting evidence...but this family chose to blame us and called us racist.

Let me clarify that: we're "racist" because because they're black, we're white, and we didn't get along. Because we wanted them out of the neighborhood. It's as simple as that -- to them. Nevermind the drug dealing. Nevermind their violent, disrespectful kids. They decided it was racist because they're black.

So, what am I saying and what does this have to do with RPGs and game texts in general? Simply this: you can see whatever you want wherever you want, even if it isn't there, if that's your view of the world. If you decide to be sensitive to it. Some folks want to call this "blaming the victim," I don't think it's that easy.

More personally, I have extensive experience with discrimination on the basis of religion, but I don't go looking for such where it isn't, which is precisely what I see a lot of people doing.

Consider all the flap over the Nemoidians in Phantom Menace -- the accusations they were caricatures of Catholic priests and asians, and thus painting both as "evil" through this symbolic language. Too much time spent by people looking for hate crimes where there weren't.

Now, compare this to our hobby and the specific example of dark-skinned, matriarchal elves being racist and misoginistic.

Oh, hell, let's drag the religion issue into it, too: they're goddess worshippers. Blatant goddess worshippers...the whole Lloth thing is a big deal with depictions of the drow. That's making out witches and feminine religious mysteries to be evil! The drow practices are saying "The supreme God cannot be a woman because women are vicious and cruel!"

But what is the solution being requested when these sorts of complaints arise?

Is it that we can never portray a black-skinned person as bad? (and Gods forbid a group of black-skinned people?) That women cannot be portrayed as evil or weak or slutty? That a matriarchy cannot be presented as utterly corrupt and evil? That a group of evil, very-humanoid beings can never have dark skin?

At times, it feels like there is an unspoken request that blue-skinned, sexless agnostics or white males be the only possible villians or negatively portrayed individuals in a game.

But there's not much room for interest if the only villians you can ever portray have no resemblances to any group in the world, or can only be white males, just because someone will take the similarity personally and claim it is just discrimination in action.

That is why I ask for the solution to the situation, because the implied solution is unsatisfactory and irrational.

Here is the problem as I see it: some forms of pain are self-inflicted, by being oversensitized to an issue, to the point where everything looks like the problem. You get shot once, and you get gun-shy; every loud noise is someone shooting. Trying to force everyone to stop making loud noises because they bother you is not a (good) solution, however.

Now, is the person experiencing real emotional pain because of the noise? Yes. This isn't to say they aren't. But is the actual problem the noise?

Compare that to racism, sexism, or other types of discrimination, and the attack upon apparently discriminatory material that often occurs.

Real racism, that is negative behavior towards individuals based on a person's ethnic/racial background, needs to be dealt with, //no doubt//, but diluting the issue by regularly attacking things which "look like" or "might be" racism, because they supposedly contribute to or reinforce negative stereotypes, is doing no one any favors, for such ultimately puts the whole issue off of most people's radar screens.

We all quickly lose sympathy for the plight of the loud, barking dog, and eventually eventually ignore him altogether, with a lingering and critical annoyance...and that does no good for the dog or us. Precisely as Krista points out.

Real racism is a real crime or hatred perpetrated against actual, living people intentionally for purposes of injury, debasement, or inequality, and which can be construed in no other way -- not references that look like/can be interpreted as racism. Further, they are situations which can be dealt with via a reasonable and positive (additive rather than subtractive) solution.

I have experience with real racism, I've had to deal with it on the job, and it utterly sickens me -- but we're talking situations which are a blatant case of a person specifically cursing and cussing about "niggers" et al. That's something I can do something about. I can complain, because it is an unfair stereotype based on inaccurate facts, with the conscious intention debase the target (as a group), and there is a rational solution to the problem.

In the end, what it comes down to is this: you can choose to be offended by something that may or may not be offensive. But does it actually address a real problem, or does it just confuse the issue with nuances and semantics...in this case, the real problem isn't that drow are evil AND black-skinned OR a matriarchy.

Obviously, there are people who need to work on what is and isn't discriminatory; sometimes, it's more a matter of too much homegenity: All X are X being false and thus portraying a false stereotype or reinforcing such. However, in some cases, all X really are X (or at least are for a fictional world). Ultimately, it is figuring out the difference between an element created for a good story and a symbol created for purposes of commentary.

It is much easier to find the divide when personal reactions to such are stripped from the equasion, though doing so is more difficult than just doing so.

Hi Raven,

I think that there's a lot more to this than simply "offensive". A non-offensive 2 dimensional character, is still 2 dimensional. And no, that's not saying that there isn't a place for 2 dimensional characters, but rather that there is an imbalance when that is all you see of a given people. Like Ralph, I'm not for "banning" anything, but I am for promoting more diverse representations of people to balance the one-sidedness of how folks are represented.

There are also a lot of levels to racism. What does it say when a woman clutches her purse and crosses the street, regardless of whether you are in casual or business attire? What does it say when it happens repeatedly in different locations, with different people? They're not harming you, at least physically, but its definitely not cool. And why are they doing it? I doubt every one of them has been mugged by a person that looks like you...

Consider what any piece of media, but particularly games, is saying to a person of color when:

-a group of people and their culture is completely absent("Sci-fi epic! 20,000 races! 500 cultures! No black people!")
-you have a token representation, clearly included as a token acknowledgement("Look, we're NOT racist!")
-you have a group represented by stereotype, someone else's simplifcation of that group("See, chinese people are like this..."

Now consider again what the the above is saying to a white person, or, if as John says, if they even recognized it or bothered to give it thought. Consider an rpg set in a modern city, with nothing but Hispanics. It would clearly be considered a political statement. The same rpg could be filled with white folks, and wouldn't be considered a political statement.

Again, the issue here isn't "this is offensive", but rather, overall, this is unbalanced.

And again, my take on this is that we shouldn't waste time trying to analyze if X is offensive or racist or what, but simply take the usual Forge policy: Promote good games.

Chris

As Chris {bankuei} proposes, let's stick to RPG's in particular.

Now I have only one real problem with greyorm's post:

Real racism is a real crime or hatred perpetrated against actual, living people intentionally for purposes of injury, debasement, or inequality, and which can be construed in no other way -- not references that look like/can be interpreted as racism. Further, they are situations which can be dealt with via a reasonable and positive (additive rather than subtractive) solution.[emphasis mine

I think you can make separate goals out of:
(1) remove bias from RPGs (e.g. exclusion)
(2) remove exploitation from RPGs (e.g. tokenization)
(3) addressing racial/gender issues through game play (as has been talked about the Feminism threads)

And it's in fact really, really damn hard to handle all 3 at once, well. Poor execution of (1) can result in violation of (2), and implementing (3) without good (1) or (2) cheapens the subject matter itself. Therefore there's the inclination on my part to use theoretical/speculative settings (as opposed to theoretical ones) to facilitate a focus on (1) and (2) while consciously letting (3) aside.

Actually, there are multiple dimensions of issues which contain bias - gender, race, politics, economics, class. Myself, I'm going for a lack of bias/exploitation on gender and race issues, in part because my crowd of friends is largely on the same page as me, and so exploration in that area may just go into crowd-preachiness. However, I therefore make politics/class the central issue, as that's one win which there's more tenuous agreemtn, if any.

So when my thing comes to be a finished project, how can I establish a lack of bias or exploitation? Although I don't have mechanics, I would simply have a page devoted to sexism and racism, and explain how they fit into society; beyond that, I'd simply not make those a factor of gameplay. More specifically, if I don't want to tokenize asians, then I shouldn't create an Asian League or a Space Yakuza. (Similarly, I'm not going to create CyberHindus or MechaCatholics, because I want players to pay attention to the NeoMarxists and NeoNeoMarixsts and the TransMarketeers and so on.)

Any suggestions on how to go about (3) design while adhereing to (1) and (2)?

Hello,

I'm confused. I'm going to need input from John Kim, Librisia, and Ralph (Valamir) to help me out.

Are we discussing designing role-playing settings and other content which are less racist/bigoted/etc than, for sake of comparison, other entertainment media like movies?

Or are we discussing literally reducing racism/bigotry/etc in actual other people because of our games' impact and "message" to them?

And to whom is the conclusion (whichever it's for, and whatever it might be) addressed? Existing game designers and publishers? Role-players at large? The Forge community in a focused "let's do this, people!" sense?

Since all of the above is opaque to me, pending your help, I'm having an awful time following the points that are being made.

Best,
Ron

One thing with RPGs that you're going to have to fight against is the use of cliché, and by extension stereotypes. I believe this relates to what Chris L. would call Baseline. In creating a story you'll play on people's assumptions to fill in details not pertinent to the theme. The elements you bring to light (I think this relates to Chris L.'s Vision) are part of the story's focus.

You might ignore race entirely; everybody will probably assume characters are white (HeroQuest?); but race isn't relevant to the theme.

A personal anecdote:
I'd left one of my character's skin color unspecified, then one day I decided upon a nice shade of brown. Among the group this was initially met with resistance, because it wasn't what they had "pictured". Pearly white was Baseline, because the players were white and the medieval feel of the character conjured up images of the english. Well, after I specified her skin color, then it became part of the Vision, and opened the door to addressing racism issues like when the group went to a futuristic 1980's South Africa.

So Chris L.,

I think you are seeing discrimination where there is just an attempt at good story. A moral or ethical statement is going to be biased against somebody - that's sorta the point in saying it.

Jason,

I don't quite follow. What does the distinction between Baseline and Vision have to do with seeing discrimination where there's only an attempt to make a story? Of course one has to push against and within a kind of accepted frame of reference, but why does that entail that racism doesn't matter, or doesn't exist if we're just trying to tell a good story?

I do grant that any ethical or moral statement, since it must be based upon a metaphysical and thus non-demonstrable support, must necessarily impose bias somwhere along the line. But I don't get the relevance here.

I'm sorry; I just don't follow your point. Can you clarify?

Chris Lehrich

Jason,

Continuing to think through the Baseline/Vision question at stake here, let me go back to Ars Magica, one of my favorite games:

Baseline was supposed to be medieval Europe, with certain important changes, notably (1) the existence of real, functioning magic; (2) the presence of active faeries of various sorts, along with critters and beasties of all descriptions (arising from folklore); (3) the demonstrable presence of God and Satanic evil, shown by the Dominion Aura and the Infernal Aura. Apart from this, and the alternate history that more or less came with the territory, it was supposed to be medieval Europe.

Vision, I think, originally depended on the particular gaming group. You set out to explore or develop some kind of story within this universe, and in the process discover things about it and about yourselves and your characters. Something like that. Anyway, you made it up for your group, and did what you wanted with it. Not a lot of guidance there. With a lot of tinkering, you could still transform AM2 into a Narrativist game.

Now between 2d ed. and 3d ed., when they shifted to White Wolf, the latter company started adding strong Vision elements, presumably to focus the point of the game. What they did was to construct the Church as a thoroughly nasty institution, out to get women, pagans, magic, faeries, and anything else perceived as "peculiar" or otherwise out of their ken. Meanwhile, they pushed for all such peculiar persons and beings to be more or less on the same side, beneath it all. Thus they constructed a war between the Church and the Weirdies, with the PC's representing the latter. I seem to recall references to witch-burning, which essentially didn't happen in that period at all. That was rather later, and probably most were burned by Protestant lay courts in any case, which obviously didn't exist in the medieval period, pre-Reformation.

I suppose you could say that they injected a Premise to the game, but by my read of Narrativism they weren't Narrativist: the Premise was predetermined in its conclusion. That is, the Church was wrong, and the Weird were right. You just fought the good fight, or missed the boat. That's a form of Force, if I get the terms right here.

Now I'm exaggerating somewhat, but not a lot. Read some of the supplements on the Church, for example, or Shamans. It's hard to miss.

Okay, so what I'm saying is that this development of Ars Magica attempted to "tell a good story" through Force. That's bad design, IMO. But furthermore, the Forced story amounted to a claim that Christianity is fundamentally evil, or at least that organized Christianity is so. (It's worth noting here that the Kabbalah supplement, which I read once quickly, seemed quite sincere about trying to be fair and balanced; this suggests that the game designers weren't hostile to religion, only to dominant religion, and organized religion at that -- since they didn't seem to perceive Jewish communities as having a strongly organized religious structure.)

I guess the point here is that if you Force a story, and the story is one in which you stereotype very broadly and negatively, and the people in question are supposed to be anything like real people, then what you have is Forced discrimination.

I had a fascinating experience playing Ars Magica 2d ed., in fact, because I played a priest who was also a magus; he was a member of a special order that was about dealing with the Hermetic Orders. The point being that a lot of Hermetic types were seemingly drifting a long way from the Church, and the Church thought this wasn't very good for their souls. So along comes me to help them see the light and come back to Mother Church, in order to save their souls.

Now what was interesting was that this character never actually proselytized at all; it just didn't come up much, and besides he was pretty conflicted about a lot of things anyway. But some players -- and I do mean players -- had this HUGE problem with a priest anyway. So their characters would do things like forbidding me to get within X distance of them or their friends, and so forth. Why? Because I was a priest, of course, and obviously out to get them.

Note that as this was 2d ed., this wasn't in the rules or in the books anywhere; it did arise implicitly, in that Magi are basically rather uncomfortable in churches because their spells don't work well, but this is a pretty minor effect. I mean, who needs to cast spells in church?

What arose in that game, then, was a moral conflict about whether Christianity was automatically "out to get" the Magi. Lots of folks had these assumptions about the Inquisition yaddy yah, and would trot them out regularly. Of course, the GM was a medieval history crazy, and kept pointing out that the Inquisition hadn't actually been invented yet, and besides was really about a change of the legal system that never came into England anyway, but it didn't matter. Everyone "knew" that Christianity must be a Bad Thing Out To Get Us.

So what's my point, after all this? I think that this game provided a fabulous opportunity -- not entirely taken, mind you -- for all of us to explore these assumptions and the reasons for them. I spent a lot of time thinking hard about what it meant to be a priest in that world, surrounded by hostility, and how I ought to respond. Others got to think about why they felt so hostile, and some of them at least came to the realization that they were making huge assumptions, not in any way justified either by in-game history or by my character's actions.

Practically speaking, then, I think gaming offers opportunities for this sort of reflection, and can actually change the ways people think. I know it did for me, and for some of the other players there. Not that anyone went out and converted or anything, but I think some ideas got revised.

BUT... this couldn't have happened in ArsMagica3, because you'd have had to rewrite significantly to make it possible that my character wasn't out to get them.

Well, I'm rambling again. Hope this in some way clarifies something for somebody.

Chris Lehrich

Ron Edwards wrote: Are we discussing designing role-playing settings and other content which are less racist/bigoted/etc than, for sake of comparison, other entertainment media like movies?

Or are we discussing literally reducing racism/bigotry/etc in actual other people because of our games' impact and "message" to them?

And to whom is the conclusion (whichever it's for, and whatever it might be) addressed? Existing game designers and publishers? Role-players at large? The Forge community in a focused "let's do this, people!" sense?

Ok, John, before I post any reply to Chris, I want to make sure I'm in the right place. Now, it seems like I'm not, since this is about the effects of design, rather than the process of design.

Honestly, I avoided the other thread due to the "Feminism" title, for reasons I won't go into here, but it sounds like I should have been over there. However, I'm not sure my line of thought/questioning fits over there, either.

Here's what I'm on about: given certain controversial issues the designers are asked to avoid due reactions to such, why is it he has to avoid them? What is the use of the restrictions against ficitional elements like "evil Churches pretending to be good" and "evil black, female, goddess-worshippers"? Are these restrictions or avoidances in any way a healthy reaction or viewpoint?

So, does that fit here with what you're trying to accomplish with this thread? (If not, I'll just start a new thread for the discussion of that idea.)

greyorm wrote: Honestly, I avoided the other thread due to the "Feminism" title, for reasons I won't go into here, but it sounds like I should have been over there. However, I'm not sure my line of thought/questioning fits over there, either.

Here's what I'm on about: given certain controversial issues the designers are asked to avoid due reactions to such, why is it he has to avoid them? What is the use of the restrictions against ficitional elements like "evil Churches pretending to be good" and "evil black, female, goddess-worshippers"? Are these restrictions or avoidances in any way a healthy reaction or viewpoint?

Chris L,

clehrich wrote: I don't quite follow. What does the distinction between Baseline and Vision have to do with seeing discrimination where there's only an attempt to make a story? Of course one has to push against and within a kind of accepted frame of reference, but why does that entail that racism doesn't matter, or doesn't exist if we're just trying to tell a good story?

I do grant that any ethical or moral statement, since it must be based upon a metaphysical and thus non-demonstrable support, must necessarily impose bias somewhere along the line. But I don't get the relevance here.

I'm sorry; I just don't follow your point. Can you clarify?

Chris L. wrote: I guess the point here is that if you Force a story, and the story is one in which you stereotype very broadly and negatively, and the people in question are supposed to be anything like real people, then what you have is Forced discrimination.

cruciel wrote: Let's say you have an RPG setting where gay marriage was legalized, setting off a world-ending chain of events. [etc.]
Yeah, it's an extreme example. Is it a thematic opportunity if you can challenge the assumptions and discrimination if you cannot?

I just wanted to drop in a couple cents on the subject that actually hits home since I'm hispanic. (Well, technically, I'm so mixed that my ethnicity is rather ambiguous, but my extended family speaks Spanish and hails from South America, so there ya go.) Further, I grew up in the inner city of New York among drug dealers and gangbangers that most RPGs' target audience will fortunately never see in their lives. It has been many years since I left that environment and I'm glad to be rid of it.

I've been blessed to have never encountered a moment of race-oriented awkwardness or implicit discrimination in a gaming situation. However, the one thing that does tend to bother me is the initial look of surprise whenever I start speaking knowledgably with another role-player. It was humorous when I met a fan of Zombie: the Coil and they were very visibly shocked to meet a dark-skinned guy with dreadlocks instead of a pasty goth. (I cut off the dreads a couple years ago.)

Actually, designing Z:tC was quite cathartic. Here were Zombies. Slow, dumb, reliable for manual labor and general mayhem but little else. I could take a group of characters who had very low expectations placed on them, then imbue them with personality, complexity and, yes, kewl powerz, much to the surprise of the other well-established supernaturals of the World of Darkness. In hindsight, I worked through some very personal issues with that game.

The phenomenon reminds me of the scene in the Matrix where Neo meets Trinity and says, "I thought you were a guy." She replies, "Most guys do." She has a point. Without a face to attach to the words, you'll just kind of assume that whoever is saying them looks like you. However, in a field like game design, it's a safe bet that the majority of folks are going to be white males. I don't presume to know the social factors that make this so commonplace. Truth be told, if I were someone else, I would be surprised to find out I am an indie game designer too.

So, how do I see race in RPGs today? Well, I never really gave it much thought. Perhaps it's an unfortunate callousness, but I've long ago come to terms with the assumption that the default "hero" in many peoples' minds is going to be a white male and deviation from that standard is something of a novelty. Also, because of my mixed background and lack of deep cultural ties to any particular ethnic group, I'm probably less sensitive to any racial biases inherent in some game backgrounds. For example, I was annoyed by the homogenous Star Trek races because they're dramatically uninteresting, without even realizing they could be considered stereotypes of Earth cultures.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my pet peeves are, in order of least offensive to most offensive:

Absence - There is no mention of race in reference to the protagonists or antagonists, leaving it wide open for me to project myself into my hero. While the creators may be white males and envisioned their own heroes as being white males, they made mo attempt to impose that assumption on me or my hero.

Tokenism - An obviously self-conscious attempt to avoid being called racist, often resulting in ridiculously admirable two-dimensional representations of the very people the creator was hoping to avoid offending.

Stereotyping - Yes, I know that urban street gangs are primarily composed of minority youths. Believe me, I know.

So, I guess my only suggestion to game designers worrying about whether there is implicit racism in their creation is to just stop worrying about it. The less you mention it, the less you can fumble, the more I am free to have my dark-skinned hero.

Bankuei wrote: Consider an rpg set in a modern city, with nothing but Hispanics. It would clearly be considered a political statement. The same rpg could be filled with white folks, and wouldn't be considered a political statement.

clehrich wrote: I just don't believe that all racism or other hate crimes are perpetrated intentionally. People who deliberately perpetrate hate crimes, i.e. who get up in the morning and say, "You know what? I hate those guys, on principle, and I think I'll go make trouble for them," are certainly beneath contempt. They're also rare. The problem isn't them: it's the people who say, "I have no problem with those people, they're fine with me, in fact they make such nice music (because those people have a good sense of rhythm, the same way they're all good at basketball), but I sure wouldn't want one dating my sister." They do not intentionally perpetrate racism/sexism/etc., but it's discrimination nonethless.

S'mon wrote:
The former (race-hatred racialists) are clearly worse than the latter - when the former get to be in charge of a country, you get genocide. Genocide is worse than being blackballed from the local country club.

contracycle wrote:

S'mon wrote:
The former (race-hatred racialists) are clearly worse than the latter - when the former get to be in charge of a country, you get genocide. Genocide is worse than being blackballed from the local country club.

No, I don't think that division is remotely as strong as you do...

S'mon wrote:
Not "clearly worse"? Um, ok.

John Kim wrote: RPGs aren't government censored in any countries as far as I know, and there isn't even a self-imposed ratings system like there is for movies.

Bankuei wrote: keep it specifically focused on:
-roleplaying games and social justice within it
-what can be done with specific actions(as opposed to what should be done, with no actual steps)

cruciel wrote: One thing with RPGs that you're going to have to fight against is the use of cliché, and by extension stereotypes.

clehrich wrote: If you look at the arguments against it, at some point everyone seems to slide into something along the lines of "marriage has been heterosexual for millennia" or "marriage was meant to be heterosexual" or "marriage is about procreation." Some of the Christian Right are at least honest: they say that homosexuality itself is wrong, and figure that legalizing homosexual marriage says that it isn't wrong, which is at least logically consistent (although I disagree with the initial premise).

Daniel 'gobi' Solis wrote: The phenomenon reminds me of the scene in the Matrix where Neo meets Trinity and says, "I thought you were a guy." She replies, "Most guys do." She has a point. Without a face to attach to the words, you'll just kind of assume that whoever is saying them looks like you.

M. J. Young wrote:
I also suffered a great deal of discrimination as a child because I was not at all athletic, and in some ways I think that mattered more to the kids in my school than your race or your religion--it was certainly sufficient cause to warrant beating me up on a regular basis.

I suspect everyone is on the brunt end of discrimination of some sort some times. You can choose to blame your problems on it, or you can prove yourself as an individual.

contracycle wrote:

S'mon wrote:
Not "clearly worse"? Um, ok.

More precisely, symptomatic rather than causal. The chinese have a proverb that the secret of leadership is to find a parade and to get in front. I'm saying its the people in the parade who make the demagogue dangerous; without them, the demagogue is just a ranting loon.

As John has given me the go-ahead, I'll try to drag this discussion away from the political/social soapbox it is drifting towards and back onto the topic of RPGs (Gareth and S'mon, would you please take the poli-sci argument to a more appropriate venue?).

John Kim wrote: I think this is the thread for your question. But I'm not sure what restriction you are talking about. RPGs aren't government censored in any countries as far as I know...

cleherich wrote: The problem isn't them: it's the people who say, "I have no problem with those people, they're fine with me, in fact they make such nice music (because those people have a good sense of rhythm, the same way they're all good at basketball), but I sure wouldn't want one dating my sister."

greyorm wrote: As John has given me the go-ahead, I'll try to drag this discussion away from the political/social soapbox it is drifting towards and back onto the topic of RPGs (Gareth and S'mon, would you please take the poli-sci argument to a more appropriate venue?).

(snip)

cleherich wrote: The problem isn't them: it's the people who say, "I have no problem with those people, they're fine with me, in fact they make such nice music (because those people have a good sense of rhythm, the same way they're all good at basketball), but I sure wouldn't want one dating my sister."

Now, see, here we disagree. That IS intentional racism in my book -- it is intentional discrimination against a real group for real purposes that is causing harm to that group. It may not be physical harm, or emotional harm to a specific individual, but creating and acting according to a false, negative perception thereof.

It doesn't matter that the speaker doesn't consider it "racist" (few racists consider their remarks racist, anyway), the content and intention of the behavior is clearly discriminatory based on illogical/irrational premises, and is designed to segregate society and individuals based on those factors.

(snip)

Any insights?

greyorm wrote: So, when a conscientious writer sits down to create an interesting fictional setting and situation, how can he be expected to keep his creative freedom in light of the possibility/threat of discrimination? (ala the Nemoidians in SW:tPM; the dark elves in D&D; etc.) Especially considering how destructive such (perceived) discrimination can be to the actual value (and intent) of the work? . . .

Green wrote: in many fantasy games, the default cultural model is pseudo-medieval Europe, yet the themes and concepts behind those games do not make this necessary in the least. It's just more familiar. Doing things a certain way only for the sake of familiarity does little to solve the problem.

An additional thought to add to the melange in this thread :

I recall reading a study involving behavioral patterns as the result of child abuse by an alcoholic/drug-using mother or father. A group of researchers discovered that a number of children exhibited all the behavioral traits of victims of child abuse even though thorough investigation made it clear that these children had not experienced child abuse. Researchers then made case studies of the children and their families, and they learned something which has seriously increased the complexity of child abuse family studies.

In a number of cases, the child in question had not experienced child abuse, nor had either of the child's parents, but one of the child's grandparents ~had~. The grandparent in question had been traumatized enough that she or he had role modeled the behavior of a victim of child abuse for his or her offspring, who had then passed it on to the child in question through similar role modeling. Thus, even though the children had never experienced child abuse, they reacted with all the fearfulness and wariness and anxiety of victims of child abuse because this was the normative behavior they'd learned from their parents who had learned it from their grandparents who had developed it in response to child abuse trauma!

In the same way, a child or grandchild of a victim of racism may very well react as a victim of racism even if she or he has not personally experienced it, and this can be true for entire communities as well as for individuals -- a factor with serious implications for how we need to address the tragedies of historic racism as well as current racism!

In the same way, a child or grandchild of a bigot may very well pick up subtle or hidden racist behaviors even if she or he is not a racist on any conscious or emotional level, also true for entire communities as well as individuals.

How might this influence RPGs?

I recall one RPG I ran which dealt with racism (though that had not been my conscious intention -- I was simply trying to run a good campaign!) as the protagonists uncovered the historic roots of the traditional enmity of two game-world cultures and were able to end the racist enmity by making it clear to both cultures how they were still reacting to long-irrelevant historical circumstances. (Having the majority of the racism end so quickly was a little unrealistic but made for a nice ending to the campaign.)

Doctor Xero

Regarding the "evil black matriarchal lesbian dominatrix elves".. Guess what is my problem with this? The "evil". Why there has to be "evil"? What does it even mean? Why to label a group, even an individual as "evil"? It's not realistic, it does not help telling a story I'd like, but it does promote chauvinism (original, broad term), black'n'white worldview and 'better-than-thou' attitude.

So, I'm bugged by the evil black matriarchal lesbian dominatrix elves. I'm also bugged by the evil green polygamous cannibal orcs. I'm also bugged by the evil white partiarchal straight human males. Notice the common nominator.

Of course, I'm more bugged by the drow issue than the orc issue, because though I'm not black, much less an elf, other aspects make it personal. But the baseline problem is labeling some things good and others bad, without any logic whatsoever. Why drows are evil? They just are. Why orcs? Designer felt like it. Why the need of evilness? To have something to kill without moral problems? And that is a good thing to do?

And continuing the rant, why are all individuals of a given group alike? Not realistic either, and makes incredibly boring story material. Diversity, people! You can state the dwarven culture values gold over all. Ok, but I want to see also dwarves that are generous, and dwarves who have sworn the oath of poverty. Orcs are violent and vengeful? Ok, but I want the reasoning behind it, and few pacifists. Hobbits are peaceful and jolly culinarists? Fair enough, but not without a suicidal alcoholic halfling assassin. Elves are prone to beauty and harmony? Ok, but I want my warmongering psycho noldor. (Wait, I have them..)

And most cultures are heavily male-dominated? Let them be, but show me also strong females and people crossing boundaries. Yes, I want a couple of high-ranking males in a mathriarchal system, too. And I don't want the "all X are A and no A is Y". It can be a common belief in a particular gameworld, but it shouldn't be the truth in the system.

Preaching? You bet. I want better RPG's (who doesn't?). And, if it is possible to "make world a better place" with RPG's (even however small part of it), I'm all for that, too.

Um, bunny distraction.. You've gotta deal with my chaotic text as it is.

Hi Raven,

There are no definite answers to your question. There is no PC guide that will tell you what is too far. What you can do, is simply be conscious of what you are putting forth(which is what authors/artists of any sort should be doing along with the unconscious flow to their work).

As far fantasy races being interpreted as real races, it mostly comes about through 2 things:
1- Absence of an ethnic group
2- Fantasy race which falls into much of real world stereotypes of said ethnic group

While we can always retreat to the notion that "it's all fantasy" the simple fact is, with any form of art, you are making a statement to real people.

The issues folks had with Phantom Menace was seeing the stereotypes they deal with on a daily basis transferred on screen with the attitude of, "See, they're lying, greedy bastards, and the best thing to do is blow them up!", which may be an exaggeration, but consider if LOTR orcs all spoke in ebonics or spanish, and you'd get a good idea of what people are pointing to.

I'd say this whole issue regarding fantasy races is really empty. The racial bias issues I have witnessed as a source of contention throughout my gaming experience has been the treatment of the actual ethnicities in the various books, ranging from mistreatment of culture(African=voodoo, Chinese=kung fu), to the complete absence. Orcs, drow, whathaveyou, hardly mattered in the fact of what we people of color were being portrayed as.

Chris

I've posted my revised hypothesis on [URL=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9841]Male Dominance in RPGs

Cheers,
Krista