Running off the Golarion thread, but making a new one, since that one is now in no uncertain terms only about Golarion, there's an interview with Pete and Loz discussing how they dealt with the problem of sexist fantasy tropes.

There's an interesting quote here though, that relates back to the broader topic dealing with negative cultural aspects in depiction of a culture.

Quote from: Loz, Pete or both.On the other hand it is becoming more difficult to write roleplaying game settings and historical supplements in general. Of late there has been a growing reactionary movement to censure certain negative aspects of human culture and society, which in itself is no bad thing, but maybe shouldn’t be applied so stridently in a hobby which is based upon escapism. Especially when many roleplaying games are based upon challenging and overcoming societal inequalities and evils.

Last sentence bolded by me.

Now I think that point is interesting, because it reminds me of an article Roger Moore wrote in Dragon during the midst of the Satanic D&D craze, and Demons and Devils had just been yanked from the game.  His argument in a nutshell was similar: Demons and Devils are there to fight, not to worship.

Many human groups have done terrible things throughout human history, yet to sanitize things like Slavery, Murder, Rape, Genocide, from our gaming worlds is to remove the ability to fight or stand against those things.

At the same time, we surely don't want our version of "Africa" to be code for primitive murdering, raping, genocidal cannibals we have to destroy for the good of humanity.  (Remember that's what orcs are for. )

So for designers out there, like Pundit with Arrows of Indra, how have you dealt with the negative aspects of the cultures you are trying to depict?

Quote from: CRKrueger;568101Running off the Golarion thread, but making a new one, since that one is now in no uncertain terms only about Golarion, there's an interview with Pete and Loz discussing how they dealt with the problem of sexist fantasy tropes.

Just as a side note, that interview completely killed the small interest I had in buying RQ6. Such pandering to Political Correctness just makes things boring.


To the wider question, I'll simply say that there is no hope. Either sell your soul completely to the modern view that the only evil culture ever to exist are WASPs, or take the beating for being true to history and end up being called racist and sexist.

Some stuff I leave in, even if it is distasteful, because it makes the setting more believeable and thus helps immersion.

This came up in a couple of Traveller games that centered around colonization. Part of the social structure of these newly established colonies was that homosexuality was discouraged and frowned upon because it was seen as more about sexual gratification than it was about making babies and getting the colony's population to grow.

Now, that is distasteful, but would IMHO realisticly reflect the nature of newly established colony. Would it remain over the generations as the colony grew? No, probably not as the need to make babies slowly became less and less of a cultural imperative.

Jingoism is a common theme within my homebrewed humano-centric game. Pogrom and genocide are not unheard of. Social inequalities clearly exist, but players are often the ones to attempt to break these conventions by playing women. The themes I present in my campaign world have distinct parallels with our own, and we address them in kind.

Not every campaign world has to be about "killing the ugly guys" or the supercilious racial tensions between dwarves and elves. Providing you play with a gaming group who has a mature grasp of these themes (and don't use the game as an excuse to needlessly rape or mutilate), I think they're perfectly fine to employ use of.

Meh, just don't discuss it on rpg.net, pretty much everything that's not politically correct is slammed there.

I continue to play Elric, which has many concepts that are probably seen as objectionable I suppose. I don't really care what people think, it won't stop me from playing the RPGs I want to play.

Quote from: danskmacabre;568111I continue to play Elric, which has many concepts that are probably seen as objectionable I suppose.

You can always pull the freedom of religion card out of your sleeve.

No sanitisation needed, there were and are cultures with extremely nasty views towards their fellow human beings. That's the reality, although not at all responsible for the majority of the reasons people do bad things to one another. If one wanted to release rpgnet: the game, one could have a situation whereby orcs are convinced to become good taxpaying citizens by peer pressure alone, but it won't reflect the reality. Should those crusaders over at the bulging purple ever actually meet one of the real live monsters that most civilised people have never and should never meet, and have zero comprehension of, they would shit themselves in short order.

Short version, keep the politics out of my game, thanks.

I'm sorry, I found that interview a bit lacking.  Could someone point me at an interview that uses the word "inclusive" more?

I am not a game designer, but if you skip down to the last three paragraphs, you can read how I handle it for my Flashing Blades campaign.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;568117I am not a game designer, but if you skip down to the last three paragraphs, you can read how I handle it for my Flashing Blades campaign.

So a question for ya as a GM.

If you had a female player make up a female duellist, would you have the campaign world realistically place some pressure on her for being outside the traditional role of women?  Less duels? More duels?  Hard to find someone taking her seriously?  Possible legal issues?

Would any of that be different if you had a male player make up a female duellist?  In other words, would you pull your own campaign's punches for the female player?

Yeah I'm putting you in the crosshairs, but you're tough.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568118Yeah I'm putting you in the crosshairs, but you're tough.

Bring it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568118If you had a female player make up a female duellist, would you have the campaign world realistically place some pressure on her for being outside the traditional role of women?  Less duels? More duels?  Hard to find someone taking her seriously?  Possible legal issues?

All of those are possible.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568118Would any of that be different if you had a male player make up a female duellist?  In other words, would you pull your own campaign's punches for the female player?

Of course not. The campaign world is what it is.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;568124Bring it.
All of those are possible.
Of course not. The campaign world is what it is.

OK, what I figured, just checking.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568125OK, what I figured, just checking.

I'd like to say thank you on behalf of the group and ourselves and I hope we've passed the audition.

I think with historical settings you should just do your best to be accurate. Doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it or use it as an opportunity to pontificate.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;568129I'd like to say thank you on behalf of the group and ourselves and I hope we've passed the audition.

Heh. It's just nice to have someone who's aware that there were a lot more (many times famous) historical exceptions to sexual norms then we hear about, and yet still not assume that players are automatically given a cultural pass as one of those famous historical exceptions.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;568130I think with historical settings you should just do your best to be accurate. Doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it or use it as an opportunity to pontificate.

Well, that's why it's important to do the research. If you just go with broad strokes, you end up perpetuating the worst stereotypes, but when you drill down a bit you find that the exceptions are as important as the rules, particular for a game which is based on exceptional characters.