I think it's been covered, but I wanted to answer the question -

Golarion isn't racist, but only because they're drawing from established settings and tropes.

If you listen to their stories about the history of Paizo, there's a good one about Lisa going over TSR's books after Wizards took them over.  She found their world splintering led to their demise.  To prevent that in Golarion, they deliberately decided to include every fantasy genre in a single world, as regions rather than alternate dimensions.

Including African tribes in this mix isn't because Golarion feels that black people are inferior, so the accusation doesn't hold much water.

Quote from: kythri;565615How have you missed the numerous examples that have been posted in this thread?

I must have skimmed over the numerous posts describing the African analogues as the most advanced culture in Golarion, and the European-analogues as backwards savages.  Do you have a link to those posts?

Quote from: StormBringer;565638I must have skimmed over the numerous posts describing the African analogues as the most advanced culture in Golarion, and the European-analogues as backwards savages.  Do you have a link to those posts?

Obviously.

Here's one reference:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=563720&postcount=54

It's also been pointed out that the iconic barbarian (i.e. "savage" is a European-analog, not African.

You can go back and re-read for the rest, I'm not your research assistant.

Quote from: jhkim;565525Like I said, my preference is to use stereotypes in unexpected ways - deliberately breaking from how they are used in old fiction.  I talked about how I did that with Iroquois and Algonquians in my Vinland game.

While I think that's fine as an option, it can be problematic as a mandate, especially since it runs against the value of cliché issue.  Clichés are an important shorthand that makes the information in role-playing games manageable, and while games like Tékumel, Jorune, and the Madlands get consistent kudos for being innovative, evocative, and creative, they don't do well commercially or have lots of players.  Perhaps that problem can be mitigated by applying the differences as clichés as well, as you did by describing one of the groups as "fascist".  

And I still think that applying a negative cliché to a non-white people, even one that evidence suggests actually happened historically, can still cause problems.  As I pointed out, there are cases where someone has said that the evidence shows that a particular culture actually practiced cannibalism and people have gone nuts attacking them as racists (e.g., this article says of Christy Turner and the Anasazi cannibalism controversy, "Critics have charged him with everything from shoddy science to racism."), and that's hardly the only place that happens.  For example, Lawrence Keeley jokes about the absurdity anthropologists describing axes carried everywhere by certain tribesmen as "tools" rather than "weapons" by quipping that they carry them everywhere in case the sudden urge to chop down a tree overcomes them.  That this actually happens in the social sciences and that attitudes drawn from those controversies and disciplines are what drives the controversies over fictional people and settings on the Internet is why I do not believe this is simply a hypothetical concern.  

I do think that what some people are asking for and want is that essentially non-white characters always be depicted positively and never be depicted negatively, which was one of the main points I was trying to make by the Keith Richburg article I sent you via PM (American in Africa: Part 1 and American in Africa: Part 2).  The relevant bit is here:

QuoteAre you black first, or a journalist first?

The question succinctly sums up the dilemma facing almost every black journalist working for the "mainstream" (read: white) press. Are you supposed to report and write accurately, and critically, about what you see and hear? Or are you supposed to be pushing some kind of black agenda, protecting black American leaders from tough scrutiny, treating black people and black issues in a different way?

Many of those questions were at the heart of the debate stirred up a decade ago by my Post colleague, Milton Coleman, when he reported remarks of Jesse Jackson referring to Jews as "Hymie." Coleman was accused of using material that was off the record; more troubling, he was accused of betraying his race. For being a hard-nosed journalist, he suffered the wrath of much of the black community, and even had to endure veiled threats from Louis Farrakhan's henchmen.

I have had to deal with many of the same questions over the years, including those asked by family members during Thanksgiving or Christmas gatherings in Detroit. "Let me ask you something," my favorite cousin, Loretta, began once. "Why does the media have to tear down our black leaders?" She was referring to Marion Barry and his cocaine arrest, and to Coleman Young, the longtime Detroit mayor who was always under a cloud for something or other. I tried to explain that journalists only do their job and should expose wrongdoing no matter if the wrongdoer is black or white. My cousin wasn't convinced. "But they are the only role models we have," she said.

It was an argument that couldn't be won. And it was an argument that trailed after me as a black reporter covering black Africa. Was I supposed to travel around looking for the "good news" stories out of the continent, or was I supposed to find the kind of compelling, hard-hitting stories that I would look for any other place in the world? Was I not to call a dictator a dictator, just because he happened to be black? Was I supposed to be an apologist for corrupt, ruthless, undemocratic, illegitimate black regimes?

Apparently so, if you subscribe to the kind of Pan Africanism that permeates much of black American thinking. Pan Africanism, as I see it, prescribes a kind of code of political correctness in dealing with Africa, an attitude that says black America should bury its head in the sand to all that is wrong in Africa, and play up the worn-out demons of colonialism, slavery and Western exploitation of minerals. Anyone who does, or writes, otherwise is said to be playing into the old "white conspiracy." That attitude was confirmed to me in Gabon, in May 1993, when I first met C. Payne Lucas of Africare, a Washington-based development and relief organization. "You mean you're a black man writing all of that stuff about Africa?" he said.

Blacks and other minorities have been getting the crappy end of the stereotype stick and have been told that they and their ancestors were inferior for so long that there are people who feel we have an obligation to compensate by burying the negatives and emphasizing only the positives, which is how I think we get to the claim that the portrayal of African-analogue people in Golarion should only draw on the best examples the continent has to offer, the peaks of their cultural achievements (e.g., Mali and Egypt, no matter how much of a stretch the latter is) and the highest levels of their culture (dressing like nobility).  Please note that while I don't personally agree that this is the right solution, I do think that the intentions are often admirable and the problem they are seeking to remedy is real.

My point here is not that your suggestions are wrong.  You can make a strong case that favoring more complicated cliché hybrids over simpler straight clichés is a worthwhile price to pay to avoid using a straight cliché that evokes stereotypes used by racists to encourage discrimination and that might even encourage racist thinking in readers.  I think another solution is the Big Trouble in Little China approach, which is also what Golarion seems to do, which is to include some straight clichés but also alternatives, as well, which remind readers that all people are human and have the potential to embrace different cultures and that there can be variation within a culture.  

My point here is that even if you do that, there will be people who will still complain because their expectations go beyond simply steering clear of racism and racist cliches.  They want to take proactive steps to reverse past wrongs.

Quote from: jhkim;565525I did have fairly stereotypical gypsies in my old Gothic Fantasy campaign, but in retrospect I regret that.  If I were to do it again, I would probably include a Romany analog and have them fit a number of stereotypes different from the gypsy stereotypes of old fiction but consistent with Romany culture.  For example, I might have the main group of Romany in my game matching pilgrim stereotypes - taking cues from portrayals of Puritans or Mormons.

And how would you convey the differences and the full intent quickly and clearly to the GM and players were you to publish such a thing for others?  Do you think it's effectively conveyed simply by presenting the multiple cliché influences and some idea of how they mesh together or do you think it would require a write-up of the culture to properly convey what you are trying to get across?  And would your game analogue, merged with stereotypes about Puritans and Mormons, fit the bill for such people in a Gothic Fantasy campaign, at least part of which traditionally relies on the danger and allure of the Gypsy cliché?

Quote from: jhkim;565525I'd largely agree with this - though I feel like "coming off quite racist" seems hedging.

I'm trying to focus on appearance rather than intent, which is a broader issue that other people have been raising.  That choice of phrase whas meant to convey a portrayal that most reasonable people would look at and say, "Yup, that looks racist."

Quote from: jhkim;565525The original Fu Manchu stories and films were racist, and many later uses of those same tropes were as well.  Big Trouble in Little China took very deliberate steps to deviate from the usual Chinese stereotypes in most of its characters - and even to some degree in David Lo Pan.  It did not simply use the established Chinese stereotypes in American film, but rather mixed things up a lot.

I agree with this.  But some of the stereotypes were still there and Roger Ebert still found it objectionable.  This goes back to what I asked earlier, "What's the actual problem? That a stereotype used echoes a real world stereotype used for malicious purposes? That the stereotype is false? That the stereotype is negative? That it's a stereotype at all? Depending on who you talk to, any, all, or none of those things might be a problem."  Ebert seems to have a problem with those stereotypes evoked at all and to a large degree the line between racist and not racists is going to be in the eye of the beholder.

Quote from: StormBringer;565590Ah, then we are in luck:, "There is no racism in RPGs, yay!".  Even RaHoWa does not mention 'hate' or 'racism', let alone admit to it.  So all we have to do is keep a lookout for games that flat out claim to promote racism using those exact words, and we are good to go.

Go at what?

Quote from: StormBringer;565520That isn't exactly what I am getting from the descriptions provided so far, but I don't have the books to hand and likely never will. If that is what they are doing, then obviously I would approve.

I'm not going to give descriptions of every race and culture, but I'll list a few to give you an example of what I'm talking about.

In Golarion's history there was a catastrophe called "Earthfall" that shattered the world.  There were numerous great civilizations, mostly that are greater and more civilized than the ones that exist in the setting's 'present day'.

The ones that were more or less totally destroyed were the Azlanti.  Only refugees survived, and those refugees mixed with various other humans to spawn their cultures, including the Taldan, and the Chelaxians (who have their own offshoots now).  

Of these the Taldan are a half-Azlanti offshoot of the Keleshites, who are Arab inserts whom created their own great civilization without any real outside help.  The Taldan get called white but are not described as white in the text nor does the artwork portray them that way, nor would it make any sense to perceive them that way given their background.  They might be broadly considered Caucasoid, but that hardly seems to count considering we largely don't consider real-life Caucasoid Arabs "white" in the modern Anglophone world.

The Chelaxians are another half-Azlanti offshoot, but of the Ulfren, who are Viking inserts.  These Vikings have never had any independent social advancement, and are morally just as happy raiding and raping as they have been for thousands of years if it weren't for the days of longships being the height of military technology long since passing.

The Chelaxians, I would describe as white, and are often depicted as white-looking although not always, sometimes having an Asiatic look (which isn't uncommon in lots of northern and eastern Europe anyway).  

The Chelaxians and their offshoots are the only high civilization that any 'white people' in Golarion have ever had, and that only due to being ruled by their half-Azlanti aristocracy that brought them that civilization in the first place.  

The only fully white ethnic group, left completely to their own devices are raping, pillaging barbarians incapable of advancing themselves beyond log meadhalls, and they can't even look at the military technology of their neighboring cousins and copy it they are so fucking stupid.

Now, we still have the primitive Mwangi, but that's only one half of the coin.  The other definitively black African insert in Golarion are the Garundi, who like the Azlanti were a once great civilization whose nation was destroyed in Earthfall.  Except the Garundi are still around, both as nomads and bordering the Mwangi realm, and many Mwangi convert to the Garundi lifestyle.  The setting features two nations founded by two rival Garundian archmages even.  

Unlike whites in Golarion, black Africans, Arabs, Asians, et al can create a relatively high level of technology (within the scope of the setting) without needing Numenorian, or Atlantean ripoff refugees to get them there.

Worse still, those upjumped whites sole real contribution to Golarion is imperialism, slavery and war.  Overall it's a very "progressive" setting.

Quote from: John Morrow;565686While I think that's fine as an option, it can be problematic as a mandate, especially since it runs against the value of cliché issue.  Clichés are an important shorthand that makes the information in role-playing games manageable, and while games like Tékumel, Jorune, and the Madlands get consistent kudos for being innovative, evocative, and creative, they don't do well commercially or have lots of players.  Perhaps that problem can be mitigated by applying the differences as clichés as well, as you did by describing one of the groups as "fascist".

Quote from: John Morrow;565686And how would you convey the differences and the full intent quickly and clearly to the GM and players were you to publish such a thing for others?  Do you think it's effectively conveyed simply by presenting the multiple cliché influences and some idea of how they mesh together or do you think it would require a write-up of the culture to properly convey what you are trying to get across?  And would your game analogue, merged with stereotypes about Puritans and Mormons, fit the bill for such people in a Gothic Fantasy campaign, at least part of which traditionally relies on the danger and allure of the Gypsy cliché?

In short, yes, I think this works.  Mixed, contrasting cliches works as a quick way to convey things.  I think Big Trouble in Little China is a great example of this.  Jack Burton is in no way a stereotypical leading white hero, but in less than five minutes the movie quickly conveys a picture of him.  Likewise, Eddie Li is not an established Chinese stereotype, but he is quickly understood.  This is no less accessible than something that only uses established stereotypes of Asians.  

I'd suggest the Imaro books as another good example.  It uses a lot of African ideas, including a hero from a primitive spear-wielding tribe.  However, the character of Imaro draws more on the stereotypes like Conan or Tarzan rather than the traditional stereotypes of Africans seen in old fiction.  It is in my opinion a very accessible work even though it is a non-traditional fantasy world.  

Within RPGs, I think GURPS Voodoo is a good example of such mixed stereotypes which remains accessible.  By contrast, I think the original GURPS Fantasy is a bad way to handle this - using old stereotypes for its portrayal of the Sahudese, as highlighted in features like the "Sahudese Fire Drill" adventure.  

None of these rely on long meta-explanations of "this is the stereotype I am using".  Instead, they just jump in and present the character as is.  The way Imaro is written, it quickly becomes clear that he is a hero in the mold of Conan.  This image of him is dominant, rather than traditional Zulu stereotypes.  Likewise, I never used the word "fascist" in my portrayal of the proto-Pequot, but their militarist and nationalist posture evoked that stereotype.  


While there are different ways to approach the issue - one way that does not work is just taking and using stereotypes straight from old fiction.  Mixing and varying stereotypes is not a magic bullet which will make it impossible for anyone in the world to call your work racist - but that isn't necessary.  While it is impossible to please everyone, there are lots of authors and works that are consistently praised for their treatment of race - and don't particularly suffer from criticism.  

I'm hearing mixed things about Golarion, and I'm interested since just today I ran Pathfinder set in Golarion for my son and two nephews.  I may be buying more material, in which case I'll see for myself.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;565831I'm not going to give descriptions of every race and culture, but I'll list a few to give you an example of what I'm talking about.

Certainly, I wasn't expecting a virtual copy and paste from the books; this summary is more than sufficient for our purposes here, thanks for putting it up.

QuoteWorse still, those upjumped whites sole real contribution to Golarion is imperialism, slavery and war.  Overall it's a very "progressive" setting.

It sounds like they have a pretty good handle on things, then.  I don't see what the problem is here (again, without the books in my possession).  Perhaps give the 'white' nations a bit more of their own progress, but it sounds like Paizo did their research.  This is a shitload more than none, which is about how much other companies tend to do.  I am convinced Steve Jackson has a time machine, so their historical books don't count.  

Quote from: Marleycat;564499I can't disagree about Ettin. He comes off as false and very two faced to me.

Fits his screenname quite well, doesn't he?

Quote from: MGuy;564787But the shirtless spear wielding warrior is a RACIST STEREOTYPE. If you're going to make a game and you want to avoid that slap him in some royal garb at the very least!

El Jefe beat me to posting the 300 pic.
I also was tempted to grab a pic of one of my own ancenstors, in Pict warpaint, ready for battle.
I don't call those people "racist stereotypes"; I call them National Heroes!

What the fuck can you do against such blatant, outright, unquestionable stupidity, really?

Quote from: Benoist;565922What the fuck can you do against such blatant, outright, unquestionable stupidity, really?

Expose it for what it is.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;565831Worse still, those upjumped whites sole real contribution to Golarion is imperialism, slavery and war.  Overall it's a very "progressive" setting.

Yes, IMO it's a lot easier to find the self-consciously Politically Correct stuff in Golarion than it is to identify (pro white) racism, (pro male) sexism, etc. As Politically Correct settings go, I think it works pretty well; the pulp vibe helps.

When people ask me what my background, my heritage is, I tell them I'm German/Irish. I invariably follow that up by telling them that my idea of a good weekend is to get drunk and invade small countries. I, of course, have never been to Germany or Ireland, nor have I invaded a small country (not in real-life anyway, but I do get drunk a lot), being a born-and-rasied citizen of the United States, but I say it nonetheless.

Does that make me racist? No, it makes me hilarious, and self-deprecating, and also shows the use of stereotypes - not racism.

Stereotyping is shorthand - usually based on some degree of actual fact, broadly applied, in order to get an idea across in a few words or lines of text. Stereotyping Irish as drunks or Germans as warlike is not true for every member of their culture, of course - no culture is a monobloc of beliefs or ideals or behaviors - but stereotypes exist for a reason, not just in the Real World (tm) but in books, movies, RPGs, whatever. Nobody woke up one day and said "Hey, all Asians are smart and like rice!" - it is an idea that developed over time, and of course it isn't wholly accurate, not by a long shot.  

Am I going to say that all stereotypes are valid? Not literally, of course not, but they do serve a purpose. However, in our modern age of Liberal Arts majors with nothing better to do than come up with something to be offended by while living semester to semester off mom and dad's money (see what I did there?), stereotypes have become racist.

Racist means something very specific - that someone holds the belief that their specific genotype is inherently superior to any other, for whatever reason. In this era, however, the term has been co-opted in order to shame a party who disagrees with a political viewpoint into silence, or abject apologetics and contortions, in order not to appear to be mean or evil. Stereotypically (see what I did there again?), this is a leftist's weapon of choice.

RPGs have a limited number of pages, a limited word-count, in order to bring their societies to life. As such, stereotypical descriptions are unavoidable. Sure, you could have your Viking-culture hail from dry lands to the south and have dark skin, or have your enlightened Greek-analog culture be red-skinned peoples from across the sea, and none of that is inherently racist - you're using ingrained stereotypical memes (Western, to be sure, but let's be honest, our hobby is dominated by the West) as a shorthand way of putting images into the minds of GMs and players.

You could, of course, try to come up with a truly unique culture, avoiding at all costs any aspect of any known Earth culture - but then you're creating something alien, something so outside the normal "Western" experience that it would takes dozens, if not hundreds of pages to describe them in enough detail to make them playable. Many people think Tekumel falls into this catagory, for example, because it draws heavily on non-Western, "dead" civilizations - something very few people outside of academia or South/Central America have experience with, and of which there are almost no stereotypes aside from obisidian dagger-wielding priests on top of pyramids. Tekumel, of course, is nothing like that at all, but it has the reputation (the stereotype?) of being too "hard" to grasp to be playable.

I don't know about you, but I want to start playing my games without having to take a six-week course in alien cultures first. So - stereotyping. Broad-brush, bold descriptions, that synch up with images and details in our own minds that can be readily grasped and applied. You can mix and match parts and pieces from several established and known cultures, or even throw in some unique bits of our own, but if you want to get your setting across, you almost have no choice but the draw upon stereotypes in order to bring your setting to life.

That's not racism.

Unless someone wants it to be.

Quote from: Werekoala;566178Stereotyping Irish as drunks or Germans as warlike is not true for every member of their culture, of course - no culture is a monobloc of beliefs or ideals or behaviors - but stereotypes exist for a reason, not just in the Real World (tm) but in books, movies, RPGs, whatever. Nobody woke up one day and said "Hey, all Asians are smart and like rice!" - it is an idea that developed over time, and of course it isn't wholly accurate, not by a long shot.  

The stereotyping of Irish people as drunks began, or more properly found its fullest expression with the "scientific racism" of the 19th century, as the rulers of the English cast about themselves for ever more creative means to dehumanise perceived enemies. Similarly with the "Frogs" expression for French people. Personally, I quite enjoy frogs legs. Its tragic persistence to this day is merely indicative of ignorance, almost all of the Scandinavian and Eastern European cultures consume more alcohol per capita, as does the UK. The lesser lights will crack a paddy joke about potatoes while stuffing themselves with fries.

Otherwise I agree, neutral or positive stereotypes are not only desireable but often have a reasonable basis in reality, simply because there is little other reason for them to exist.

True, of course, but I was just using my own stereotypical answer to questions about my heritage as an example. And of course, alcohol consumption does not always equate to drunkness - I am a professional drinker, and could likely pass a field sobriety test when a less-proficient imbiber would be hauled off to jail on a similar number of drinks. Therefore, we could say that the Irish are probably LESS inclined to drunkeness than others, because of their lifelong experience tipping the bottle. This would, of course, invalidate the stereotype.