| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that every time you create a world, you're also (intentionally or not) putting forth a worldview.But creating a world composed entirely of elements which others find in no way objectionable might well make for an astoundingly bland cosmos.
Again, creating a world and endorsing all its various elements are two entirely different things.
As I said, it's a different thing if you're creating a dystopia (or otherwise problematizing it at all). It's when it's presented as the accepted norm and that's ok that it's problematic.
I don't think George R.R. Martin is actively, passively, or tacitly endorsing a misogynistic society. Why? Because he regularly shows that the misogynistic society he's created is not an ideal one. He shows the negative effects it has on characters. He presents characters that are more competent to rule than the people in power, but are barred from doing so because of their gender.
To shift the discussion away from orientation to a different example, if you create a world and don't include any female leaders in that world (assuming, of course, that the point of the story isn't to create a dystopian society), you're putting forth a worldview that says that it is abnormal or unnatural for women to lead.Or you've created a world ripe for social evolution (as opposed to wholesale revolution), in which your female players and/or characters will have the extraordinary opportunity to be the first female leaders—to make their (and your) world a better place.
What does Mary Steenburgen's character say after agreeing to accompany H.G. Wells back to his era in Time After Time? "I'm changing my name to Susan B. Anthony"? You go, girl. Rock the vote.
Obviously. :-) The story you tell in your setting is another component in the worldview it's putting forth. But that's a step beyond the argument I was trying to get across, which is that your fictional setting puts forth a world view. There isn't some sort of value-neutral setting.
The idea that, for example, having every civilization in your world be white is a value-neutral setting, while having people of color is an "agenda" is pretty much a privileged viewpoint in a nutshell.Agreed.
But if you've envisioned a world in which genetic diversity hasn't allowed for variety in skin tone, neither all-white nor all-black is particularly objectionable—so long as it's not motivated by something prejudicial.
Again, I don't disagree with this, but it's a complication in a point I was trying to keep simple.
If you're setting your campaign in the antebellum American South, there's a reason that all the characters in power are going to be white. If you have a humanoid tribe in anywhere with weather like Seattle, they're probably going to be white because melanin just gets in the way of Vitamin D absorption.
And so on. You might construct any sort of society with well-considered reasons to have your tribe be white. Or black. Or whatever.
I don't have an issue with that.
It's the treatment of straight/white/male as normal/default/neutral that I have an issue with. It's actually none of those. Similarly, "I don't have gay characters/women in authority/racial minorities/etc. in my campaign because I am not any of those things" is also not a neutral position.
The idea that having a fantasy setting where all the leaders are straight white males is somehow less radical than having a setting where all the leaders are gay black women is ridiculous.Fantasy settings are often, though not always, reflections of the era in which they were created. (I don't think George R.R. Martin sells nearly as many ASoIaF novels a generation ago, for example. He'd have been way too ahead of his time.) Any number of compelling, extraordinarily well-written fantasies feature a leadership composed largely if not exclusively of "straight white males." They shouldn't be condemned, in my opinion ... but neither should they be perpetuated as a preference, or worse, regarded as the preferred default.
I think Tolkien was a freakin' genius, and The Silmarillion the 20th century's single greatest piece of fiction. I know discerning readers, though, who despise his stuff because it is, for them, too obviously a product of his staid, pastoral, conservative Roman Catholic weltanschauung. He wasn't a bigot, though; he was a product of his period.
I'm always mystified by people who think that a work of art is either a work of genius or something that promotes attitudes that harm people. It is quite possible to be both. It's even possible to promote both some attitudes that are anti-discriminatory, and some that are discriminatory simultaneously.
@Sophia: I hear so many of them (Feminazi seems most common) that I just went with the most clear I could think of. I like "Radfems" though. Not quite as judgmental as "Feminazi", gets the point across, and is easy to say. Thanks =).
@Alice: Yeah they can say whatever they want. I'm just saying that the fact that they have the right to say it doesn't mean it always NEED to be said. A simple "I disagree and here's why" followed by stating your position and why you think it's harmful is good (That's mostly what Scott is doing). Calling someone a homophobe for not agreeing with you...that's a bit uncalled for in my eyes.
Because just because they feel it A.) Doesn't mean it's true,
It means it's true that they feel it.
EDIT: Removed something unnecessarily inflammatory.
@Sophia: I hear so many of them (Feminazi seems most common) that I just went with the most clear I could think of. I like "Radfems" though. Not quite as judgmental as "Feminazi", gets the point across, and is easy to say. Thanks =).
@Alice: Yeah they can say whatever they want. I'm just saying that the fact that they have the right to say it doesn't mean it always NEED to be said. A simple "I disagree and here's why" followed by stating your position and why you think it's harmful is good (That's mostly what Scott is doing). Calling someone a homophobe for not agreeing with you...that's a bit uncalled for in my eyes.
Radfem specifically denotes the 2nd wave of feminism - Radical Feminism. Most of the influential authors were VERY transphobic. They also called for the castration of gay men.
We seem to have come back to the assertion that if you don't let the cause consume your entire life, you're a part of the problem.
I'm not seeing that at all -- just that if you pointedly ignore a problem and pretend it doesn't exist, that says something different than if you actually, you know, speak out against the problem in some way, shape, or form.
Because just because they feel it A.) Doesn't mean it's true,It means it's true that they feel it. It doesn't look like you really care what they feel, though, if it means reexamining how you behave.
Or perhaps it means that I truly find no issue with how I behave.
I don't think failing to include homosexuals in a world is automatically a statement. Not everybody reflexively thinks, "I better consult the U.S. Census before designing this town's populace." Not everybody thinks, "Gee, 10% of America's population is Asian*, I better include one Tian NPC for every nine non-Tian."I must say, I do find it rather ironic and amusing that, in other discussions on these messageboards, when people have stated that "including X in my game makes it seem unrealistic" they've been mocked for such, since it's a fantasy game with magic and dragons, yet, here we are on this subject.
I think they're usually "mocked" because they make "realism" a higher priority than enjoying the game itself, and that's not really a recipe for a good time. I don't think anyone seriously believes that acknowledging that gay people exist in your fantasy world is going to ruin the game experience for anyone (except, perhaps, for extreme homophobes, but the quality of their game experience matter precious little to me).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to point out that I do more to further the heteronormative/male oppressor point of view with my constant jokes about frequenting hookers (not to mention the jokes about murdering them) than with anything at my gaming table.
SLACKER!
Get back on the clock, there's unintentional oppression to be inflicted, thoughtless discrimination to perpetuate, and insensitive apathy to reinforce by blatant disregard to real world politicking and agenda that some play games to escape.
How will you be part of the Grand Heteronormality Oppressors of Social Thought™ if you don't at the very least maintain the minimal membership effort?
It's because things like this are still happening in the world that I choose to include bigotry as a central theme in many of the campaigns I involve myself in. I can't just ignore it.
I ignore bigotry and racism in my worlds just fine. I'm big into making the campaign casual rather than a fight for your life or the world however. I don't like to make those sorts of things the center of anything or even a large part. Homosexuality hasn't been a big part of my life so I usually don't think about it in world building either, though I always take request into consideration. YMMV of course.
I think they're usually "mocked" because they make "realism" a higher priority than enjoying the game itself, and that's not really a recipe for a good time. I don't think anyone seriously believes that acknowledging that gay people exist in your fantasy world is going to ruin the game experience for anyone (except, perhaps, for extreme homophobes, but the quality of their game experience matter precious little to me).
I'm not saying that it WOULD ruin the game experience any more than I think it would by inadvertently not doing so.
My amusement stems from the insinuation that the reason to actively include or represent real world cultures (race/orientation/etc.) and their population distribution is because such cultures exists in the real world.
So, when someone says a race or class breaks realism for them, and then they get lambasted for striving for "realism" in a fantasy game? Now people are being lambasted for their unrealistic fantasy world not being inclusive of real-world cultures.
It's amusing.
Okay, I promise this is my last post on the matter (I hope).In my setting, it's kinda assumed a bit of each worldview exists. So, are there gay people in my setting? By extrapolation on my first sentence, yes.
But this did get me thinking. I never once thought how the CG goddess of love would consider homosexuals. But now I do.
She kinda looks at them and is like, "K. Don't really care. I created genders so reproduction could happen (yes I do realize asexual reproduction is a thing, but not among humans) so I'm kinda annoyed you're just throwing that out the window, but I won't sick the inquisition on you or nothin'."
None of the other deities even have an opinion, as it does not fall in their jurisdiction.
So there, happy?
EDIT: Which is how I see it. In my worldview, there is a divine entity that created everything, including sexual relationships. He's kinda like "um, why?" but isn't violent towards them any more than he is towards selfish people, murderers, thieves, pedophiles, so on and so forth.
Your goddess of love doesn't seem to care much about love, Cobalt. She's more of a goddess of fertility/reproduction.
Your goddess of love doesn't seem to care much about love, Cobalt. She's more of a goddess of fertility/reproduction.
Love was the first word that popped in my head. That's a more accurate description.
|
Cobalt, that's interesting. I guess your goddess of love is also a goddess of fertility? For example, Shelyn in Golarion is happy that people are in love at all, but she doesn't worry about reproduction (although I'm sure she's happy that happens too!)
What would your goddess think of a homosexual couple that adopted and/or gave birth through other means (e.g., a lesbian couple getting a sperm donor; or simply using magic)?
Cobalt, that's interesting. I guess your goddess of love is also a goddess of fertility? For example, Shelyn in Golarion is happy that people are in love at all, but she doesn't worry about reproduction (although I'm sure she's happy that happens too!)
What would your goddess think of a homosexual couple that adopted and/or gave birth through other means (e.g., a lesbian couple getting a sperm donor; or simply using magic)?
We aren't talking about Golarion.
And she'd respond with the same w/e kinda attitude of "whatever floats your boat."
It is very difficult to have a conversation with someone about how they might be unconsciously perpetuating certain norms without giving them the impression you are accusing them of something malicious.
A tangential example: When I was working on a Legend of Zelda homebrew a couple months back, and deciding what races to put in, one of my player suggested Twili and stated them up, submitting it to me for review. He gave female twili a bonus to Dex and Charisma while he gave male Twili a bonus to Dex and Con.
He's a very reasonable guy and does not hold any opinions (to my knowledge) that I would find offensive, but I had to explain that this sort of sexual dimorphism (regardless of the fact that the race in-game does not appear to have it) is, despite no malicious intent from him, putting a heterosexual male worldview over others (the only reason for a female of the species to have more Charisma in this case is because they're more attractive... to a man).
No one who creates games which include hetero relationships and marriages is not guilty of any great wrong, but is simply not recognizing how they're quickly, automatic choices are perpetuating a concept society has taught them.
It's even more common with regards to race. We instinctively go to a certain place because it's the image society keeps feeding us, whether we agree with it or not.
Getting back to the original idea...
It depends. Usually it's just there. The PCs do what they're gonna do and I have very little give-a-damn about it.
Once the gods get involved, though, you have actual opinions that (sometimes) matter.
Asmodeus as written might be in favor of men going off alone. Women are for breeding, not pleasure.
Calistra... Are you kidding? Not a thing wrong with it. All the decent brothel inspectors are female; they know best whether or not the goods are good.
Consider Erastil, with his emphasis on family. He sees the actual bedroom deeds as largely futile. But if there's large families afoot with lots of kids and a gay uncle to help take care of them, then that's different. I see Erastil as tolerating it so long as they spend their resources helping to raise the village's children.
Shelyn is all for any loving couple. Or triad. Or pile. Whatever.
The rest of the gods... don't consider it their department.
On a related note... I view Iomedae and Zon-Kuthon both as gods of S&M. One of Iomedae's... less well known aspects.
So... Why is Asmodaeus sexist?
All evil people are sexist? I'm not sure if it works like that.
Yeah, Asmodeus himself was written as a highly misogynistic dick. His church, on the other hand, well...
Mortal churches rarely follow the dogmas of their gods exactly. That's just how it goes. Besides, Queen Abrogail II looks to model Cheliax after Hell, not to send the whole country there. Need to conquer the Inner Sea, not subjugate herself at the feet of a fiend.
It is very difficult to have a conversation with someone about how they might be unconsciously perpetuating certain norms without giving them the impression you are accusing them of something malicious.
A tangential example: When I was working on a Legend of Zelda homebrew a couple months back, and deciding what races to put in, one of my player suggested Twili and stated them up, submitting it to me for review. He gave female twili a bonus to Dex and Charisma while he gave male Twili a bonus to Dex and Con.
He's a very reasonable guy and does not hold any opinions (to my knowledge) that I would find offensive, but I had to explain that this sort of sexual dimorphism (regardless of the fact that the race in-game does not appear to have it) is, despite no malicious intent from him, putting a heterosexual male worldview over others (the only reason for a female of the species to have more Charisma in this case is because they're more attractive... to a man).
The fact that sexual dimorphism exists in the real world....is of course ignored and maybe what that person was going for...but you decided to take the route of being worst possible interpertation.
True I don't know what the race of Twili is never have played the game...put to me having sexual dimorphism in a species could be a interesting concept to work out in a fantasy setting or even a sci-fi setting. So if you are saying this case of sexual dimorphism in a race is wrong...you might be right...but certainly not all cases of sexual dimorphism in a race is wrong.
Did both of you miss the part where it was "this sort of sexual dimorphism" that was the problem? Giving a bonus to Charisma, because "they're more attractive... to a man"?
I figured it was because women are more manipulative, not more attractive.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That's the point. By coming at it from the standpoint that homosexual relationships are not normal (and, as such, they require "special thought" just to include), you are implicitly reinforcing a heteronormative worldview.It's quite a simple thought process.
"I made this world. I gave no special thought to relationship dynamics. Coincidentally, there happen to be no homosexuals because I DIDN'T F@$$ING THINK OF IT.".
So Scott... do you actively try to figure out how many lefties there are?
Is Paizo's lack of left handed Iconics a sign that they are applying a 'Dextronormitive World view?'
Or is it just a sign that it's not high on their 'list of things to do?'
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Recently, even. I always got my hand slapped by a ruler when I was being taught to write and used my left hand.
Left-handedness is uncommon. It is not, however, treated as abnormal.Though it has been in the past.
My dad's a 'broken leftie,' it saved it life.
I remember trying to write on slate chalkboards as a kid, learned to write backwards doing math as a result. Confused the hell out of my teachers.
So, if I understand the logic, it is ok to forget about a minority if they're not in the spotlight, got it.