|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Mikaze, could you include links to the Wyatt article and that particular thread?
This is the Wyatt article, I think. Having to do a blind link because work blocks their site.
It's basically yet another argument that fantasy that falls outside a narrow scoope is badwrong and "not really fantasy".
As for the thread, it's on another forum and linking it would just lead to cross-board drama. Suffice to say it's nothing we haven't heard a hundred times already.
As for the thread, it's on another forum and linking it would just lead to cross-board drama. Suffice to say it's nothing we haven't heard a hundred times already.
Maybe put it in a spoiler to hide it? Even better, you could label the spoiler with something completely unrelated so it looks like you're talking about something else. Like so:
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue that since the medieval and renaissance idea of fantasy (romances and epics) did not accurately reflect historical (or even societal) norms of behavior we're making a mistake if we want our fantasy to do so.
In general, even that literature was far more liberal in allowable behavior (cross-dressing men and women, amazon knights, sorceresses with multiple lovers, queens regnant, knights and heroes taking up with giantesses and femmes savages (Woses), witchcraft and necromancy practiced by heroic figures, cross-faith marriages, homosexual amours, transgender hero/ines (see Yde et Olive) and characters satirizing the church and proclaiming they'd rather burn in hell than be parted from their lover) to draw many conclusions from except: the genre has always pushed the envelope of the scandalous, and generally has a heart of gold.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it depends on how strictly you need your fantasy to hew to the Medieval European model. Remember, just because it happened that way back there doesn't mean it must be the same on Golarion or wherever. Cultural mores are derived by history and present situation.
Let's take for example Erastil's whole 'Stay in the Kitchen' thing. Erastil doesn't prohibit female adventurers. Indeed, the cover of his section in Kingmaker #2 features a female Cleric/Druid in battle. It means different things for different people.
In a peaceful village, it could mean that mothers stay to keep the homestead running. In one often besieged by Orcs or Goblinoids, it could mean that women are primarily trained in defense of their homes and towns, while men go out for offensive maneuvers. For a female adventurer, it doesn't mean she can't go out looking for trouble while she's young, but somewhere along the line, should she live long enough, the time will come to carve out a home of your own and raise a family (and to be fair, Erastil feels this way about Adventurers in general, not just the ones lacking Y-chromosomes).
Remember, in a world where Monsters are very much real, sexism is not a luxury every place can afford.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Mikaze, could you include links to the Wyatt article and that particular thread?This is the Wyatt article, I think. Having to do a blind link because work blocks their site.
It's basically yet another argument that fantasy that falls outside a narrow scoope is badwrong and "not really fantasy".
As for the thread, it's on another forum and linking it would just lead to cross-board drama. Suffice to say it's nothing we haven't heard a hundred times already.
Oof...yeah I pretty much completely disagree with that person. Get your science out of my fantasy? HAH! I have friggin cladograms illustrating how the different "races" (really species) relate to each other.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose if I ran games in medieval European times, maybe. But I don't. And even though I'm running a more Renaissance themed game, I'm still not completely beholden to the thoughts and ideas of that era. Especially if it would make my players uncomfortable.
So I'd say that there is a place for both modern values and ancient values, as long as your players (and fanbase) are comfortable with it.
|
|
As for the thread, it's on another forum and linking it would just lead to cross-board drama. Suffice to say it's nothing we haven't heard a hundred times already.Maybe put it in a spoiler to hide it? Even better, you could label the spoiler with something completely unrelated so it looks like you're talking about something else. Like so:** spoiler omitted **
Eh, it would still be frowned upon by Paizo, rightfully so too. Honestly, it would just be picking at scabs at this point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oof...yeah I pretty much completely disagree with that person. Get your science out of my fantasy? HAH! I have friggin cladograms illustrating how the different "races" (really species) relate to each other.Hey Mikaze, could you include links to the Wyatt article and that particular thread?This is the Wyatt article, I think. Having to do a blind link because work blocks their site.
It's basically yet another argument that fantasy that falls outside a narrow scoope is badwrong and "not really fantasy".
As for the thread, it's on another forum and linking it would just lead to cross-board drama. Suffice to say it's nothing we haven't heard a hundred times already.
Imagine how those that hold those views would react to Verces.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does people see the prohibition to drive while intoxicated as incorrecgly evil?We value freedom and independency so much that many of us see anything which prevent us doing what we want in anyplace in anytime, is incorrectly evil.
Yeah was going to say, TC has a really odd definition of "modern values"...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since you are so confident about the examples name them. Name specfically the ones in which the women either did not pretend to be men, or were not specifically designated as men. If you're going to list Joan of Arc, remember it was because of those particular activities. (and being on the wrong side of a political struggle), she was burned at the stake as a heretic. And Boudicca was betrayed by her own chiefs, presumably because among other reasons, they resented being led by a womanMost people have a pretty tenuous grasp of what women were and were now "allowed" to do in the nebulous blob of "medieval europe."
What part of Medieval Europe?
What culture?
During what time period?
Women fought. No, seriously, there are examples of medieval female warriors who bucked the trend. Sometimes they pretended to be me. Sometimes they didn't. Women controlled vast fortunes. Women ruled. There is a crap-ton of stuff we pretend they "weren't allowed" to do back then, as though societal strictures on the gender were universal across the breadth of the continent for centuries.
They weren't.
And when women "weren't allowed" to do a lot of things, guess what?
They often did them anyway.
Balderdash. Plenty of links here: http://www.sfwa.org/2013/05/guest-post-we-have-always-fought-challenging-th e-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative/
It was normal for Celtic nobility of both genders to fight; Boudicca was betrayed by her chiefs because they knew they couldn't win against the Romans. Joan of Arc was tried for heresy by a church that viewed women's proper roles as constrained -- that doesn't mean that that was the opinion of her followers or of the majority of people outside the church hierarchy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let us not forget historical LGBT female badasses such as Julie D'Aubigny that stuck it to the man (literally. With a rapier. Also insults.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Balderdash. Plenty of links here: http://www.sfwa.org/2013/05/guest-post-we-have-always-fought-challenging-th e-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative/It was normal for Celtic nobility of both genders to fight; Boudicca was betrayed by her chiefs because they knew they couldn't win against the Romans. Joan of Arc was tried for heresy by a church that viewed women's proper roles as constrained -- that doesn't mean that that was the opinion of her followers or of the majority of people outside the church hierarchy.
That link is redirecting to the main page - I think this link should work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are also some indications ancient Sarmatians fielded women warriors, possibly even originating some of the stories attributed to the Amazons.
Scandanavian shield-maidens are pretty well-known.
Samurai women were often trained in defense, and indeed, many women samurai of bushi families trained extensively in the use of the naginata.
The legendary founder of Wing Chun kung fu, and some of its notable developers, were women. Shao-Lin nuns certainly fought.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think something to keep in mind is that there are modern people playing these games, so depending on the person, some liberties need to be taken. Which is fine, since a fantasy world doesn't model reality, merely reflects it.
I can tell you right now, in my Renaissance/Age of Exploration game set in the psuedo-Caribbean, there is slavery and the slave trade. But, there are also abolitionists and the laws for slaves aren't anywhere near as harsh as in real life because I personally don't want to delve into that when I play. Got enough of that from a GM from my childhood.
At the end of the day, my players want to play D&D, not Jim Crow: The RPG ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Racism and sexism are like gangrene: potentially interesting material in a story, but usually something unpleasant worth glossing over in the name of fun.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think something to keep in mind is that there are modern people playing these games, so depending on the person, some liberties need to be taken. Which is fine, since a fantasy world doesn't model reality, merely reflects it.
I can tell you right now, in my Renaissance/Age of Exploration game set in the psuedo-Caribbean, there is slavery and the slave trade. But, there are also abolitionists and the laws for slaves aren't anywhere near as harsh as in real life because I personally don't want to delve into that when I play. Got enough of that from a GM from my childhood.
At the end of the day, my players want to play D&D, not Jim Crow: The RPG ;)
For srs.
It is pretty frustrating how often it needs to be explained that many people who have to deal with prejudice in teh real world do not want to also be treated like crap in their fantasy escapism in the name of setting "integrity".
Especially when said integrity is most often a dodgy view of actual history at best, glossing over a ton of details like those currently being mentioned in this thread.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Racism and sexism are like gangrene: potentially interesting material in a story, but usually something unpleasant worth glossing over in the name of fun.
Y'know, along those same lines, I assume restrooms are amazingly more advanced than their historical analogues.
When it comes to that, historical accuracy can take a hike and get eaten by the bears it attracts by not telling the GM in painstaking detail how they're burying their waste.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Racism and sexism are like gangrene: potentially interesting material in a story, but usually something unpleasant worth glossing over in the name of fun.
With the right group, it can be interesting. But even then, I'd only ever use light smatterings of it. This also goes for non-human racism. Lord knows how annoying being a tiefling player has to be :)
I think something to keep in mind is that there are modern people playing these games, so depending on the person, some liberties need to be taken. Which is fine, since a fantasy world doesn't model reality, merely reflects it.
I can tell you right now, in my Renaissance/Age of Exploration game set in the psuedo-Caribbean, there is slavery and the slave trade. But, there are also abolitionists and the laws for slaves aren't anywhere near as harsh as in real life because I personally don't want to delve into that when I play. Got enough of that from a GM from my childhood.
At the end of the day, my players want to play D&D, not Jim Crow: The RPG ;)
For srs.
It is pretty frustrating how often it needs to be explained that many people who have to deal with prejudice in teh real world do not want to also be treated like crap in their fantasy escapism in the name of setting "integrity".
Especially when said integrity is most often a dodgy view of actual history at best, glossing over a ton of details like those currently being mentioned in this thread.
Yeah, when I was in middle to high school, there was this GM at the not-so FLGS named Damien. The guy was a closet white supremacist that would ban non-European ethnicities in most of his games. In the games that had them, Damien would constantly have NPCs use racial slurs against us and have non-white NPCs run the gamut on racial stereotypes. All under the "veil" of keeping true to the tone of the Dark Ages.
It was hardly fun, so I keep that in mind when running my games. If I have to choose between "realism" and fun, I know what choice I'm making each and every time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which of these sounds right?
Prince kiss the princess ending her hundred years old curse and they were happily married till end of their lives.
Prince kiss the princess ending her hundred years old curse, but princess leaves him later, because the world has many princes to kiss and no one today will marry their first love.
The first sounds right because its a historical FANTASY game rather than HISTORICAL fantasy. The game draws a lot more from St George vs the Dragon than the Bayeux Tapestry
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, when I was in middle to high school, there was this GM at the not-so FLGS named Damien. The guy was a closet white supremacist that would ban non-European ethnicities in most of his games. In the games that had them, Damien would constantly have NPCs use racial slurs against us and have non-white NPCs run the gamut on racial stereotypes. All under the "veil" of keeping true to the tone of the Dark Ages.
It was hardly fun, so I keep that in mind when running my games. If I have to choose between...
I think I remember hearing about that experience. Pity it seems to be one shared by a lot of folks. Dude, condolences. :(
I think I remember hearing about that experience. Pity it seems to be one shared by a lot of folks. Dude, condolences. :(Yeah, when I was in middle to high school, there was this GM at the not-so FLGS named Damien. The guy was a closet white supremacist that would ban non-European ethnicities in most of his games. In the games that had them, Damien would constantly have NPCs use racial slurs against us and have non-white NPCs run the gamut on racial stereotypes. All under the "veil" of keeping true to the tone of the Dark Ages.
It was hardly fun, so I keep that in mind when running my games. If I have to choose between...
Yeah, I tend to bring him up in any discussion where people complain about inclusion. Trust me, I haven't even scratched the surface on stories. I could literally write an entire thread about him.
I recently found out what happened to him actually. Got arrested for assaulting an interracial couple when he was 18. Spent time in prison and now apparently rolls through RPG forums, making it his personal crusade to fight RPG companies that portray non-white ethnicities and cultures in their works.
But that is a topic for another thread.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do modern values have any place in a fantasy game? About as much as medieval ones do.
A fantasy setting rarely has any connection to historic issues. Take homosexuality - it was perfectly acceptable in many places and many cultures until the spread of Christianity. We have solid records of Egyptian officials, Roman Emperors, Japanese Samurai and many other engaging in the homosexuality. Often on the side of marriage, true, because children were almost universally considered important to carrying on a legacy (and how many PC characters stick to that social custom?) but it was there.
Now take Golarion. The same level of homophobic behaviour makes no sense because at least three goddesses are engaged in a three way sexual relationship. How do you declare mortals are wrong to do it when the Gods themselves partake?
Same with woman. While there were exceptions to woman staying at home and being mothers, those women were often abused, raped and murdered for daring to be different. And that was considered a reasonable response. Again, something that makes no sense in setting like Golarion where there are female Gods - one of the primary warrior gods is Iomadae, a woman.
Let's face it - Pathfinder isn't a very good representative of the real world. If it was the Fighter would die to septic shock when a Kobold ran a dirty spear through his guts, the wizard would be burned at the stake for devil-worship, the Cleric would be a sociopath spreading his faith with sword and fire (and not casting pesky spells - withcraft again!) and the Barbarian would have smashed his skull during a fit.
Mostly the excuse 'I wanna be realistic to medieval times' is just that - an excuse to get all those pesky non-white people out of the setting (Which is, historically, a massive mistake - there were plenty of non-white people wandering Europe) or putting women in subservient roles with maybe one or two exceptions - who are usually 'tamed' by marriage to the hero.
And frankly, if you want that kinda literature, where white men are the saviours of all and all is right in the universe, just throw a rock in the fantasy section of the library - it's the rule, not the exception. It's nice to see both Wizard of the Coast and Paizo seem to be moving past that stuff these days, and honestly, anything else is a step backwards to such horror stories as a GM telling a woman at a convention, 'The only time a woman should have her mouth open at my table is to suck my dick.'
No Boudicca lost because while she was an inspirational leader she was a bad general and her army while "brave" (When murdering raping and looting Romano-British and non Iceni Britons) was a mob and it had no discipline.
At the battle of Watling Street, She out numbered the Romans and yet she let them choose the battlefield. She made no changes to the way the British fought (the Romans were experienced disciplined veteran troops who had been fighting the British for decades) she brought thousands of non combatants with her who got in the way and then paid the ultimate price for her loss.
She wasn't betrayed by anybody, she survived the battle and either died of depression or poisoned herself.
If you want an interesting "Celtic" queen take a look at Cartimandua.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To give a different point of view. Here in Brazil we talk (and joke) a lot more freely about racism issues, we even had a Brazialin RPG game (Challenge of the Bandeirantes) were the setting races were the real world races (white, black, indian, half-black, half-indian), and most black characters were slaves or ex-slaves. I don't remeber any issue about it because it was based (althrough with real magic and monsters) in the 1600s and people felt that if it were different, it would downplay the truth about the early racial issues of Brazil.
I am of mixed race myself and i have played with a slave character (and yes, our slavery was the US-type slavery, only with a lot more interracial relationships) and i don't feel bad about it. It 's not different from playing a Tiefling or Halfling in Cheliax or a Half-orc anywhere. It's a roleplaying challege about a true fact about our past . I don't talk for every brazilian out there, but we just don't think roleplaying the racial slavery make it right or wrong, just knowing the truth and facing it. The brazilian mentality simply don't function like that, white people play with black characters and black people play with white character, and the white character whip the black character and no one find it strange or weird.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's nice to see both Wizard of the Coast and Paizo seem to be moving past that stuff these days, and honestly, anything else is a step backwards to such horror stories as a GM telling a woman at a convention, 'The only time a woman should have her mouth open at my table is to suck my dick.'
I think he'd be the one learning to suck his meals through a straw, if he tried to say that to any of the female players I know.
Hey Mikaze, could you include links to the Wyatt article and that particular thread?This is the Wyatt article, I think. Having to do a blind link because work blocks their site.
It's basically yet another argument that fantasy that falls outside a narrow scoope is badwrong and "not really fantasy".
Holy hell! I didn't like the man before, but that takes it to another level.
He was one of the main authors of <i>Eberron</i>. I can't believe that that worked out at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try to make my homebrew fantasy setting as unrealistic as possible, which is why my Goblins only eat Hipsters*
*Two creatures that don't "really" exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Invades Terquem's gaming world and burns it down]
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly the excuse 'I wanna be realistic to medieval times' is just that - an excuse to get all those pesky non-white people out of the setting (Which is, historically, a massive mistake - there were plenty of non-white people wandering Europe) or putting women in subservient roles with maybe one or two exceptions - who are usually 'tamed' by marriage to the hero.
And frankly, if you want that kinda...
Frankly I think this explains a lot of the attitudes by GM's and others about trying to use "non-1st world western modern values". They read novels of fantasy and historical fiction, and want/think they can use Pathfinder and similar systems to "emulate" those settings. But what people forget about is that most novels have only a single author, and he writes ALL the characters. A writer can get away with a lot in the name of verisimilitude, setting, plot, and characterization. A GM in contrast has to force his players to act out living in that society, which is bound to be less fun for them, especially if they may have to deal with aspects of racism, sexism, or other bigotry in real life. What works for a novel doesn't work for a collaborative, fun game.
Um, actually, no, it probably isn't, don't you think?
I recently found out what happened to him actually. Got arrested for assaulting an interracial couple when he was 18. Spent time in prison and now apparently rolls through RPG forums, making it his personal crusade to fight RPG companies that portray non-white ethnicities and cultures in their works.But that is a topic for another thread.
Ya think? I didn't actually mean I was going to make a new topic about it. It's just a figure of speech, meaning "This is not the time or place to talk about this".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Believe it or not, but modern western culture isn't the end all and be all of not relegating women to the absolute sidelines. The idea that women "can't do a damn thing, and auta be preggers in the kitchen" is fairly modern if you look at history/prehistory from the right perspective.
Just about as ridiculous as presuming that limited roles for women is somejow a 'western' thing …
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of those threads where I get the impression that the OP and certain posters had something... specific in mind when it comes to "modern values" but tat's not that's not my assumption to make.
The vast majority of the signifiers of "medieval Europe" that we have in fantasy are highly romanticized and incorrect already (knights in shining armor? please), and almost everything else (elves, magic rings) wasn't there at all. So I really don't see how there can be any sort of argument about "historical values" in a fantasy game unless ones was deliberately playing in, say, 12th century Spain but the windmills actually are giants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A writer can get away with a lot in the name of verisimilitude, setting, plot, and characterization. A GM in contrast has to force his players to act out living in that society, which is bound to be less fun for them, especially if they may have to deal with aspects of racism, sexism, or other bigotry in real life. What works for a novel doesn't work for a collaborative, fun game.
Well, there is sourcebooks telling what aspect of racism, sexism or other bigotry is expected in various parts of Golarion. If someone really wants to play tiefling on Chelaxian, orc on Janderhoff or goblin on Sandpoint, it won't be GMs fault, if NPCs don't like the character.
If I play race, which is scorned and feared by population, I will be mostly disappointed, if I have to throw stones on childrens to get any reaction from citicens.The vast majority of the signifiers of "medieval Europe" that we have in fantasy are highly romanticized and incorrect already (knights in shining armor? please), and almost everything else (elves, magic rings) wasn't there at all. So I really don't see how there can be any sort of argument about "historical values" in a fantasy game
Shouldn't we then use Fantasy Values instead of western, eastern or any historical values, though any of those could provide us some inspiration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shouldn't we then use Fantasy Values instead of western, eastern or any historical values, though any of those could provide us some inspiration.
My sentiments exactly. The GM can make his world any way he wants to, but it's going to be his problem if no one wants to play in it. I don't want to live in a world that is more socially backward than mine, so neither to I want to play in a world that is more socially backward than mine.
|
Racism and sexism are like gangrene: potentially interesting material in a story, but usually something unpleasant worth glossing over in the name of fun.Y'know, along those same lines, I assume restrooms are amazingly more advanced than their historical analogues.
When it comes to that, historical accuracy can take a hike and get eaten by the bears it attracts by not telling the GM in painstaking detail how they're burying their waste.
Reminded me when my barbarian savored for the first time 7 different types of cheese, next morning, on the road she had a very nasty bowel problem, lol!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to say no, because I like my fantasy world to be bound by the values that it was created with. If one nation hates orcs, then orc (and often half-orc) PCs there will be discriminated against, violence may easily break out, etc.
I generally like to start PCs in a sort of idealized setting where most people are good, equality is an important value, etc. Then, as they explore, they will encounter less egalitarian cultures.
The only time this really becomes an issue is when a player insists on playing a character that would logically, based on the game world, face a lot of discrimination but they want me to rewrite the world in order to accommodate their character.
If its a pre-created world with a lot of history, then I want to stick to the world's history. If it is more of a sandbox game where the GM and players both are free to create cultures, concepts, locations, etc., then it becomes very easy to adjust for whatever concept.
...I don't think anyone is saying that those examples don't count. One thing you should notice, especially since you linked that specific page, isSince you are so confident about the examples name them. Name specfically the ones in which the women either did not pretend to be men, or were not specifically designated as men. If you're going to list Joan of Arc, remember it was because of those particular activities. (and being on the wrong side of a political struggle), she was burned at the stake as a heretic. And Boudicca was betrayed by her own chiefs, presumably because among other reasons, they resented being led by a womanMost people have a pretty tenuous grasp of what women were and were now "allowed" to do in the nebulous blob of "medieval europe."
What part of Medieval Europe?
What culture?
During what time period?
Women fought. No, seriously, there are examples of medieval female warriors who bucked the trend. Sometimes they pretended to be me. Sometimes they didn't. Women controlled vast fortunes. Women ruled. There is a crap-ton of stuff we pretend they "weren't allowed" to do back then, as though societal strictures on the gender were universal across the breadth of the continent for centuries.
They weren't.
And when women "weren't allowed" to do a lot of things, guess what?
They often did them anyway.
Not sure why you're asking me to qualify this as only women who weren't pretending to be men. I already acknowledged that that sometimes happened. That initial statement reads like an attempt to pull a whole "But they don't REALLY count" out of whatever response I might make, when yeah, yeah they do.
Maybe that's not your intention, but regardless. Examples. Behold. There's a lot and it might take awhile.
Part of what you're going to run into is that the "I have to prove myself as a woman to the men around me" as part of a storyline gets old and tiring.
There's certainly something to be said for being able to start on equal footing and then making your story from there.
As a less-mentioned side effect of these "I have to prove myself because I'm a woman" storylines, settings such as those can (not always) involve varying degrees of sexist commentary "because of roleplay."
I'm not accusing anyone in particular here, more relaying previous experiences and saying: here's another reason to shift away from elements of historical fantasy. Sexist/catty comments, even "as roleplay" aren't fun. In fact, they're a reason for women not to join in gaming groups.
So, while not disagreeing with you that historically, there women who bucked the trend, there are also distinct advantages to avoiding the "all women warriors are exceptions" trope. Not only does the gaming table become more welcoming, but it allows a greater variety of characters and storytelling.
How this trope is avoided can involve a number of different approaches. That's the beautiful thing about creativity. Also, thank you for the links. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
JonGarret, i disagree in some topics you stated, well, kind of, because it's just partial disagreement.
A fantasy setting rarely has any connection to historic issues. Take homosexuality - it was perfectly acceptable in many places and many cultures until the spread of Christianity. We have solid records of Egyptian officials, Roman Emperors, Japanese Samurai and many other engaging in the homosexuality. Often on the side of marriage, true, because children were almost universally considered important to carrying on a legacy (and how many PC characters stick to that social custom?) but it was there.Now take Golarion. The same level of homophobic behaviour makes no sense because at least three goddesses are engaged in a three way sexual relationship. How do you declare mortals are wrong to do it when the Gods themselves partake?
The opposite can also be true. BECAUSE only the gods partake, mortals cannot. It can be fun to have homophobic cultists antagonists that think like that.
Same with woman. While there were exceptions to woman staying at home and being mothers, those women were often abused, raped and murdered for daring to be different. And that was considered a reasonable response. Again, something that makes no sense in setting like Golarion where there are female Gods - one of the primary warrior gods is Iomadae, a woman.
Like Nicos already stated, real world has it share of warriors godesses, including a female godess head of a pantheon. That didn't made real world less sexist.
Mostly the excuse 'I wanna be realistic to medieval times' is just that - an excuse to get all those pesky non-white people out of the setting (Which is, historically, a massive mistake - there were plenty of non-white people wandering Europe) or putting women in subservient roles with maybe one or two exceptions - who are usually 'tamed' by marriage to the hero.
Now that was a bit overactive, many good RPG settings on the market deal with real world scenarios. And the people who played them are not all white supremacists. What about Blood and Honor or L5R? The first is in Feudal Japan, the other is in a similar setting. What about a campaign in Arabian States at the time of Mongol Invasion? Lot's of adventure and no white guy in miles (apart from one or another merchant). So, i think you exaggerated a little by saying MOSTLY. But i agree that some use that as an excuse (and really some - RPG is a hobby to complex and smart for fanatics or supremacists).
Regarding the discussion (or what it turned to be), i am with Ellis and Bunnyboy. Fantasy games have to many others races and cultures to suffer from inclusion problems. I think it's realistic to think that human race evolved enough to realize that they would not survive long enough fighting among themselves because color or beliefs - having so many others competitors being also sentient and nonhuman. Humans are also adaptive, so, if they observes an successful costume or behavior of another race, they would try their best to emulate. In dwarven, gnomish and elven societies, woman fares as well as men in all kinds of tasks - so humankind would quickly get ride of sexism in it's early eras.
Well, in synthesis, if you think about a Fantasy setting logic considering all it's elements, you can devise how humanity diverted from our past. Play a fantasy setting as it was our medieval time is simply not possible if elves, dragons, dwarven and magic mixed in.
A writer can get away with a lot in the name of verisimilitude, setting, plot, and characterization. A GM in contrast has to force his players to act out living in that society, which is bound to be less fun for them, especially if they may have to deal with aspects of racism, sexism, or other bigotry in real life. What works for a novel doesn't work for a collaborative, fun game.Well, there is sourcebooks telling what aspect of racism, sexism or other bigotry is expected in various parts of Golarion. If someone really wants to play tiefling on Chelaxian, orc on Janderhoff or goblin on Sandpoint, it won't be GMs fault, if NPCs don't like the character.
If I play race, which is scorned and feared by population, I will be mostly disappointed, if I have to throw stones on childrens to get any reaction from citicens.The vast majority of the signifiers of "medieval Europe" that we have in fantasy are highly romanticized and incorrect already (knights in shining armor? please), and almost everything else (elves, magic rings) wasn't there at all. So I really don't see how there can be any sort of argument about "historical values" in a fantasy gameShouldn't we then use Fantasy Values instead of western, eastern or any historical values, though any of those could provide us some inspiration.
Actually, in the context of this discussion I used racism as in reflecting real life racism. So like discrimination towards people of real life/analogous ethnicities. Goblins are more like another species...and presumably you are not playing with real goblins who might take offense when caricatures are made of them.
I actually really would love if games used species instead of races, since that is what most of the "races" actually are compared to humans.
This is one of those threads where I get the impression that the OP and certain posters had something... specific in mind when it comes to "modern values" but tat's not that's not my assumption to make.
There have been recent threads arguing the morality of slavery as well as fantastic racism, so either thread topic could have been the motivator.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, in the context of this discussion I used racism as in reflecting real life racism. So like discrimination towards people of real life/analogous ethnicities. Goblins are more like another species...and presumably you are not playing with real goblins who might take offense when caricatures are made of them.
I actually really would love if games used species instead of races, since that is what most of the "races" actually are compared to humans.
We did this with Drow in several of our homebrew games. The drow were not actually elves, but created to be a mockery of elves. They were a different critter entirely.
What I've run across more than modern values is more modern wish fulfillment. The most striking was drug culture in Shadowrun. We had a number of people that not only wanted all drugs legal -- because they weren't then -- but that it was actually criminal NOT to take drugs. The amount of energy put into spells and tech to create new drugs and dealing with and growing drugs was in excess of actually going on runs.
Modern values and interests are part of who we are. But that does not mean that every game has to slavishly follow the current 21st Century trends. Ellis Mirari said it very well with
The GM can make his world any way he wants to, but it's going to be his problem if no one wants to play in it. I don't want to live in a world that is more socially backward than mine, so neither to I want to play in a world that is more socially backward than mine.
The creation of the world and playing are very much a team event (as Kirth often mentions) and as such, it is best to decide who your audience is and what they want out of the game. If they are not much for religion, you can gloss over that, and if they are for inclusions of everyone as equals then you have a number of hooks you can play with there.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My belief is that the OP is attempting to ask a different question than the one they actually ended up asking.
I think that what was intended to be asked is "Is it immoral to create/play in/expect others to play in a game/setting where things that contemporary morality says are immoral are regarded as moral (or at least, amoral, rather than immoral)?"
In other words, do you find it objectionable to have something that we all commonly acknowledge to be bad (at this point in time) in real life be widely accepted within the context of your game?
I suspect that that's what's really under discussion here.
Well, if it is the question, i think the matter, if set to motion, may be handled with very care, with the consent, knowing and will of the entire gaming group and handled by a mature gamers. Then yes, it can be done.
|
|
To me I think a lot of the posters are projecting their emotions, and often bad gaming past experiences due to jerk DMs.
My view is that to have satisfaction in eliminating your enemies, you need them to be antagonistic and evil (by your view).
When you are new to the game, an orc is a wonderful thing to slay. After ten, er twenty, er thirty, er ... ? years of gaming, the orc needs to be something really evil/unpleasant/bad to bother fighting it.
Generic fantasy settings get boring. Fast. How many times have I saved the world already ? A good enemy is some guy you can hate, guilt-free.
And that's why I am annoyed by sanitized reprensentations of our world, or of any fantasy world.
YMMV, and so on