This offends me...

[Hama]

I don't get people. They choose to get offended over content in a game.
I mean, how do you get offended over something inside a game? It is a work of fiction. Just like a novel only more collaborative. And as do novels, it doesn't express opinions and attitudes of the authors, but of the characters.
So when I make an innkeeper a vile, sexist pig, that doesn't mean that I am such as well.
In my humble opinion, people who choose to get offended are so wrapped up in their self-image, that they can't see past it. And the problem is not the sexist innkeeper or the GM, but the player.
I am sorry, not every setting is a happy fun land filled with bouncy unicorns and free of prejudice. Either get over yourself or don't play in such a game.
Unless something is made specifically to insult a specific player, and it almost never is, I don't get what the big deal is.

[MMCJawa]

So offended your anger broke the forum :)

I think everything lies on a spectrum. If a character is sexist/racist/homophobic/etc, that might just be a character flaw of the NPC. If a GM constantly has his players with female characters raped or threatened with rape...well...that's going to result in a unpleasant game.

[Kryzbyn]

Some people have probelms with their insecurities being so openly on display, even if it's 100% unintentional. If you hit a nerve, there will be pain.

[Tormsskull]

I mostly agree. There's a line of course, but I don't think it is crossed very often. In a previous edition of D&D, female warriors couldn't have exceptional strength, while male warriors could. Some people really didn't like that rule, and others did.

Those that did simply thought it made sense, it was a rule in the rule book. It wasn't a means to punish female players or anything. But there were female players who thought the male DM was a terrible person for enforcing the rule.

It's important to be able to separate the game world from the real world.

[Vivianne Laflamme]

The key point you are not understanding here is that fiction isn't this magical realm devoid of connections to the real world. Works of fiction affect people all the time. Sometimes, this takes the form of people reacting emotionally to Dumbledore's death (spoilers, if you didn't already know (Snape kills him)). Or it takes the form of people disliking pretty blatant racism in a work of fiction. People aren't unfeeling automata (beep boop!) and the real world effects what is portrayed in fiction.

As for the vile, sexist pig thing, sexism isn't something that only exists in fictional fantasy settings. If you were catcalled at by a vile, sexist pig a few hours ago, I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to not want to deal with vile, sexist pigs during a leisure activity. It's not fun. It just reminds you of what the vile, sexist pig said to you earlier. It has nothing to do with your self-image or choosing to take offense.

The problem here, I think, is the GM who is insensitive to the connections between fantasy and the real-world and hence includes aspects in their game that is off-putting to some of their players. The problem is the GM so blinded by their own privilege that they don't see why people would react negatively to prejudice targeting people like them in the fictional world.

[ShinHakkaider]

Here's the thing: I play the games I play alot of the time so I dont have to deal with the crap I have to deal with in real life.

As a result as a black man I dont play Western RPG's or Pulp / Cthulhu based RPG's or historical based games.

I deal with enough racial crap in my ACTUAL life. I dont want to deal with it when I'm doing something for FUN.

I get how you dont see or respect that. But since it's my time, my fun and well MY LIFE it becomes a priority for ME. So there's that part of it...

[Muad'Dib]

I'm confused...

Good fiction and storytelling should elicit an emotional response.

Some authors, directors and GM's can abuse this to the point when the art stops being the focus of the offense and the maker of the art is now the offender.

I could not tell you when that line is crossed. I'm sure it's different for each person.

Are you crossing that line in your game Hama?

-MD

[Orthos]

Quote:

I play the games I play alot of the time so I dont have to deal with the crap I have to deal with in real life.

This, this, this, this, this.

[ShinHakkaider]

The other part of this is that I'm mostly a GM. And as a GM I have to portray a variety of roles and if one of those roles is a malign sexist or racist innkeeper I play it up.
But at the same time I'm trying to gauge the comfort level of my players even to the point where I'll ask "Am I going to far? If you guys aren't comfortable I'll dial it back a bit..."

It's not that theyre special snowflakes.

It's that I'm not, for the most part, a jerk.

I care about a comfortable gaming environment for my players. For anyone who sits at my table for that matter. I'm not perfect but at least I try to be aware.

[Grindy-high]

I'm offended that you're offended. Stop reacting to things!

[Muad'Dib]

what offends me is two identical threads...

[Tormsskull]

ShinHakkaider wrote:

As a result as a black man I dont play Western RPG's or Pulp / Cthulhu based RPG's or historical based games.

Have you ever experienced one of these games with a GM that made racial issues a top priority for the campaign?

I'm starting to wonder if everyone that is so adamantly against realistic or history-parallel plot lines in fantasy worlds has just had a bad string of really dumb GMs.

[Ellis Mirari]

Hama wrote:

It is a work of fiction. Just like a novel only more collaborative. And as do novels, it doesn't express opinions and attitudes of the authors, but of the characters.

This is not true, at least, not the way you put it. Every work of fiction is a self expression of the author. While the thoughts and feelings of character in a work are not necessarily the opinions of the author (and they couldn't always be, because you will have characters with varying opinions), how those attitudes are approached in the story reveals the opinion of the author.

Some examples:

George R.R. Martin is a fairly progressive guy. The world he's created is full of bigotry, dishonesty, and generally horrible people, but his uses his craft as a writer to put those outlooks in a poor light, and the story focuses on the characters that go against that grain, making them the "heroes" and thus the ones who are "right".

Then you also have works like 1984 and Atlas Shrugged that are very politically motivated and very clearly express the author's opinions on certain aspects of life despite casts of character that don't all agree with it.

[Orthos]

Tormsskull wrote:

ShinHakkaider wrote:

As a result as a black man I dont play Western RPG's or Pulp / Cthulhu based RPG's or historical based games.

Have you ever experienced one of these games with a GM that made racial issues a top priority for the campaign?

I'm starting to wonder if everyone that is so adamantly against realistic or history-parallel plot lines in fantasy worlds has just had a bad string of really dumb GMs.

I have not. And as a GM I have never used them.

I just have no interest in that experience changing.

[Vivianne Laflamme]

I think it's also worth pointing out that roleplaying games are a different form of fiction than film or literature. There's a fairly unique form of audience participation where the creators of the fiction are the consumers of the fiction. There is a collapse of the player and the character. Hence, having a vile, sexist pig of an innkeeper isn't "this innkeeper is being a vile, sexist pig to someone else". Rather, it's "this innkeeper is being a vile, sexist pig to me". This is of course going to affect how the fictional world is experienced by the audience.

[The black raven]

ShinHakkaider wrote:

Here's the thing: I play the games I play alot of the time so I dont have to deal with the crap I have to deal with in real life.

As a result as a black man I dont play Western RPG's or Pulp / Cthulhu based RPG's or historical based games.

I deal with enough racial crap in my ACTUAL life. I dont want to deal with it when I'm doing something for FUN.

I get how you dont see or respect that. But since it's my time, my fun and well MY LIFE it becomes a priority for ME. So there's that part of it...

Not seeing is one thing. But I personally do not get how someone could NOT respect that, unless they are a big jerk (to say the very least) :-(

Muad'Dib wrote:

what offends me is two identical threads...

3 of them actually ;-)

That said, I sometimes play RPGs to actually win against the crap I will never be able to in real life. Or at least fight against it in ways I would never do (2-handed sword and fireball come to mind).

[ShinHakkaider]

Tormsskull wrote:

ShinHakkaider wrote:

As a result as a black man I dont play Western RPG's or Pulp / Cthulhu based RPG's or historical based games.

Have you ever experienced one of these games with a GM that made racial issues a top priority for the campaign?

I'm starting to wonder if everyone that is so adamantly against realistic or history-parallel plot lines in fantasy worlds has just had a bad string of really dumb GMs.

Yeah many, MANY years ago in a Boot Hill (yes I know I'm dating myself...) game and then after that in a WESTERN HERO (Hero System) game set in the post civil war south. The tone was more Django Unchained than 12 Years a Slave but definitely got old.

I've played in one or two Cthulhu games and while race and racism wasnt a huge factor it was present. And with my knowledge of Lovecraft's attitudes about race it's not a game that I'm interested in playing again.

It's really why my favorite types of games to run and play in are Supers and SciFi/Mecha Action games. I really, REALLY love FRPGS as well but every now and then you'll get people with the mindset (especially AD&D and D&D grognards) that D&D is a medieval simulation as opposed to an actual FANTASY WORLD.

Needless to say, I stay FAAAAAAR away from those people.

[Orthos]

The black raven wrote:

Muad'Dib wrote:

what offends me is two identical threads...

3 of them actually ;-)

Yeah I've flagged the threads so hopefully when everyone's had their coffee at Paizo they'll get merged =)

[Ellis Mirari]

(since this thread seem to be the "winning" one, I'll repost this here)

Hama wrote:

It is a work of fiction. Just like a novel only more collaborative. And as do novels, it doesn't express opinions and attitudes of the authors, but of the characters.

This is not true, at least, not the way you put it. Every work of fiction is a self expression of the author. While the thoughts and feelings of character in a work are not necessarily the opinions of the author (and they couldn't always be, because you will have characters with varying opinions), how those attitudes are approached in the story reveals the opinion of the author.

Some examples:

George R.R. Martin is a fairly progressive guy. The world he's created is full of bigotry, dishonesty, and generally horrible people, but his uses his craft as a writer to put those outlooks in a poor light, and the story focuses on the characters that go against that grain, making them the "heroes" and thus the ones who are "right".

Then you also have works like 1984 and Atlas Shrugged that are very politically motivated and very clearly express the author's opinions on certain aspects of life despite casts of character that don't all agree with it.

So, When It Comes To Games

We have to ask ourselves why we are making our adventures/worlds a certain way. GMs deliberately choose every detail they include, but they happen so quickly it's often on instinct and we don't always know why until we look at patterns and they slap us in the face. Are the inns hostile, sexist environments because the PCs just happen to go to the ones that are? Are all the married NPCs hetero couples because they're just more common?

Or, maybe, do we just go to those places in our heads because that's what we see as "normal", and we don't want to bother trying to deliberately change that and instead use vague statistics and shaky historical double-standards as excuses?

I've been guilty of things like this in the past. I don't like it but I had to acknowledge it and now I'm fixing it.

[Jaelithe]

I think that if a GM is capable of employing "-isms" without offending or off-putting his or her players, it's a valuable literary tool, one that can enhance verisimilitude, add depth and nuance to a story and increase overall enjoyment of the campaign.

It's a delicate balance, though. I run a quasi-historical game, oftentimes, and employ real-world religion, to boot; both sexism and racism come into play—as obstacles to be overcome and set right, not vehicles to offend players and oppress characters.

I've gamed with people of color who strenuously avoid portraying someone of identical or similar race to themselves ... and others who consider it a point of pride in their heritage that they'll usually play someone they claim as an ancestor.

Female characters who set people straight on their capabilities can be a lot of fun, in my experience, so long as it's not a constant occurrence. (Hell, in the real world I've more than once had women take offense when I held a door open for them, because I was implying their inferiority and helplessness. No, I actually wasn't, but they didn't want to hear it, because in their worldview, I was oppressing them. So I shrugged and let go of the door.)

No one has ever taken offense at my portrayals of real-world religion, and I've gamed with pagans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists. As a matter of fact, many people seem more invested in what's happening because it reflects things which have genuine meaning to them.

Any GM should be ready to back off, though, if a player is clearly upset. Open lines of communication allow for a much better gaming environment, and we should all strive for that.

[Kryzbyn]

As a Gm I will often throw things into scenarios that offends the characters on purpose, as motivation. Very few (I think once) times have I had a player also get offended.

[Hama]

Damn, the evil lack of memory on my phone swallowed my post. I'll type it again when I get home

[Bill Dunn]

I am generally in favor of diversity in materials and freedom to include and explore controversy even though I understand and recognize that people will find offense.

Sometimes, the elements some people find offensive are partly what brings the work of fiction (or game, or whatever) into life and is integral to the work and where it wants to position itself. For example, Masks of Nyarlathotep is rife with racist elements. Yet those racist elements are what help place it in a historical context that springs from the page in an evocative manner. It would be a poorer work without being able to work with the elements of racial segregation and prejudice in its setting. The presence of those elements, however, may offend some potential players and may directly affect the PCs they want to play. So not everyone's going to like the work or want to play it. That's fine. They can choose to play with other materials.

Just because I'm in favor of including controversial elements, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of putting them in just to stir up controversy, rather to interact with them in meaningful ways. Not all game or fiction materials need to be strictly escapist to be valuable contributions to the hobby, even that means some people will avoid them, dislike them, or be offended by them. I'd much rather see both groups served - those who want to avoid real world controversies and those who want to interact with them and if that means that some people get offended or eschew the materials that offend them, I think that's that's OK.

[Ellis Mirari]

As with every aspect of gaming, everything that the players are okay with is okay. As long as they're made aware. I make it clear in my games that anyone playing a goblin or hobgoblin is going to have to conceal their identity if they want to have any meaningful interaction with society, as it's usually the equivalent of a Soviet Union soldier walking into a gun shop in Texas during the Cold War.

[MagusJanus]

It's easier to avoid this by mentioning up front at the start of the session things that might be offensive with what you have planned, then adjusting the session to exclude anything people find offensive. If you and your group have a high level of trust, this actually works out better in the long run, and avoids making people feel uncomfortable.

[Alzrius]

Ellis Mirari wrote:

This is not true, at least, not the way you put it. Every work of fiction is a self expression of the author. While the thoughts and feelings of character in a work are not necessarily the opinions of the author (and they couldn't always be, because you will have characters with varying opinions), how those attitudes are approached in the story reveals the opinion of the author.

I don't believe this to be true.

The most that can definitively be said about a work of fiction as an expression of the author is that the author felt motivated to write a story. Beyond that, there's nothing that approaches certainty.

You admit that the thoughts/opinions/actions of characters don't necessarily reflect the view(s) of the author, which I agree with, but then hold that "how those attitudes are approached reveals the opinion of the author." This strikes me as being counterintuitive, as it hinges on the author having enough self-awareness to be able to write characters with a different point of view than his or her own, and yet lacking that same level of cognizance required to manipulate how those attitudes are "approached."

In other words, you seem to be holding that how characters are contextualized in the body of the narrative itself infallibly shows the author's personal stances towards the attitudes said characters embody. Needless to say, this is just as flawed as presuming that a particular character is nothing more than the author's mouthpiece.

Because there's no method for objectively knowing what someone else thinks, or feels, or believes, there's no form of creative expression (that is, art) which will flawlessly convey the message - if any - of its creator. The viewer will always bring some sort of personal interpretation to that which they consume; presuming that you've found a way to accurately judge the nature of the person who made something is therefore, to me, among the worst kind of mistake to make when reflecting on a given piece of art.

[Matt Thomason]

I try to make it a point to do two things:

- If I know a character will be offensive to the point of upsetting a player, I'll edit them. The game isn't there to upset my players.

- NPCs that are offensive but not to the point of upsetting anyone are usually evil-aligned and tend to meet with a nasty fate sooner or later.

[Pan]

So we finally have the "you're offended? So what, suck it up" thread the circle is complete. shall we convene again this time next week?

[Vivianne Laflamme]

Tormsskull wrote:

I mostly agree. There's a line of course, but I don't think it is crossed very often. In a previous edition of D&D, female warriors couldn't have exceptional strength, while male warriors could. Some people really didn't like that rule, and others did.

Those that did simply thought it made sense, it was a rule in the rule book. It wasn't a means to punish female players or anything. But there were female players who thought the male DM was a terrible person for enforcing the rule.

It's important to be able to separate the game world from the real world.

I didn't see this until after the thread merge.

Oh my god, I cannot believe that in 2014, someone is defending a -4 strength rule. Ew.

[MagusJanus]

Pan wrote:

So we finally have the "you're offended? So what, suck it up" thread the circle is complete. shall we convene again this time next week?

Of course!

Next week, it will be the offensiveness of toast.

[Orthos]

MagusJanus wrote:

Pan wrote:

So we finally have the "you're offended? So what, suck it up" thread the circle is complete. shall we convene again this time next week?

Of course!

Next week, it will be the offensiveness of toast.

With or without butter? This is important, I need to know how to optimize my toast for maximum spread efficiency. And everyone knows jam is a trap option.

[Orthos]

Orthos wrote:

The black raven wrote:

Muad'Dib wrote:

what offends me is two identical threads...

3 of them actually ;-)

Yeah I've flagged the threads so hopefully when everyone's had their coffee at Paizo they'll get merged =)

Thank you whoever =)

[Pan]

Orthos wrote:

MagusJanus wrote:

Pan wrote:

So we finally have the "you're offended? So what, suck it up" thread the circle is complete. shall we convene again this time next week?

Of course!

Next week, it will be the offensiveness of toast.

With or without butter? This is important, I need to know how to optimize my toast for maximum spread efficiency. And everyone knows jam is a trap option.

A new supplement adds scones as a choice which makes Jam work. Problem is scones are not part of an american centric breakfast so they dont fit the setting.

[MagusJanus]

Pan wrote:

Orthos wrote:

MagusJanus wrote:

Pan wrote:

So we finally have the "you're offended? So what, suck it up" thread the circle is complete. shall we convene again this time next week?

Of course!

Next week, it will be the offensiveness of toast.

With or without butter? This is important, I need to know how to optimize my toast for maximum spread efficiency. And everyone knows jam is a trap option.

A new supplement adds scones as a choice which makes Jam work. Problem is scones are not part of an american centric breakfast so they dont fit the setting.

But, historically...

[insert some rant about scones predating margarine here]

[Orthos]

Pan wrote:

Orthos wrote:

MagusJanus wrote:

Pan wrote:

So we finally have the "you're offended? So what, suck it up" thread the circle is complete. shall we convene again this time next week?

Of course!

Next week, it will be the offensiveness of toast.

With or without butter? This is important, I need to know how to optimize my toast for maximum spread efficiency. And everyone knows jam is a trap option.

A new supplement adds scones as a choice which makes Jam work. Problem is scones are not part of an american centric breakfast so they dont fit the setting.

CURSE YOU "CORE ONLY"! CURRRRSE YOOOOOUUU!

[Darklord Morius]

Ellis Mirari wrote:

George R.R. Martin is a fairly progressive guy. The world he's created is full of bigotry, dishonesty, and generally horrible people, but his uses his craft as a writer to put those outlooks in a poor light, and the story focuses on the characters that go against that grain, making them the "heroes" and thus the ones who are "right".

Then he kills them, that makes me wonder: Is this light that he trows to the good guys actually the light of a sniper rifle?

I'll not repeat myself because, hopefully, will be a thread mesh (someone can PM me teaching how i flag them to help a little)? But, i'll say one thing that works out in all of them: If you have a mature group that knows your playstyle, is willing, wanting and waiting for your game, so go ahead! But it's never too much to gauge and see if certain npc's attitude is not being to harsh on any player, if it is, gloss it a little bit.

[Orthos]

They've already been merged, so no biggie.

[Corathon]

Hama wrote:

I don't get people. They choose to get offended over content in a game.

I mean, how do you get offended over something inside a game? It is a work of fiction. Just like a novel only more collaborative. And as do novels, it doesn't express opinions and attitudes of the authors, but of the characters.
So when I make an innkeeper a vile, sexist pig, that doesn't mean that I am such as well.
In my humble opinion, people who choose to get offended are so wrapped up in their self-image, that they can't see past it. And the problem is not the sexist innkeeper or the GM, but the player.
I am sorry, not every setting is a happy fun land filled with bouncy unicorns and free of prejudice. Either get over yourself or don't play in such a game.
Unless something is made specifically to insult a specific player, and it almost never is, I don't get what the big deal is.

Well, a novel (or a role-playing campaign) actually do express the opinions of the author (or GM), but I take your point that individual characters aren't the author/GM's mouthpieces, and may express opinions that the the author or GM might find abhorrent or laughable.

If your players want a game where nothing troubles them or hurts their feelings or offends them, that's their prerogative, but they may be in the wrong group.

IMO, the thought of playing in a game where every NPC (except, presumably, the villains) has the same enlightened ideology is kind of repulsive. This sort of thing is what made the first few seasons of ST:TNG so weak.

[Azazyll]

"They choose to be offended..."

I should have stopped reading right there. Really, I should. You're not offended, so anyone else's reaction to the contrary must be faked. It couldn't possibly be an honest reaction.

The very fact that you've included something like that in your game means that you want to elicit a reaction, either offended or approving (I assume offended, but I'll be open minded). Frankly, if no one was emotionally invested in the game and just ignored it, it would be a pretty crappy game.

I agree there's a way to bring such things in to give the storyline nuance, but that takes a deft hand and a really good rapport with the people you are sharing the experience with. And the above quote does not suggest to me that rapport is going on here, because you are not acknowledging the possibility of an honest opinion which is different from your own.

[Tormsskull]

Azazyll wrote:

I should have stopped reading right there. Really, I should. You're not offended, so anyone else's reaction to the contrary must be faked. It couldn't possibly be an honest reaction.

Your post has offended me.

[Rynjin]

There's a very fine line between a work of fiction being offensive, and a character IN a work of fiction being offensive, and the way they affect people is different.

If a work of fiction is offensive, it is only right that the person reading it be offended.

If a character IN a work of fiction is being offensive, it is only right that the characters in the story should be offended (and if the reader is expected to treat it as acceptable, it is more likely that it is the work that is offensive, not just the character).

RPGs blur this line even further.

Your "sexist, racist pig of an innkeeper" is an offensive character. If he is offensive to one of the PCs, the PC SHOULD be offended.

However, the PC is kinda inextricably linked to the Player (hence the "P" in the short acronym). The closer you are to the character, the more immersed you are in the world...the more things start to bleed through.

So it's really hard to say someone is choosing to be offended by something intended to be offensive in-universe. If you're playing a role you've probably slipped into the mindset of the role you're playing.

Esmerelda the Elven Ranger (played by Sally) meets up with RSPI, and is insulted by him.

Esmerelda is insulted.

Sally conveys that anger through her mouthpiece.

The offense is probably transmitted faster than it took me to type that. Hard to tell the difference between the player and the character being offended there.

Now, yes, people choose to be offended all the time IRL. People who see racism and sexism in every possible thing ("Your ratio of male characters to female characters is skewed 60% to 40%. Sexist!" is one I see a lot, sadly) are choosing to be offended for whatever reason.

And maybe that happens sometimes in gaming too...but it's not the conclusion I'd jump to.

[Muad'Dib]

The term "Choosing to be offended" is a nice way to say it's not my fault or it's them not me.

It is a favorite for back handed non-apologists. It's along the lines of "I'm sorry people are offended by my statement".

Don't fart and blame it on others for "choosing to smell it".

-MD

[Rynjin]

Muad'Dib wrote:

The term "Choosing to be offended" is a nice way to say it's not my fault or it's them not me.

It is a favorite for back handed non-apologists. It's along the lines of "I'm sorry people are offended by my statement".

Don't fart and blame it on others for "choosing to smell it".

-MD

This might be true in some cases. Many cases, even.

But you can't say really be saying you've never met someone (at least online...go on Tumblr some time, but only for short periods to preserve your faith in humanity) who makes it their solemn duty to shove their nose up everyone's ass crack and then complain it smells.

[phantom1592]

Hama wrote:

I don't get people. They choose to get offended over content in a game.

I mean, how do you get offended over something inside a game? It is a work of fiction. Just like a novel only more collaborative. And as do novels, it doesn't express opinions and attitudes of the authors, but of the characters.
So when I make an innkeeper a vile, sexist pig, that doesn't mean that I am such as well.

If I made a sexist vile innkeeper, and someone got offended by him... I would say THANK YOU! You weren't MEANT to like him. He's a jerk!

Hama wrote:

In my humble opinion, people who choose to get offended are so wrapped up in their self-image, that they can't see past it. And the problem is not the sexist innkeeper or the GM, but the player.

I am sorry, not every setting is a happy fun land filled with bouncy unicorns and free of prejudice. Either get over yourself or don't play in such a game.
Unless something is made specifically to insult a specific player, and it almost never is, I don't get what the big deal is.

On the other hand...

If your making absolutely horrible people to populate the world... and don't expect people to THINK they are horrible people... then degrade them for not liking anything but bouncy unicorns... It sounds like a hostile gaming environment.

The players are not common peasants... they are HEROES. The women are HEROICLY powerful women... and if someone comes up and mouths off degradingly to wonder woman, Xena or Black Canary... they MAY be picking up some teeth afterward.

Don't put an antagonistic character in their way if you don't expect them to punch him :P

[Bill Dunn]

Muad'Dib wrote:

The term "Choosing to be offended" is a nice way to say it's not my fault or it's them not me.

I would say it is also fundamentally true. You decide when you are offended and what you are going to do about it. I can't tell, ahead of time, what will offend you. Everyone could choose to avoid controversy but that would make life pretty boring.

Stephen Fry has a not entirely SFW statement about this: Stephen Fry on being offended

[137ben]

There's a big, big difference between having characters be racist/sexist/genocidal/whatever, and saying "this racist/sexist/genocidal characters is a Paragon of Good under the Totally Objective Alignment System of my world".

The first one represents the views of a fictional character. The second one strongly implies that the author/GM endorses those views.

[thejeff]

Bill Dunn wrote:

Muad'Dib wrote:

The term "Choosing to be offended" is a nice way to say it's not my fault or it's them not me.

I would say it is also fundamentally true. You decide when you are offended and what you are going to do about it. I can't tell, ahead of time, what will offend you. Everyone could choose to avoid controversy but that would make life pretty boring.

Stephen Fry has a not entirely SFW statement about this: Stephen Fry on being offended

OTOH, you can try not to be a racist/sexist/whatever kind of jerk. It really helps a lot in not offending people.

I mean do really have no idea what people will find offensive? No limits at all? The example in one of the other thread of the GM at a con who said 'The only time a woman should have her mouth open at my table is to suck my dick.' You really wouldn't be able to tell ahead of time that that's going to offend someone?

I completely agree that sometimes people get offended by things most wouldn't expect: Sometimes it is unreasonable, sometimes, when explained, it makes sense and you can realize you were unintentionally being offensive. Words or phrases that are derived from racial bigotry for example. Also, if you're interacting with the same people over time, you'll learn what kind of things offend them and you can stop doing them. Or avoid them, if they're too sensitive and not worth the effort.

Far too often though, I see this "You choose to be offended" line thrown out to defend truly offensive behavior. Like Muad-ib said above, it's on the same level as the non-apology "I'm sorry you were offended by my racist insult."

[Nicos]

But that is a personal attack, or an attack to a group of people, it is normal than they feel offended.

If a GM creates an NPc that is a total jerk the Player should not feel offended (most cases), the same reason they should not get offended when the Gm create an slaver lord.

That, of course, is assumming good faith on the GM.

[thejeff]

Nicos wrote:

But that is a personal attack, or an attack to a group of people, it is normal than they feel offended.

If a GM creates an NPc that is a total jerk the Player should not feel offended (most cases), the same reason they should not get offended when the Gm create an slaver lord.

That, of course, is assumming good faith on the GM.

Maybe so. I'm not sure Bill Dunn was making that distinction in his post.

Even so, the latter part applies: If a player is upset by your sexist innkeeper, maybe you didn't expect it, but maybe you should avoid overly sexist NPCs with that player.
Or, I suppose, you could just keep bringing up the thing that offends her until she gives up on the game because she's not having fun. Isn't it supposed to be about having fun?