|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A public organization like PFS has three choices: either restrict membership to only people who are culturally identical to one another, enact a police state to make sure people don't offend each other, or develop a culture where people can resolve even deep-rooted conflict.
I choose the last one.
First, you had someone explain their feelings about other people's portrayal of their own medical condition, and you throw it back in their face. That demonstrates a lack of empathy to me. How are you contributing to the culture you desire where people can resolve even moderate conflict let alone deep-rooted conflicts when you respond to their feelings that way and tell them that their being offended isn't the end of the world.
Second, there are far more than three "choices" besides those extreme examples: exclusionary membership, police state, and utopia.
And your utopia appears to be founded upon the idea that the stereotyped or marginalized community must conform (stop being offended).
|
What a pessimistic way to look at it.
Yup. It has been my experience that most people are garbage only caring about themselves and not worth the oxygen they use. The world is a garbage fire that cannot end soon enough.
Offending people isn't the end of the world, nor is being offended.
I didn't say it was. All I pointed out is that what you are doing will offend/hurt someone. Either be aware of it, acknowledge it, and move on, or decide that is a line that you aren't willing to cross. Just own either choice.
You don't trust me to run an ADHD character? Who, then, do you trust? Just yourself? Anyone who has ADHD? How are you going to police this in any sort of public format? Or are ADHD characters just banned because you may be offended?
God no. I don't play characters with ADHD. Why on earth would I want to be shackled with that in an imaginary world where I can be normal? Nowhere did I say that you shouldn't play that character. But if I'm sitting at a table, and someone starts "LOL! My ADHD is so random! Squirrel!" and other crap like that, I leave. I have no control over them, only myself. I'm not going to spend my time at a table with someone like that.
Yes, people can create and play whatever characters they want, but they don't play them in a vacuum. There are at least three other players at the table that, in theory, are all working together to make sure that everyone is having a good time. Acknowledging that there are certain character/player combinations that risk offending/hurting other players isn't a big deal.
As an aside, I would like to apologize to Watery Soup if they felt singled out. I mean to use an indistinct you, not a distinct you, and I'm not sure if that came across.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are you contributing to the culture you desire where people can resolve even moderate conflict let alone deep-rooted conflicts when you respond to their feelings that way and tell them that their being offended isn't the end of the world.
Because I believe people are strong enough to overcome being offended.
your utopia appears to be founded upon the idea that the stereotyped or marginalized community must conform (stop being offended).
No, exactly the opposite. Stereotyped and marginalized communities should be offended. They shouldn't let the possibility of being offended stop them from engaging with - and educating - the wider public. And the wider public shouldn't be so afraid of offending someone that they don't take well-intentioned, good-faith efforts to be inclusive.
Let's take the hard of hearing. At a convention, someone may repeatedly ask the GM to repeat themselves, to the point where it's disruptive to the game. Is that player hard of hearing? Is it a realistic portrayal of being hard of hearing? I argue that neither of those questions matter - they're red herrings. All that really matters is that the game is being disrupted, and whether it's the player or the character or the realism is all secondary. If it's in good faith, we (as a community) can explore reasonable accommodations - quieter rooms, more visuals, etc. - regardless of whether it's a hard of hearing player or a hard of hearing character. All the talk about who gets to play a hard of hearing character or whether it's accurate or not ends up being the terrible arguments you want to avoid specifically because there ends up being a tangible outcome attached, i.e., whether someone actually is hard of hearing trumps all the other answers. And then it becomes a very contentious debate around whether the player is actually hard of hearing, and not about brainstorming a win-win solution for everyone.
If I'm sitting at a table, and someone starts "LOL! My ADHD is so random! Squirrel!" and other crap like that, I leave. I have no control over them, only myself. I'm not going to spend my time at a table with someone like that.
I think in my ideal world, it would not be up to you to leave the table. In my ideal world, people without ADHD recognize this as offensive, whether you are at the table or not.
And a big part of people without ADHD recognizing this as an offensive stereotype of people with ADHD would be experience. Maybe ADHD is common enough so that people have out-of-game experience with it. But PFS can also allow, maybe even welcome (?) people who are well-meaning and interested to take a shot at portraying ADHD.
Like you said, you don't want to play an ADHD character. Does that mean we just have no representation? No positive example (like the deaf Venture-Captain who functions just like any other Venture-Captain), even if it were written by / played by someone without the condition? The rest of us have no opportunity to practice reacting to or accommodating ADHD when we see it (either in-game or in real life)?
Look, if you want to be pessimistic about people being garbage, I'm not going to argue too hard against it. But I do think that a bit of optimism is warranted here, here being in the context of a role playing game where the developers of the game have intentionally built in support for players to play outside of their comfort zone, and gone out of their way to be inclusive with their iconics. I certainly hope nobody is arguing that a player has to be black-skinned and female to play Seelah, or have to be the same sexual orientation as Kyra to play her (I'll confess I imposed my heteronormative paradigm on her at first and was chastised by the table).
It's a real opportunity, and one that I don't think even existed in PFS1.
I would like to apologize to Watery Soup if they felt singled out.
No apology required on that point. I'm used to being the contrarian.
To be honest, I'd be more offended if in fact you truly don't care whether I'm well-meaning or not.
I think the distinction matters a lot, and if the jerk who's mocking someone with ADHD at his school/work/neighborhood and someone who actually tries to enact a utopia are really the same, that's pretty discouraging and I would probably stop trying (eventually).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A public organization like PFS has three choices: either restrict membership to only people who are culturally identical to one another, enact a police state to make sure people don't offend each other, or develop a culture where people can resolve even deep-rooted conflict.
I choose the last one.
...
Second, there are far more than three "choices" besides those extreme examples.
(Guide Voice)
OPF has chosen a 4th way.
All pathfinder GMs and players are bound by the rules (starting on page 485 in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook) for creating a Welcoming Environment.
In addition all Players and GMs have access to the Tools outlined in the Tools for Responsible Play sidebar (Core Ruleboog 484)
This is in order that we can continue to work toward that a culture where people can resolve even deep-rooted conflict.
However, even in a culture where people can resolve even deep-rooted conflict, it is unreasonable to ask marginalized groups to expend emotional resources resolving those conflicts in order to be present and play, so even then we will most likely preserve and protect their rights to play without having to be exposed to, and educate people about, stereotypes regarding their culture, disability, or other form of diversity, by giving them tools to signal that they are hurt or offended and ask the behavior to simply stop.
(/Guide Voice)
|
I just GMed for a Level 2 shield-bashing Fighter with 1 arm, and told them to check up on this thread for insight on what to expect when playing their character (I realize the initial post was about Deaf PCs, but it didn't make much sense to me to make a brand new thread since this one basically covers what they need to know).
They shared THIS with me, and I shared with them John Compton's thoughts on Table Variation. They've understandably already encountered quite a bit of Table Variation in their short Pathfinder career. When the topic of climbing came up, for example, they had mentioned other GMs simply imposing a circumstance penalty to the Athletics check. I noted that Climbing requires 2 hands, however, and told them they would likely need the Combat Climber feat to ever climb successfully.
For their Downtime, they decided to Retrain one of their Feats for Combat Climber, and I signed off on it.
Does anyone else have insight on what they should expect for future games?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Guise" implies someone is operating in bad faith. Using the rules in the rule book to create a welcoming environment as required in the same Rulebook is not operating in bad faith.
Regarding lost limbs (and adaptive devices in general) Lost Omens: Grand Bizarre is supposed to contain rules for disability and adaptive devices. Unfortunately, it isn't out until August. I expect we will have at least a partial answer before then, but part of that answer may be "and until this book comes out, use your judgement. "
|
|
All pathfinder GMs and players are bound by the rules (starting on page 485 in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook) for creating a Welcoming Environment.
I think those are great general values that need a LOT of clarification for real-world applications.
it is unreasonable to ask marginalized groups ...
There is considerable heterogeneity within "marginalized groups," and sometimes the resolutions can be diametrically opposed. Take the deaf community, for instance. There are some who adamantly oppose the idea of deafness being a handicap (and that IRL and in-game, there are no mechanical penalties), and then there are those who vigorously embrace the notion of handicap (because it's the basis for requesting accommodations).
This isn't to say that we shouldn't have rules, but rather, that we shouldn't expect generalities or one-size-fits-all rules to work. How do we best welcome the deaf community? I'm not sure, but I don't think the answer is to ban all players from portraying all conditions.
... to expend emotional resources ...
I think many people with low-incidence / marginalized conditions have grown pretty thick skin, and I don't think it's universal that people expend emotional resources to the degree that a GM needs to intervene. I think it's great that the rules allow the GM to intervene, but I think it's a little paternalistic to codify when they should. Put another way, I think microaggressions are problematic, but I'd suggest microcorrections rather than macrocorrections.
Everyone has their little 5-second "go away" speeches they give to questioners they choose not to engage with, and then their 30-second "elevator pitches" to people they do. Some people are going to be more angered that someone stepped into offer help ("do you think I need help?") than if they had to struggle on their own; some people are going to be the exact opposite ("couldn't you see I needed help?").
The CRB is appropriately vague - the GM should look for body language, the GM should err on the side of asking, and players should do the same - but the pushback on a hearing player playing deaf PCs is disproportionate to the risk.
we will most likely preserve and protect their [marginalized groups] rights to play without having to be exposed to, and educate people about, stereotypes regarding their culture, disability, or other form of diversity
I think that's quite appropriate as written, and I would advocate expanding it further - I think stereotypes regarding any diversity should be actively curtailed, whether someone from that marginalized community is at the table or not.
A lot of low-incidence stuff is going to come up in roleplay before it comes up in real life.
I would love it if a table of 7 white, heterosexual, upper-middle class, hearing, cisgendered males decided to do away with all the stereotypes about the parts of that description that don't apply to me before I showed up. And when I show up, or a trans person shows up, or a deaf person shows up at the table, there's no scrambling to decide on the fly what the newcomer might be offended by. They've practiced.
Certainly, when I show up at a place and I see low-incidence stuff being modeled well (even if not perfectly), I notice. So, yeah, to the In-N-Out cashier that tried to communicate to deaf customers by shouting at them, that was pretty insensitive, but you got them the burger they wanted, so on the whole I'm going to think more highly of you than the other cashiers I've watched mash a random button and call for the next customer. And that informs my decisions when it's my turn to interact with a deaf person.
... by giving them [marginalized communities] tools to signal that they are hurt or offended and ask the behavior to simply stop.
Again, I agree as written. But this does go against the ethos of "it shouldn't be on them." It kind of is.
On one front, I think self-advocacy is something that many people are used to, and it's not a huge burden.
On another front, I also think that an OP policy addressing assessed needs (needs that OP has independently decided someone has, often with a normative state as the baseline) should be secondary to a policy allowing people to express their perceived needs (needs that an individual feels).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Guise" implies someone is operating in bad faith
That's not the only definition, but its not surprising and why I increasingly try to ignore the message boards. Seems a person cannot post a damn thing these days without some kind of tone or assumptions being made about intent being read into their commentary. I'm done with this thread. Until/unless the org play leadership decides to provide more clarity and based on the ambiguity of the current rules, each GM is the arbiter of what is welcoming at their tables and players can decide for themselves if it offends then or not. Enjoy.
Sorry for the necromancy, but I'm really curious if there's ever been an official ruling on this matter. Is it legal to play a Deaf or disabled character in the Pathfinder Society?
Ooh, lovely!