Barbarian OCC Gender?

[Kraynic]

So, if I am understanding you correctly, you believe the following:

1. If anyone in the world portrays the Wolfen race in a game as an expansionist race that wants to take over and organize other races, the person who does so is a racist in real life.
2. If anyone in the world uses the Barbarian OCC in a game and portrays Barbarians as being predominantly male, the person who does that is sexist in real life.

Do those statements correctly represent your position?

Non sequitur.

It very much does seem to follow. If it doesn't, then could you clarify your position?

[Rogerd]

It very much does seem to follow.

No it doesn't, and you're making excuses.

If it doesn't, then could you clarify your position?

I have been very clear. Perhaps you should try actually reading posts?

[Kraynic]

It very much does seem to follow.

No it doesn't, and you're making excuses.

If it doesn't, then could you clarify your position?

I have been very clear. Perhaps you should try actually reading posts?

It does follow for me, because that is the overall tone I have gotten from your posts. I have read your posts. I am wanting to be sure I have everything boiled down to the correct direct statement. You could very simply answer yes or no to whether those correctly represent your position.

1. If anyone in the world portrays the Wolfen race in a game as an expansionist race that wants to take over and organize other races, the person who does so is a racist in real life.
2. If anyone in the world uses the Barbarian OCC in a game and portrays Barbarians as being predominantly male, the person who does that is sexist in real life.

[Rogerd]

It does follow for me, because that is the overall tone I have gotten from your posts. I have read your posts. I am wanting to be sure I have everything boiled down to the correct direct statement. You could very simply answer yes or no to whether those correctly represent your position.

1. If anyone in the world portrays the Wolfen race in a game as an expansionist race that wants to take over and organize other races, the person who does so is a racist in real life.
2. If anyone in the world uses the Barbarian OCC in a game and portrays Barbarians as being predominantly male, the person who does that is sexist in real life.

Non sequitur.
So might i suggest reading lessons then as that is not what I said at any point. And repeating the questions ad nauseum is not going to solicit the answer you are after.

So go back, and read mine, Mark's, IT Wastrel's all about how including racism, and other such things in your game is not on. It could not be clearer, it really could not.

[Kraynic]

It does follow for me, because that is the overall tone I have gotten from your posts. I have read your posts. I am wanting to be sure I have everything boiled down to the correct direct statement. You could very simply answer yes or no to whether those correctly represent your position.

1. If anyone in the world portrays the Wolfen race in a game as an expansionist race that wants to take over and organize other races, the person who does so is a racist in real life.
2. If anyone in the world uses the Barbarian OCC in a game and portrays Barbarians as being predominantly male, the person who does that is sexist in real life.

Non sequitur.
So might i suggest reading lessons then as that is not what I said at any point.

In response to my statement about making blanket judgements about people you had this to say:

"So is filling a game with the items I mentioned above, this is just plain bad."
Followed by Mark Hall's:
"It's always the question, IMO, of "Why do you find that rampant racism and sexism make games more fun for you?""
Followed again by your statement of:
"Exactly that, there are plenty of other character arcs that can be explored, instead of sensitive subjects."

I have been pressing to get you to back this up and see exactly how deeply this judgement goes. That seems to be a pretty simple and direct statement. Do I need some sort of reading lessons to properly understand it?

At no point have I said that I focus on those things in my games. Do I present the Wolfen government as being expansionist in my games? Sure I do. Have I run a game set within the Wolfen Empire directly tackling those issues? No, I have not. Do I have Wolfen npcs everywhere going around trying to lord it over people about how superior they are? No, I do not. They are simply a force in the world that affects other plots and national dynamics. I am wanting to know exactly how this means I am a horrible person who should be ashamed of my games due to the very presence of the Wolfen race in my games. That seems to be the very plain message in the thread. I understand that the Wolfen are not necessary for a good game. Do you believe that a game that includes them is automatically bad?

And then there is this statement by Mark:
"We're just questioning why you think its so fun to play with a lot of racism and sexism... and judging you for it, but in a moral way, not a legal one."

I never said I ran games that way or found it fun. I am questioning the judgment leveled against people that may not immediately be in line for the exact type of game you are advocating for. So yes, I have been reading, and wondering just exactly where this judgment comes from that anyone who disagrees with you must run a horrible game that is focused on racism, sexism, any any other negative label you want to throw at it. Back up your judgment. Or not, I guess.

[Rogerd]

I have been pressing to get you to back this up and see exactly how deeply this judgement goes. That seems to be a pretty simple and direct statement. Do I need some sort of reading lessons to properly understand it?

1. I don't need to justify my position.
I have been trying to get you to justify your correlation between portraying certain fantasy elements being analogous to full on racism and sexism in real life outside the game.

So you want someone else to justify themselves for saying racism etc is bad, yet you WILL NOT and CANNOT seem to justify your position. This bad faith debating, period.

And if you do not advocate racial stereotyping why the hell are you constantly replying?

So yes, I have been reading, and wondering just exactly where this judgment comes from that anyone who disagrees with you must run a horrible game that is focused on racism, sexism, any any other negative label you want to throw at it. Back up your judgment. Or not, I guess.

I have multiple times.

[ITWastrel]

I'd forgotten how many keyboard racists are out there, flat sprung on defending their edgelord views.

Am I a racist? On what basis do you make this judgment? I'm only assuming this is targeted at me due to placement in the thread.

As far as your earlier comment, I thought it was fairly reasonable. It is awfully hard to play "off type" characters if the type you want to play off of doesn't exist in the game.

If someone calls out the racists (sexist, etc), and you're wondering if you're the racist(etc), maybe your behavior needs examined.

I, however, wasn't making a specific charge about you or anyone.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. A lot of this argument seems to be people misreading another's post and then overreacting to the opposite extreme. From what I can tell:

1: ITWastrel started by saying we shouldn't punish or limit players due to certain aspects of the setting.

(Me: This came off with a requirement statement. While perhaps true, in general people will show more resistance to even good advice when that advice is given as an order.)

2: Nekira Sudacne posts making sure it's clear that racism may still exist in a game (e.g. Coaltion States in Rifts) for the purposes of setting/story and realism.
3: ITWastrel seemingly agrees, but then elaborates adds some statements that look to create more confusion.

(Me: The term "plot-hole" was used, and I believe was interpreted by some as to referencing racism at all in setting, though from the context I think the goal was to say someone playing a female Barbarian could be considered a plot-hole to the setting and the G.M. should make adjustments to allow the player while also staying true to the setting ... I think?)

4: This is around the time that things seemed to start a descent. With one side trying to say: "We shouldn't make racism in the game oppressive, but racism in the setting can add realism and be good for story" while the other side is going: "Racism being oppressive in the game is bad and shouldn't be done." However, it seems to be getting interpreting by the other side as: "Racism in a setting is good" (see setting and realism comments above) and "Racism has no place at the gaming table" (see not using racism to oppress the players).

(Me: This is kind of the equivalent of a "not all men" argument. Of course, some of these extreme statements have actually been stated, but I think in most cases these are just poorly worded and/or lacked clarity rather than intended as extremes.)

5: There may be 1 or 2 who come closer to those extremes on either side, but most of the arguing since has been due to 1 or 2 people who make an extreme statement (out of being just an extremist, or due to lack of clarity), and then the other side applying that extreme logic to all don't instantly agree with them. Both sides argue how the other side isn't paying attention, while if either side actually paid attention they'd probably realize there's more agreement than not.

Hopefully some of that helps. If anyone feels I misrepresented their stance, please clarify. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Kraynic]

I'd forgotten how many keyboard racists are out there, flat sprung on defending their edgelord views.

Am I a racist? On what basis do you make this judgment? I'm only assuming this is targeted at me due to placement in the thread.

As far as your earlier comment, I thought it was fairly reasonable. It is awfully hard to play "off type" characters if the type you want to play off of doesn't exist in the game.

If someone calls out the racists (sexist, etc), and you're wondering if you're the racist(etc), maybe your behavior needs examined.

I, however, wasn't making a specific charge about you or anyone.

Maybe I am misinterpreting something, but this seems to be a pretty decent analogy for how this has gone.

Person A runs an Indiana Jones themed game of pretend. It has Nazis in it.
Person B & C come along and say Nazis are bad. You don't need Nazis in your game to be able to have a good game. Therefore, the only reason you have Nazis in your game of pretend is because you must be a Nazi sympathizer in real life.
Person A gets upset for being labeled a Nazi sympathizer.
Person D comes along and says that Person A most likely is getting upset because that person must, deep down, truly be a Nazi sympathizer.

I run games that include Wolfen that have the characteristics of expansionist Rome as a government entity in a fantasy world.
I am told in this thread that similar things are horrible in the real world (with which I don't disagree). I am told you don't have to have those things in your game to have a good game (with which I don't disagree). I am told any game with that style of Wolfen in it is bad (with which I don't agree). I am then told that I am being morally and ethically judged as a horrible person because I must approve of aggressively expansionist governments, racial supremacy philosophy, and whatever else in real life, because I have the Wolfen Empire in a game of pretend.
I feel fairly offended and insulted due to this.
I am told I am only feeling offended because deep down I really am just a racist and someone that supports aggressively expansionist governments in real life.

I really don't follow this reasoning.

[Borast]

In Northern Hinterlands (Pp. 174), we're introduced to the Barbarian Warrior and the Barbarian Keeper. Aand unlike most other O.C.C.s, they're delineated pretty strongly along gender lines (Barbarian Warriors are pretty much exclusively men and Barbarian Keepers are pretty much exclusively women).

If you're going to follow the predominant theme from IRL, "barbarian" peoples were primarily men fight/protect/hunt/pick-up heavy stuff, women gather/keep lore/farm/bare & raise kids.
One of the biggest kickers is most people forget that if a woman made it through to menopause, she generally was considered an Elder, and on a level with the male senior tribe members.
But, remember that the story of Mulan has parallels in many primitive societies (not that China was primitive in that time).

If you want to run primarily Amazon theme, reverse roles except baring children (obviously! ).

Keep in mind, what the GM and player together decide is what happens, regardless of what the book says!

[Veknironth]

Well, I cannot believe this string is still going but my asking about what kind of world people prefer has been locked!

-Vek
"Well, I Never!"

[ITWastrel]

Well, I cannot believe this string is still going but my asking about what kind of world people prefer has been locked!

-Vek
"Well, I Never!"

The question was hijacked in this thread.

Somebody got on the idea that having "evil" societies was somehow bad, or that people were arguing that there should be no racists, or sexists, or wolfen, or whatever, in the game world.
Should a racially defined empire, such as the wolfen, continue to enslave oppress, conquer or pacify the known world, crush peaceful neighbors, and spread their slaver culture to their victims, because they're based on Rome, or something.

I've a better question.

Are those Wolfen obviously the bad guys? Do normal people go "Yup, You gotcha self a case ah' Fur Nazis right there."?

The question isn't "should everything be perfect", but rather "If I put in Nazis, will my players immediately understand these are the black hats?

We need "EVIL", but we don't need to be evil, celebrate evil, or equivocate evil. We should put the baddies up as baddies, let the world see them as a sickness, and then allow the hero PCs to punish them.

Evil people, Wolfen, Skinheads, Mobs of angry rednecks, are in our games to be beaten.
They provide a reason to use our swords and laser-hats.
Same goes for tinpot dictators, self appointed countryside kings, and evil southern-style cops/town guards who harass the PCs for reasons. Being the bad guy, being a racist or sexist character, makes the heroes want to stomp their faces even harder.

Generally, I use "Nazis" as quick villains, easy bulk goons. Skinheads, racists, and leather coat wearing BBEGs that everyone knows will be good as dead by the end of act three. There is nothing redeemable about them, and they're here to die.



There's a bigger issue here, though.

The second issue, the decades of racial and cultural insensitivity in the books, needs to be addressed by PB. Some titles, such as Spirit west or Triax and the NGR, may need withdrawn and edited/rewritten, but in general we need them to acknowledge they have been pretty racist, and promise not to do it anymore.

[Veknironth]

Well, I disagree with the good guys vs bad guys duality. I much prefer settings with varying degrees of grey. I prefer George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire to The Lord of the Rings. I think "evil" is a relative term. The Wolfen aren't necessarily the bad guys because that is determined by whether you agree that the Wolfen system is better or worse. If you're an orc slave in the Eastern Territories, the Wolfen probably seem pretty good. And all Wolfen aren't the same.

I feel like a clear dichotomy of who's good and who's bad strips away a lot of role-playing opportunities and explorations of ethical questions. I ran a game where there was a mysterious entity who had empowered a witch to enlist orcs to worship it. The idea was to free orc slaves from Timiro, give them refuge in the Old Kingdoms, and get them to worship this entity in order to allow it to move towards godhood. The witch was a witch and by the book had an evil alignment, but was essentially freeing people from slavery and giving them a better life. Is the witch evil? Is the entity evil because it wants more power? Is that entity and better or worse than the Gods of Light?

I think those grey areas are more fun. Having an implaccable enemy who is irredeemable makes for an easy time for the PCs. You load up, put together a good tactical plan, and have at it. But, if the enemy is just someone like you but with different goals I hope it would give the PCs pause. We had a game with a necromancy cult, clearly not good people, but some of them surrendered to us. Do we put them to the sword? Do we capture them? If they offer us information that will help us with the greater mission, do we let some of them go? I like those moral questions.

Most role-playing games are centered around conflict of some sort. I like that conflict to be expressed in many ways. My favorite is having a difficult decision to make. There is a mob of angry rednecks threatening something. Do you just ride out and slay them all because that's why they're there? Do you confront them and ask why they're angry? Is there a good reason? Is there some land dispute that makes the situation thornier? That can unfold into learning about the situation for the group, and making the decision about what to do with these rednecks more difficult. Do they have children? Will those children starve if you kill their parents? Maybe the group can forge a peace or maybe they decide that they don't want to be involved.

There's nothing wrong with the wish fulfillment of the good guys thrashing the badguys, I just find that less interesting.

-Vek
"This should be discussed in my post!"

[The Dark Elf]

Western Empire uses Wolfen as slaves - so humans the bad race right?

I agree a greyness of good vs evil is more interesting for me and my player group.

To answer the OP - it's whatever u wish (longest thread ever for this simple answer)

[ITWastrel]

Western Empire uses Wolfen as slaves - so humans the bad race right?

I agree a greyness of good vs evil is more interesting for me and my player group.

To answer the OP - it's whatever u wish (longest thread ever for this simple answer)

Lemme answer that.

1: Yes.
Slavery is Evil, slavers are Evil, taking the agency from a human being is EVIL. Owning, buying, selling, or trading a sentient being is EVIL.
Any society that condones or allows the trade of sentient life is EVIL.

So, yeah, there you go. If the book isn't clear about the hopelessness, horror, and everyday cruelty of being owned by someone else, then those books need an update.


2: Greyness in character is great. Should I turn in this drug money or keep it? Should I kill the orc babies or let them grow up and attack us? Should we burn this village as a warning, or burn all the villages as warnings?

Greyness out of character is less great. It is the responsibility of the GM to keep a game comfortable for all players, and to keep IRL evil off the tabletop.


3: Right on.

[The Dark Elf]

2: Greyness in character is great. Should I turn in this drug money or keep it? Should I kill the orc babies or let them grow up and attack us? Should we burn this village as a warning, or burn all the villages as warnings?

Greyness out of character is less great. It is the responsibility of the GM to keep a game comfortable for all players, and to keep IRL evil off the tabletop

Im honestly not understanding where you stance is. You're saying PC's deciding to kill babies in game is ok but the GM cant have a BBEG? I dont know an RPG that doesnt deal with IRL evil in some way (TT or Video game - Zelda gets kidnapped a lot!). RPG's deal with killing all the time - like ALL the time!

IRL evil out of game? - who are these gamers your playing with that think slavery and murder are ok?! I havent read anyone disagreeing IRL evil is bad. It's..well..EVIL.

I think you've lost me.

[Veknironth]

Well, I'm with Dark Elf here. It seems like the initial idea was there were/are societal ills in our society which are evil/wrong/bad and that Palladium Books was/is wrong for including those in the game. As such, the proper way to play is to excise those from the setting and to play in a world where those ills don't exist. That would be sort of an ideal world in which to live, but many of us feel that would be boring in which to adventure. But, IT also has stated that those civilizations/groups/individuals who engage in evil/wrong/bad behaviors should be set up as examples of what is wrong and be in place for the good guy PCs to thrash in the name of justice. Those two seem at odds from where I read.

Further, IT says it's ok for individuals to murder babies (and assume that they will grow up to be violent and attack), and to set flame to villiages. Isn't that also rather inappropriate behavior? Why wouldn't that be banned from the game? And I guess drug trade is also acceptable, since you could have a decision about whether to keep drug money.

I'm quite confused as to what should be allowed to exist and what shouldn't.

-Vek
"This should be under my settings post."

[ITWastrel]

2: Greyness in character is great. Should I turn in this drug money or keep it? Should I kill the orc babies or let them grow up and attack us? Should we burn this village as a warning, or burn all the villages as warnings?

Greyness out of character is less great. It is the responsibility of the GM to keep a game comfortable for all players, and to keep IRL evil off the tabletop

Im honestly not understanding where you stance is. You're saying PC's deciding to kill babies in game is ok but the GM cant have a BBEG? I dont know an RPG that doesnt deal with IRL evil in some way (TT or Video game - Zelda gets kidnapped a lot!). RPG's deal with killing all the time - like ALL the time!

IRL evil out of game? - who are these gamers your playing with that think slavery and murder are ok?! I havent read anyone disagreeing IRL evil is bad. It's..well..EVIL.

I think you've lost me.

You do not understand, at all, what I have said.

Allow me to be clear.

I have never advocated for No BBEGs, or no villains. I believe in bad guys, violence, theft, in-character bias, prejudice, and racism, when appropriate to the story. Plot runs on Good vs Evil. Recognizable evil.

I have run "Evil" games, where the players made up the most despicable, nipple rubbing evil villains they could. The Necromancer spotted an orphanage...

In-game evil at my table is more "Blow up a bus full of nuns" and less "Abuse my authority to sexually harass my secretary", and that's something we agreed to as a group.

I have advocated for GMs and players to use caution introducing some Palladium material into their games, as at times those books can be pretty F-ing racist.*

I have advocated for players to be sensitive to others at their tables.

I have advocated for racist, sexist, and otherwise vile game rules to be ignored entirely.

I have stated that reasons can always be used to adjust the game world to fit a player's preference or sensibilities. **

And I have asked Palladium to apologize directly for the content of some of their works.

That's my position.




*WB15: Spirit West attempted to whitewash the holocaust of the Native American people. At least twelve million people were murdered by the invading Europeans. Maybe you think about that when putting on your "War Chief" power armor.
*WB15:SW and CB2:PotM contain stat blocks for multiple gods based on non-Judeo-Christian deities, complete with MDC and super powers. You can see who's tougher, Kali or Thor. Where's the stat block for a level three carpenter demigod? How about a stat block for Allah? Where's the fat bellied, in-workshop, feet on the table depiction of "Rifts Mohammed"?


** Scenario: A player wishes to play a doctor in a civil war game, but wants the toon to look like herself, a black woman. Automatic approval.
** If a player wishes to play a female barbarian warrior, of the Pea'NisoN'lee tribe, they will know how hard it was to compete, but that they overcame. Automatically approved. Full tribal benefits from level one, respected at the table as any male in her village, except by "select NPCs" who may be trouble later.

[Zer0 Kay]

Are you seriously holding up a company as your symbol of anti racism that has culturally appropriated "Ronin"?

Strawman.
They are called Green Ronin, and their name has nothing to do with how they hold themselves out to the world. Which in this case, is taking his Mythos, sans extreme racism.
This is a good thing.

Modern sensibilities are stupid.

Can things be over the top sometimes, sure.
Nor should we bring racism, abuse, ignore cultural sensitivities, or things like bigotry to a gaming table. Edit: Include this in a game.

Telling other people how to think, live their life, or play their games is almost always offensive.

So is filling a game with the items I mentioned above, this is just plain bad.
It is why games have things like Lines, and Crosses (X) where certain things are totally verboten.

They are called Green Ronin Ronin a uniquely Japanese cultural term, the word is freaking Japanese. So If I called a group I worked with the Dank Zulu Nation it wouldn't be cultural appropriation? How 'bout the Neon Aztec Myan Alliance? One can not claim to be anti racist while performing racist acts. So their name absolutely has something to do with their claims of antiracism.

So if we aren't to bring any of the evils of humanity to the gaming table and we are supposed to correct games for their racism... everyone likes everyone else in the game, game over. I'd call you a rediculous idealist and tell you to go fly your Enterprise on a five year mission but startrek has Klingons and Romulus and and both are racist and zenophobic.

Every game has some level of racism and sexism in it often in order to mark those things as bad so removing them is stupid.

[Zer0 Kay]

It's always the question, IMO, of "Why do you find that rampant racism and sexism make games more fun for you?"

It isn't rampant and it isn't more fun. It grows cause and depth in your characters when they are able to fight against it and grow. The growth of the players and the cause succeeding is more fun.

[Zer0 Kay]

Ok, hmm...

So, we need to remove the Wolfen from Palladium, because they are racist. The Coyles can be removed for the same reason, although they are into conflict for loot rather than rule. Kankoran are basically, the "Native Americans" of the Palladium world, so they can be considered sexist for having some traditional gender roles. So, we can just clean out the canine races, because they are so obviously offensive.

As far as the normal playable races, we can strike almost all of them from the game due to being racist in one way or another. Troglodytes are fine, because while they fear some other races, it isn't through some sort of perceived self superiority. On the other hand, they are primitives, and probably have traditional gender roles, which is considered sexist now, so they have to go as well. That just leaves changelings, which are perfect for a modern game due to having no gender to begin with. There won't be any other humanoid races for them to actually change into anymore, but that is a small price to pay to not be offensive.

Of some of the fringe, sometimes playable races, we should probably strike most of them from the game as well. Eandroth, due to the metamorphosis they go through in later life, are something like sexism cubed and definitely have to go. Most giants have a beef with other giants of some sort or other, so giants are all racists and have to go. Almost all dragons have to go other than a few possible exceptions like Ki-lin or Dragon Turtles. Quite a few "monster" species will have to go as well, like Za, Waternix, and Lizard Mages. We might want to strip demons, devils/deevils, and angels from the game, because any hint of there being anything that is inherently morally good or bad is offensive to some. The deities and lords/ladies of hell and hades probably need to go for the same reason.


Does that sound like the sort of set up you would use in your worlds if you ran a Palladium Fantasy, Pathfinder, D&D, or "insert fantasy game system name here"? If not, why not? If having anything that could be construed as racism or sexism (in the modern extreme definitions), then what do you actually have left of your fantasy world?

In the end, I am wondering who came along and appointed you "judge, jury, and executioner" over me, my life, and my games? Who said you were qualified to know what I think, how I interact with people in real life, or how I run my games? Are either of you involved any any games of mine? If not, then how do my games affect you? Do you know me in real life? If not, then it seems pretty offensive to me for you to just come along and pass judgement on some random person on the internet. And... if you dislike this fantasy world that much, there are very few fantasy worlds (from any publisher) that don't have any sort of "ism" in them, so why are you even here or involved with fantasy gaming at all?

This is an immature knee jerk reaction to my post. Coupled with poor analysis, and logic and you should feel bad for even posting this.

If you want a really good example of a game without all this crap in it, is 5e World of Alessia which has no race hatred of any kind. Elves don't hate dwarves, and vice versa. They don't all have to get along, but the reasons for that go beyond racial stereotyping.

It really is not that difficult.

EDIT: Apologies if this comes off a bit harsh, feeling super tired and a bit crappy.

This is neither knee-jerk nor poor analysis. You claim it is the responsibility of manufacturers, GMs and players to remove any hint of racism and sexism from a game. I imagine your meaning for players so they may play the barbarian or the Amazon. But your lengths of removing that barrier for players is by removing it from the culture which permeates everything else. What are you suggesting if a player wants to play a female barbarian then there should be no barrier no consequences from the culture but if they decide later now I'm just going to do a knight then the culture goes back to being misogynistic? Or worse the player was allowed no problem but every other female in the clan is oppressed? Either way is disenguous.

[Zer0 Kay]

So now I have called on you and Rogerd to specify where your knowledge and authority comes from. How do you know I am a shameful waste of human flesh who is racist and hateful towards women to boot? Who are you to lay these things on me and pass judgement if you have played in none of my games and know me not at all? I find that sort of thing incredibly offensive.

You really are putting out the strawman and non sequitur arguments today I see.

You will find that a lot of published games nowadays have Lines / Barriers and Crosses due to sensibilities being different. Lines being a case of swiftly moving to the next scene, and Crosses are subjects that are never, ever discussed.

Instead you would rather shift the goalposts, and I notice how you keep dodging the question of why you want to have racism and sexism and other deplorable things like racial stereotyping type things in your games?

No crosses aren't, where the heck did you come up with this idea? Geez even your use of line is so far off the norm. A line would be where they game goes up to an no further. With that there is no reason to have a "cross" as anything beyond the line "hear and no further" is not discussed.

[Zer0 Kay]

So, if anyone has any of that in their games, they are playing their games wrong, and should change their ways?

You are trying to Shift the Goalpost here, and trying to get out of justifying keeping unwelcome elements in a game.

It doesn't improve a game to keep racial stereotyping. But what it does mean is that they should be thinking twice, and using their brains to remove elements that do not need to exist in their games.

Nor should I be having to explain this to a grown adult.

No he isn't. He is going on the same goalposts that he started way back with his 5% female barbarian comment. You on the otherhand have jumped on Mark Hall's question that came up many posts after his. So no Rogerd you changed the goalposts to to answering Mark's question. Why don't you answer the original series of questions Kraynic asked of you before Mark came into the conversation that Kraynic has just continued.

As for why any isms in a culture. If your going to make a group that is an analogy of a past people's group (Roman, Nazi, etc) one does not produce a group that was exceptional militarily and wanted to conquer because it was fun nor do they produce a group of people who unified a nation without a common goal if you do that you aren't making a Roman or Nazi analogy and are forgiving them for their cultural sins and if those are truly forgotten then they're apt to be repeated. You include cultural evils as lessons and reminders to not repeat those same things again.

[Zer0 Kay]

I"m not sure Berserker really has any better connotation, but that is a reasonable alternative for a label.

I am not shifting the burden of proof. Someone making the statement: "if you portray X race in your game as they are presented in a book, then you are a racist". The person making that statement should be bearing the burden of proof that running a game in which the Wolfen are portrayed as a race that thinks they should be the organizing force of the whole world makes the person running that game a racist in real life. Does running a game in which barbarians or berserkers are predominantly male make the person running the game sexist in real life?

If the answer to those questions would be yes, then anyone anywhere that runs a game with anything resembling that sort of content in a game is racist or sexist according to the one making that statement. Why shouldn't the burden of proof that the correlation even exists fall on the person making the statement?

1. Yes, you are shifting the burden, because you have not justified the opinion, yours for one, for keeping such elements in.

2. The point is that including racist, or sexist elements should no longer be required, and neither should cultural stereotypes and I example I used was of the old Bing Crosby / Bob Hope Road to movies. They could be made then, but now it would never happen as most people would be up in arms about it - and rightfully so. You do not need them to have a good game. Be the Gold standard, not sub-standard. Also remember that the older gamers have to set a standard for those that follow behind us, and show the younger gamers what is okay, and what is not okay in games.

3. Wholesale racial hatreds are not required either, make it an individual case as mark Hall suggested, and I used the example of World of Alessia where this does not happen. If someone does not like a particular race it should be for purely personal reasons and that can be a really, really powerful character motivation, and hurdle to overcome. Can they persuade that character to turn their views around? Is that person redeemable? Look at fiction and tv series for this kind of thing. For example my daughter watched the new She-Ra cartoon, and for the most part Catra was a fairly horrible individual, but eventually redeems herself and fights the good fight, and in doing so switches sides aiding She-Ra.

4. We have been telling you that such opinions and behaviours are not acceptable, and I even mentioned games where Lines and Crosses are used to denote sensitive subjects. You need to remember that people are not the same as they were thirty years ago, and sensitive issues have always been there, just that nowadays it more in the fore than it used to be.

You talk about sensitive subjects but if your use of "crosses" is from where I think it's from and why I think you use it that way... that is past the line.

[Zer0 Kay]

1. I don't need to justify my position. I have been trying to get you to justify your correlation between portraying certain fantasy elements being analogous to full on racism and sexism in real life outside the game.

Failing the burden of proof.

2. It doesn't matter whether it is required or optional. Does the inclusion of steriotypes in a game automatically correlate to the people participating in that game being racist, and/or sexist in real life?
3. It doesn't matter whether it is required or optional. Does the inclusion of any racial hatred in a fantasy game automatically correlate to the people participating in the game being racist in real life?

Highlighted for relevance. Yes, it does matter in every way, and it is all about morality. And if you cannot see that...well i would say words fail me, but they really do not. These opinions are unwelcome in modern society, period.

4. Is it still ok for some people to think differently than others, or does everyone have to conform to one way of thinking? As an extension, is it ok for some people to enjoy games that use a different setting than you do?

This goes to Elon Musk and his freedom of speech, and it is okay but only to a point where it transgresses laws. So using racism, which could inflame hatreds may well be against the law.

So it is clear here that you need to use your brain and realise about unacceptable terms nowadays and using the reasoning of it was in a book that is thirty years old does not excuse your actions.

Your burden of proof is a strawman. You have set that up as a required answer before you answer the question he asked first. It is also moving the goalposts as prior to that Mark asking the question it wasn't the goal.

Your views aren't accepted in modern society. They're accepted by your modern peers. But most of the political spectrum aren't offended by books that include racism and sexism. Most of the political spectrum hate bigotry and read those books with the understanding that we are to rally against the ideas in game not go through and rewrite the game. If your going to do that write a different game where only individuals are evil.

As for Elon Musk... I see your against free speach as the entire point is to protect speech from being barred because people don't like it. Inflating hatred is not illegal. Racism is not illegal. Theology is not illegal. It isn't talking about these things nor hating them nor taking offense to them that is illegal. It is inciting violence. Simply stating a racist or other stupid ideologies isn't inciting violence pushing the topic beyond what a normal person can is. A normal person shouldn't turn violent and the mere mention of idiotic ideologies but should be justified when those idiotic ideologies directly threaten a life.

[kiralon]

The best things is to have a consent form for when players start. There are good ones out there so you can establish what the DM and players find acceptable at a table and what isn't because it's different amongst everyone, and then make an informed decision about who you want to play with.
[edit]
And what vek says below

[Zer0 Kay]

Greetings and Salutations. A lot of this argument seems to be people misreading another's post and then overreacting to the opposite extreme. From what I can tell:

1: ITWastrel started by saying we shouldn't punish or limit players due to certain aspects of the setting.

(Me: This came off with a requirement statement. While perhaps true, in general people will show more resistance to even good advice when that advice is given as an order.)

2: Nekira Sudacne posts making sure it's clear that racism may still exist in a game (e.g. Coaltion States in Rifts) for the purposes of setting/story and realism.
3: ITWastrel seemingly agrees, but then elaborates adds some statements that look to create more confusion.

(Me: The term "plot-hole" was used, and I believe was interpreted by some as to referencing racism at all in setting, though from the context I think the goal was to say someone playing a female Barbarian could be considered a plot-hole to the setting and the G.M. should make adjustments to allow the player while also staying true to the setting ... I think?)

4: This is around the time that things seemed to start a descent. With one side trying to say: "We shouldn't make racism in the game oppressive, but racism in the setting can add realism and be good for story" while the other side is going: "Racism being oppressive in the game is bad and shouldn't be done." However, it seems to be getting interpreting by the other side as: "Racism in a setting is good" (see setting and realism comments above) and "Racism has no place at the gaming table" (see not using racism to oppress the players).

(Me: This is kind of the equivalent of a "not all men" argument. Of course, some of these extreme statements have actually been stated, but I think in most cases these are just poorly worded and/or lacked clarity rather than intended as extremes.)

5: There may be 1 or 2 who come closer to those extremes on either side, but most of the arguing since has been due to 1 or 2 people who make an extreme statement (out of being just an extremist, or due to lack of clarity), and then the other side applying that extreme logic to all don't instantly agree with them. Both sides argue how the other side isn't paying attention, while if either side actually paid attention they'd probably realize there's more agreement than not.

Hopefully some of that helps. If anyone feels I misrepresented their stance, please clarify. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

You know... I love you. I should always check to see if you've posted in a thread before I start going off. It would save me so much time and annoyance.

[Borast]

Okay... on the topic of the hijack...
Xenophobia is bad, we get it.
If you don't want it, don't include it...but since most games involve humans killing "monsters"...it kinda defeats the intent when you do that. After all, the monster may be bigger and stronger, and live differnetly, but that doesn't mean that they deserve to be poked by your sword (shot by your laser, etc.).
There is no setting I am aware of in any game system where you live in an Utopia. Species on species violence and hatred exist. Slavery exists. Gender based violence/discrimination exists. Classism exists. These conflicts are what adventuring is based on in one way or the other, and how you deal with it.

Take a Wolfen adventurer. Walk into the Eastern Kingdoms, and you'll be watched, be treated with suspicion and hatred. Walk into the Western Empire, you'll likely end up dead or enslaved. Most other areas, be prepared to pay more for services and products, because you're wolfen! Is it "right"? No. No it's not.
The same is true for humans from various areas going to other regions. Almost anyone goes to the Empire, and you have no rights. If you attempt to assert them, if you're lucky, you'll be beaten, stripped of all posessions and either enslaved, or tossed out of the Empire. If a Western Empire Citizen goes anywhere else, and they are not on their best, they're going to be screwed. Beaten to death being the most likely occurrance.
Similarily in the RIFTS setting. Deliberate Murder, in Coalition territory, of someone that *appears* to be human but is a DB...you're likely to only be charged with Illegal Discharage of a Weapon, or possibly the Post Apocolyptic version of Reckless Endangerment (if there are any "real" humans around). (Or, further out in the 'burbs, creating a nuisance / safety hazard.)

If you as GM don't want these basic facts (plus all the slavery across the continent) in your game...then ignore them and make changes how you want!
But, please do not try to force others to do the same. Most of us like the setting more or less as-is...warts and all.

[ITWastrel]

This thread is just getting stupid.
Did anyone, anywhere, state that npcs, non-player characters, fictional persons in these stories, should not be allowed to be evil or xenophobic?

Or is that just another argument from the dimwits who don't want to admit that actual racism at Palladium exists?

If you have a problem with an NPC that you made up, that is entirely a you problem.

If you have a problem with the official, printed, paid for in American money books, say the ones with the absolutely racist, sexist, and xenophobic text, that's a company problem.

We have a company problem.

When you are arguing that your story elements should not be restricted, you are just ignoring the fact that the official material is highly problematic.

[Kraynic]

This thread is just getting stupid.
Did anyone, anywhere, state that npcs, non-player characters, fictional persons in these stories, should not be allowed to be evil or xenophobic?

Considering that I was being morally and ethically judged for having those things in my game, then it was certainly strongly implied if not outright stated. That is the entire problem I have had in this thread, is the in-game content being construed as actual out-of-game morals, ethics, and philosophy.

[drewkitty ~..~]

This thread is just getting stupid.
Did anyone, anywhere, state that npcs, non-player characters, fictional persons in these stories, should not be allowed to be evil or xenophobic?

Considering that I was being morally and ethically judged for having those things in my game, then it was certainly strongly implied if not outright stated. That is the entire problem I have had in this thread, is the in-game content being construed as actual out-of-game morals, ethics, and philosophy.

Wow.....talk about flip-flopping from one extreme to the other.

EDIT: expansion: that he complained about someone stating how people are naturally evil, racist, sexist, and xenophobic. Then saying that people are those things.

[ITWastrel]

This thread is just getting stupid.
Did anyone, anywhere, state that npcs, non-player characters, fictional persons in these stories, should not be allowed to be evil or xenophobic?

Considering that I was being morally and ethically judged for having those things in my game, then it was certainly strongly implied if not outright stated. That is the entire problem I have had in this thread, is the in-game content being construed as actual out-of-game morals, ethics, and philosophy.

So far in this thread I've been misquoted, selectively read, and accused of attacking someone I was agreeing with (and they used the words "Did you stop reading my post" FFS).

I have realized, many of this board's members are actually just not good people. Worse, I've had to decide if I should expand my foe list or just reset my forum email and password to random letters and say to hell with all of this. Every thread on these boards ends up flaming, and if I foe all the trolls I'll never see a post.

OH, and can somebody tell me how to see the sound-off/rant forum? I've been here for decades. If this is an age thing, I've been a member longer than 18 damned years.
If it's a Me thing, let me know, and I'm out.

[kiralon]

As far as i can tell everyone has agreed that sexism, racism and any*ism is bad.
However ratio of men to women in a particular field might not be sexism. It might be that women (or men) just don't want to do it. Construction work is a good example of this in real life, so I allow for the fact that men and women are different as it tends to be more realistic. I based my land of the south winds off of the Atha'an Miere and it is a matriarchal society. I play with my wife who is fairly sensitive to sexism but she doesn't have an issue with the way I play because she knows I will give opportunity to get around any issue, which I would also do for any class. I tell my players they can mostly get away with anything if they come up with a good backstory.

The issue as far as I can tell is that a large amount of people will use these as a story telling method, and if my players do not have an issue with it neither do I.
A couple people have a big issue with it being in the game at all, that is fine, that's why you find out what people don't want in a game beforehand.
But telling people they shouldn't have it in the game at all, but allowing murder and death is probably found as a more extreme stance by a lot of people, I know it is for me.

As for calling everyone a troll. I have had my troll days I will admit, but to my knowledge Prysus has only ever been helpful to people, so with your troll statement all i can can say is pot - kettle.
Disagreeing with someone is not being a troll

[Jerell]

Hey, let's turn the Russians back into Communists

I was reading through getting caught up, saw that, and thinking about current goings on. Made me chuckle a bit. Maybe it wasn't as crazy as it sounded?

Carry on.

As far as i can tell everyone has agreed that sexism, racism and any*ism is bad.
However ratio of men to women in a particular field might not be sexism. It might be that women (or men) just don't want to do it. Construction work is a good example of this in real life, so I allow for the fact that men and women are different as it tends to be more realistic. I based my land of the south winds off of the Atha'an Miere and it is a matriarchal society. I play with my wife who is fairly sensitive to sexism but she doesn't have an issue with the way I play because she knows I will give opportunity to get around any issue, which I would also do for any class. I tell my players they can mostly get away with anything if they come up with a good backstory

Makes sense to me.

I mean, originally, we're talking typical gender/sex rolls in a fictional society that is considered uncultured "barbarians" by even Palladium world standards right? By and large I don't remember that many OCCs being restricted by sex (Altara and the like being the expections). Two that fits one specific setting, in one primitive, preindustrial culture in the Hinterlands doesn't seem like it should be a big deal, unless I missed something.

[Prysus]

This thread is just getting stupid.
Did anyone, anywhere, state that npcs, non-player characters, fictional persons in these stories, should not be allowed to be evil or xenophobic?

Considering that I was being morally and ethically judged for having those things in my game, then it was certainly strongly implied if not outright stated. That is the entire problem I have had in this thread, is the in-game content being construed as actual out-of-game morals, ethics, and philosophy.

So far in this thread I've been misquoted, selectively read, and accused of attacking someone I was agreeing with (and they used the words "Did you stop reading my post" FFS).

Greetings and Salutations. Well, I'm going to try and respond in the hopes you consider some of this response.

1: You did agree with someone, but you did it in a very odd way. You quoted them, cut off a section of their post, and then wrote several paragraphs basically reiterating the paragraph that you cut off, and never once acknowledged an agreement. So instead of agreeing, the post comes off more like mansplaining (I don't know if Nekira is a man or female, nor do I feel it's relevant for the concept of what occurred). A simple agreement would've been much better here, because instead it comes off as argumentative and like you didn't understand what they said or you're disagreeing with it in some form.

2: A lot of the argument was originally with Rogerd, who actually has made statements saying that sexism and racism shouldn't be a part of a game and people should use different story arcs, and even went into the locked thread to argue to decry everyone for any racism existing in the setting. While Kraynic was arguing with Rogerd, you came in and called a large section of the board racists. Whether or not you intended to direct that at Kraynic, the timing of your post definitely came off that way. Your response to that was to effectively say if he took your comment about yelling racist during their argument as being directed at him then he's probably a racist.

So while I'll agree some others have misunderstood your stance, you haven't been helping your case.

Edit: And I'm not making these statements to try and condemn. I believe there's a lot of raised tensions. My goal is to try and combat what seems like a lot of anger in this thread with understanding. I think this topic is sensitive for some involved. This isn't a particular sensitive topic for me, but if we were discussing ... say, rape, I'd probably be emotional and frothing at the mouth because my strong disdain for the subject would start to override my reason. And sometimes in situations like that I think it helps to have someone that can be more objective.

I have realized, many of this board's members are actually just not good people. Worse, I've had to decide if I should expand my foe list or just reset my forum email and password to random letters and say to hell with all of this. Every thread on these boards ends up flaming, and if I foe all the trolls I'll never see a post.

OH, and can somebody tell me how to see the sound-off/rant forum? I've been here for decades. If this is an age thing, I've been a member longer than 18 damned years.
If it's a Me thing, let me know, and I'm out.

The main reason I responded was to answer this question: I believe you need to contact a board moderator (or is it higher?). NMI should be able to help, maybe even Jefffar and/or Mack. I'm not sure the exact details. Basically, you have to know it exists and then ask for permission, kind of like Palladium is hoping that forum will die off ... but want it to remain active to avoid more sensitive topics on the general forums ... but don't want people to realize it exists because it has sensitive topics ... but then dislike when those sensitive topics aren't discussed on Sound off instead ...

It's a weird cycle. Hope some of that helps. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Curbludgeon]

Fatigue or maybe malaise is keeping me from posting in here more fully just yet, but for joining Sound Off I think you would click on User Control Panel/Manage Subscriptions/User Groups/Sound Off/Join Selected.

[The Dark Elf]

That's my position.

I'm simply gonna say thank you for clarifying.

[Borast]

If you have a problem with the official, printed, paid for in American money books, say the ones with the absolutely racist, sexist, and xenophobic text, that's a company problem.

I'm pretty sure I have never paid American money for a Palladium product.

[ITWastrel]

1: You did agree with someone, but you did it in a very odd way. You quoted them, cut off a section of their post, and then wrote several paragraphs basically reiterating the paragraph that you cut off, and never once acknowledged an agreement. So instead of agreeing, the post comes off more like mansplaining (I don't know if Nekira is a man or female, nor do I feel it's relevant for the concept of what occurred). A simple agreement would've been much better here, because instead it comes off as argumentative and like you didn't understand what they said or you're disagreeing with it in some form.

Where I'm from, that's called "and also", you quote the agreed to post, then make affirming statements, add depth, additional information, and insights to a branch in the thread.

"And also" is used to expand on a topic, enriching the thread.

"And also" is the positive version of "Quote and flame", which appears to be the standard post format here.

2: A lot of the argument was originally with Rogerd, who actually has made statements saying that sexism and racism shouldn't be a part of a game and people should use different story arcs, and even went into the locked thread to argue to decry everyone for any racism existing in the setting. While Kraynic was arguing with Rogerd, you came in and called a large section of the board racists. Whether or not you intended to direct that at Kraynic, the timing of your post definitely came off that way. Your response to that was to effectively say if he took your comment about yelling racist during their argument as being directed at him then he's probably a racist.

Rogerd is in charge of Rogerd, I'm only in charge of me.

I interjected into the thread when I logged in and started typing, not because the poster above me happened to have just posted.

I had noted the argument, and had only one insight, some people defend their ability to say or do racist and sexist things with a passion. To me, defending your ability to be a racist or similar is an admittance of being such a thing. My claim that there are a lot of racists in here is based on my observations of a large number of apparent Redhat apologetics. I did not, however, name anyone specifically.

I shouldn't have said there were a bunch or racists. I should have said there were a bunch of people who defend their ability to be crass, insensitive, racist, misogynistic, and similar. I use the word "racist" when I mean a whole class of ****. That is 100% on me.

My full throated defense of "if you feel attacked for doing something, stop doing it" is likewise, all on me. If you look at your posts and think "****, was I the racist?" then let me help. You were the racist.

On reflection, when I use the term "you", as in the sentence above, I am, of course, referring to the general you, not addressing the poster of the quote. Has maybe that been a problem?

I only ask because it seems every post I make, no matter how helpful, gets attacked, and either this forum is full of ******** or I need to adjust my grammar.


Oh, and I am also 100% Full on wanting a Palladium Books to address some of their insanely insensitive materials. Even an acknowledgement that some books were poorly handled would go a long way. Maybe make an effort on diversity on their writing staff, so this doesn't happen again? I dunno if anyone noticed, but it's pretty pale and male over at PB.

[ITWastrel]

If you have a problem with the official, printed, paid for in American money books, say the ones with the absolutely racist, sexist, and xenophobic text, that's a company problem.

I'm pretty sure I have never paid American money for a Palladium product.

Your money has ducks on it. Your argument is invalid.

[Goblin-Jack]

Oh, and I am also 100% Full on wanting a Palladium Books to address some of their insanely insensitive materials. Even an acknowledgement that some books were poorly handled would go a long way. Maybe make an effort on diversity on their writing staff, so this doesn't happen again? I dunno if anyone noticed, but it's pretty pale and male over at PB.

Curious; what percentage of the writing staff should be not "pale" (by which I assume you mean of European ethnicity) and male? What kind of a mandate do you envision Palladium Books instituting to qualify as making "an effort on diversity on their writing staff, so this doesn't happen again"?

Let's be even more precise: Under your preferred scenario (which you've not detailed, but which I hope you will), how exactly should Palladium Books rate potential writers who aspire to work with them? What kind of a weight or curve do you recommend they employ to achieve your preferred degree of diversity?

Last, what timescale should they use to implement such a diversification of their creative talent? Should they, for example, fire 3/5 of their current writing staff who are pale and male? Please provide specifics so that we can fully understand your vision for diversifying Palladium Books' creative talent.

[ITWastrel]

Oh, and I am also 100% Full on wanting a Palladium Books to address some of their insanely insensitive materials. Even an acknowledgement that some books were poorly handled would go a long way. Maybe make an effort on diversity on their writing staff, so this doesn't happen again? I dunno if anyone noticed, but it's pretty pale and male over at PB.

Curious; what percentage of the writing staff should be not "pale" (by which I assume you mean of European ethnicity) and male? What kind of a mandate do you envision Palladium Books instituting to qualify as making "an effort on diversity on their writing staff, so this doesn't happen again"?

Let's be even more precise: Under your preferred scenario (which you've not detailed, but which I hope you will), how exactly should Palladium Books rate potential writers who aspire to work with them? What kind of a weight or curve do you recommend they employ to achieve your preferred degree of diversity?

Last, what timescale should they use to implement such a diversification of their creative talent? Should they, for example, fire 3/5 of their current writing staff who are pale and male? Please provide specifics so that we can fully understand your vision for diversifying Palladium Books' creative talent.

Here's the idea.
51% of the population is female.
Look around the PB offices. Look at the writers. Are 50% of them female?
50% of the management?
Are 50% of the names on the books women's names? In the credits? Women not related to KS, I mean.

Lemme help
The "Artists" section of the PB site shows one female artist on staff and one proofreader. If there are other women they didn't make the page. A whole lotta dudes, though.

Maybe fix that. Hiring female writers, buying manuscripts and commissioning art from women, and hiring women for senior management positions should be a priority.

Look around the office again. How many black writers and managers are on staff? Not working the warehouse, mind you, how many of the companies writers and senior staff are people of color?
How many manuscripts or art pieces were commissioned from people of color?

Was any effort made to seek out art or writing specifically from women or people of color?

Regarding writing and story, will cultural sensitivity become a priority for PB moving forward, perhaps with the addition of a sensitivity consultant?

Staff turnover happens, and a company can choose to invest in diversity, or choose to hire another white dude. PB has been doing the second for a long time.

More importantly, a company like PB buys a lot of art. Why not choose to promote artists from outside their pale male bubble and actively commission works from those from different perspectives?

I got questions, bub. I got lots of 'em.

[Nekira Sudacne]

1: You did agree with someone, but you did it in a very odd way. You quoted them, cut off a section of their post, and then wrote several paragraphs basically reiterating the paragraph that you cut off, and never once acknowledged an agreement. So instead of agreeing, the post comes off more like mansplaining (I don't know if Nekira is a man or female, nor do I feel it's relevant for the concept of what occurred). A simple agreement would've been much better here, because instead it comes off as argumentative and like you didn't understand what they said or you're disagreeing with it in some form.

Where I'm from, that's called "and also", you quote the agreed to post, then make affirming statements, add depth, additional information, and insights to a branch in the thread.

"And also" is used to expand on a topic, enriching the thread.

"And also" is the positive version of "Quote and flame", which appears to be the standard post format here.

Local cultures and subcultures can be a pain to navagate for sure. The fact you only quoted part of what I said, and then repeated it, made it feel a lot like mansplain' rather than agreement. But yes, on these forums, quote-and-flame is the norm, so if you are in agreement, you absolutely cannot assume the person you are talking to will intuit that you are agreeing with them. I've seen arguments go on for pages between two posters who actually were loudly agreeing the entire time. Been a part of a few myself!

easy fix though. Just preface agreement with "I agree", or even "And also", to make it clear. It's a habbit I need to work on myself.

2: A lot of the argument was originally with Rogerd, who actually has made statements saying that sexism and racism shouldn't be a part of a game and people should use different story arcs, and even went into the locked thread to argue to decry everyone for any racism existing in the setting. While Kraynic was arguing with Rogerd, you came in and called a large section of the board racists. Whether or not you intended to direct that at Kraynic, the timing of your post definitely came off that way. Your response to that was to effectively say if he took your comment about yelling racist during their argument as being directed at him then he's probably a racist.

Rogerd is in charge of Rogerd, I'm only in charge of me.

I interjected into the thread when I logged in and started typing, not because the poster above me happened to have just posted.

I had noted the argument, and had only one insight, some people defend their ability to say or do racist and sexist things with a passion. To me, defending your ability to be a racist or similar is an admittance of being such a thing. My claim that there are a lot of racists in here is based on my observations of a large number of apparent Redhat apologetics. I did not, however, name anyone specifically.

I shouldn't have said there were a bunch or racists. I should have said there were a bunch of people who defend their ability to be crass, insensitive, racist, misogynistic, and similar. I use the word "racist" when I mean a whole class of ****. That is 100% on me.

My full throated defense of "if you feel attacked for doing something, stop doing it" is likewise, all on me. If you look at your posts and think "****, was I the racist?" then let me help. You were the racist.

On reflection, when I use the term "you", as in the sentence above, I am, of course, referring to the general you, not addressing the poster of the quote. Has maybe that been a problem?

I only ask because it seems every post I make, no matter how helpful, gets attacked, and either this forum is full of ******** or I need to adjust my grammar.


Oh, and I am also 100% Full on wanting a Palladium Books to address some of their insanely insensitive materials. Even an acknowledgement that some books were poorly handled would go a long way. Maybe make an effort on diversity on their writing staff, so this doesn't happen again? I dunno if anyone noticed, but it's pretty pale and male over at PB.

I would definatly suggest that the "you" when directly quoting someone needs work. I know if someone is quoting me and says "You", I am going to assume a direct accusation.

[The Dark Elf]

You know all PB writers other than the owner are freelance. If no Diverse people send in drafts then no Diverse people get published.

You are started to sound racist dude. And IRL racism is not acceptable mate.

[The Beast]

Well, I cannot believe this string is still going but my asking about what kind of world people prefer has been locked!

-Vek
"Well, I Never!"

[Curbludgeon]

It looks like a more broad topic as to racist tropes in Palladium topics has been recently deleted.

[Prysus]

Where I'm from, that's called "and also", you quote the agreed to post, then make affirming statements, add depth, additional information, and insights to a branch in the thread.

"And also" is used to expand on a topic, enriching the thread.

"And also" is the positive version of "Quote and flame", which appears to be the standard post format here.

Greetings and Salutations. I see Nekira already responded, and I agree with those statements. I definitely would recommend starting with a statement of agreement for clarity. Note: Some people will still ignore it, but it definitely helps.

"And also" does happen here, but not as much. If we had something like a "Like" button, I'd probably like a lot of posts. But, there are two reasons I generally avoid "And also" as an individual.

1: There are rules against short posts. So something as simple as "well said" or "I agree" is actually against forum rules. As such, people are less likely to post in agreement, because it needs to be expanded on (as you did), and it would really just be repeating a lot of what the other person already said. This leads to people posting more to try and prove something wrong than to just agree.

2: As such, when I make a post it's because I generally feel I may be able to add something to the conversation. So if I know of a book rule no one has mentioned yet or I feel no one has addressed a specific point, I will post. Posting takes time and effort for me, so it needs to be worth it. In this case, I posted because I hoped it would help people realize there's more agreement than disagreement, and because it seems like you were becoming more frustrated and I was hoping maybe if I could explain a few things it might help.

Rogerd is in charge of Rogerd, I'm only in charge of me.

Agreed. However, there's a couple reasons why something like this can be confusing.

1: Rogerd used your stance (as well as Mark Hall) as part of theirs (I can provide quotes in PM, if requested). I know if I say someone attach my name to a stance I didn't agree with, I'd be sure to denounce it. The timing of some of your posts also make it sound as if in agreement. Note: I understand your stance. I'm merely stating how things can be perceived, because looking at things from another's standpoint can help with understanding and avoiding misunderstandings in the future.

2: The longer and more posts in a thread, the easier it is to get confused on who said what. Also combined with reason 1 above, and people's statements will often get blurred together. This isn't necessarily your fault, but it something that happens. By understanding the issue, we can take steps to avoid it or clarify again. Maybe not a perfect solution, but it can help.

I interjected into the thread when I logged in and started typing, not because the poster above me happened to have just posted.

[snip]

My full throated defense of "if you feel attacked for doing something, stop doing it" is likewise, all on me. If you look at your posts and think "****, was I the racist?" then let me help. You were the racist.

Okay, let's try a slightly different scenario.

I'm walking down the street. You're on the other side of the street and start screaming: "YOU RACIST!" in my general direction. I'm probably going to look around in confusion and say something like: "Huh?! What did I do that you think I'm a racist?" And maybe you weren't talking to me, maybe you were talking to the person behind me. However, your response is basically: "If you think I was talking to you then you must a racist, you racist!"

Let my clarify I do not believe that type of attitude is good or helpful. It's the type of attitude that will cause a lot of frustration on both sides, and will lead you to believe most people are racist and others to feeling randomly attacked. I wouldn't call that a healthy mindset.

This is the mentality that suggests if I walk up to you and slander the people you care about, if you get offended in any way then everything I said was true. Basically you picked a fight, and if anyone had an issue with that then whatever you claimed is now proven true.

On reflection, when I use the term "you", as in the sentence above, I am, of course, referring to the general you, not addressing the poster of the quote. Has maybe that been a problem?

I only ask because it seems every post I make, no matter how helpful, gets attacked, and either this forum is full of ******** or I need to adjust my grammar.

Addressing specifically who you're talking to can definitely help eliminate confusion. I also understand why this could be problematic, because then it could be considered targeting the poster and not the post. So my general advice would be to try and avoid directly calling anyone names. Quote the line, and call the statement or viewpoint racist, but not the person. It may not always be as satisfying as fully laying into someone, but can help still get the same point across, clarify who/what you're addressing, and keep you on the right side of the rules.

Also, as an individual, I've found that often the longer my posts the more likely someone is to flame them (I had this issue with a few people on the Rifts forum in particular). As such, I try to keep the posts short and to the point. If you look at my post, for example, I generally try short paragraphs with each paragraph a thought. I've found it a more effective method. On these forums, less is often more. That's at least my experience.

Oh, and I am also 100% Full on wanting a Palladium Books to address some of their insanely insensitive materials. Even an acknowledgement that some books were poorly handled would go a long way. Maybe make an effort on diversity on their writing staff, so this doesn't happen again? I dunno if anyone noticed, but it's pretty pale and male over at PB.

Well, at least you think they're pretty.

Seriously though, I'd have no objections to Palladium addressing some of the more insanely insensitive material. Exactly where everyone draws that line I know will vary, but some material is almost universally accepted as racist. Like I've heard no good things about Spirit West from Rifts (though I've never read it personally). Please, yes, let them address it.

As for the hiring practices, I know that's a complicated issue addressing adversity. I know there can be arguments on both sides, and I'm not going to try and start that debate here. More so, I don't think I'm qualified to address it satisfactory. With that said, there are at least some members of non "pale" complexion. I don't ask people's authenticity, so if I get anything incorrect I apologize, but Chuck Walton is in house staff, artist and writer (primarily Splicers). Glen Evans is a freelance writer who did a recent book for PF (with another that Kevin talks about often and just released the RAW Manuscript ... so you know, pick up RAW Lopan to support the diversity! ). Robyn Stot was, I believe, a female intern a while back (who did some of the old Rifter Q.A. with Shawn Merrow).

I'll also say I never met a lot of the freelancers. For example, I have no clue to the ethnicity of Todd Yoho, Mark Hall, or John Klinkel (RAW Land of the South Winds manuscript), to name a few. So, without having met them (or doing research on each freelancer who ever had a book released), I cannot say how diverse the freelancers have been or not.

If it matters (and it really shouldn't), but I'm mixed. In my childhood I was too white to be Mexican and too Mexican to be white (that's not a joke). I've had 3 Rifter articles published, the official Palladium Fantasy Interactive Character Sheet (Excel-based), and some material that may (or may not) be worked into the Land of the South Winds manuscript and/or some different material for a PDF only project (pick up some copies today to support diversity! ). Edit: Oh yeah, and credited with the slogan for the Living the Fantasy PF T-Shirt.

Hope some of that helps. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Borast]

If you have a problem with the official, printed, paid for in American money books, say the ones with the absolutely racist, sexist, and xenophobic text, that's a company problem.

I'm pretty sure I have never paid American money for a Palladium product.

Your money has ducks on it. Your argument is invalid.

A train, the Canadarm and Shuttle (with a spacewalking crew member), assorted historical figures, the current Head of the Monarchy, a loon, a Polar Bear, etc...but no ducks.

[Rogerd]

They are called Green Ronin. Ronin a uniquely Japanese cultural term, the word is freaking Japanese. So If I called a group I worked with the Dank Zulu Nation it wouldn't be cultural appropriation? How 'bout the Neon Aztec Myan Alliance? One can not claim to be anti racist while performing racist acts. So their name absolutely has something to do with their claims of antiracism.

Their name has nothing to do with racism, get a frickin' grip!
Ronin is Japanese which means living outside of the law - in this case either Shogun or Emperor who would order any that failed to commit seppuku. Thus holding themselves out to a higher standard - which is what they are doing with Cthulhu Awakens by removing all the racist elements.

And good for them I say!

So no Rogerd you changed the goalposts to to answering Mark's question.

No crosses aren't, where the heck did you come up with this idea? Geez even your use of line is so far off the norm. A line would be where they game goes up to an no further. With that there is no reason to have a "cross" as anything beyond the line "hear and no further" is not discussed.

Most of what you said is plain garbage.
Lines denote that a scene is getting into certain areas and it goes to another scene.
Crosses are absolute no-go areas.

Your burden of proof is a strawman.

This is more garbage I'm afraid. If said individual will not justify their position that is discussing / debating in bad faith. Simple as that.

Why don't you answer the original series of questions Kraynic asked of you before Mark came into the conversation that Kraynic has just continued.

I am under no obligation to do so.

This is neither knee-jerk nor poor analysis. You claim it is the responsibility of manufacturers, GMs and players to remove any hint of racism and sexism from a game. I imagine your meaning for players so they may play the barbarian or the Amazon. But your lengths of removing that barrier for players is by removing it from the culture which permeates everything else. What are you suggesting if a player wants to play a female barbarian then there should be no barrier no consequences from the culture but if they decide later now I'm just going to do a knight then the culture goes back to being misogynistic? Or worse the player was allowed no problem but every other female in the clan is oppressed? Either way is disenguous.

Yes it is a knee-jerk reaction, and I am not the only person to say so. Perhaps you should try reading the thread FFS.

As for Elon Musk... I see your against free speach as the entire point is to protect speech from being barred because people don't like it. Inflating hatred is not illegal. Racism is not illegal. Theology is not illegal. It isn't talking about these things nor hating them nor taking offense to them that is illegal. It is inciting violence. Simply stating a racist or other stupid ideologies isn't inciting violence pushing the topic beyond what a normal person can is. A normal person shouldn't turn violent and the mere mention of idiotic ideologies but should be justified when those idiotic ideologies directly threaten a life.

[/quote]

I never said I was against Free speech. Learn to read FFS.
Free speech only goes to a point where it does not breach law, such as inciting hatred, or violence. At that point free speech stops, and it becomes something else entirely. Which is entirely what Musk said.

So if we aren't to bring any of the evils of humanity to the gaming table and we are supposed to correct games for their racism... everyone likes everyone else in the game, game over.

Rubbish.
You can have one person be evil, and then lead others astray - same as what happened in the Disney film Pocahontas.

Every game has some level of racism and sexism in it often in order to mark those things as bad so removing them is stupid.

No they don't, and I even mentioned it - World of Alessia for DnD 5e.

Most of the political spectrum hate bigotry and read those books with the understanding that we are to rally against the ideas in game not go through and rewrite the game. If your going to do that write a different game where only individuals are evil.

You don't have to re-write the game, and you're making excuses for the company writing poor material. Wolfen do not need to be evil, neither do orcs, nor dwarves nor elves.

[Borast]

No they don't, and I even mentioned it - World of Alessia for DnD 5e.

Excerpt from setting in question on page 4 of the Kickstarter FAQ:

For most, discrimination of any sort is rare. Although strong racial bias does exist in backward corners of the world and among the ignorant...

On the same page, they mention that some bickering about religion exits. This tends to end-up in tensions and descrimination. Look at what happened in SE Asia not long ago, when different sects of Bhuddists - the most peaceful "religion" on the planet I am aware of - were killing each other over access to a specific temple!

Add in that one Empire is called the "Empire of Man"... Nation states tend to produce lots of "-isms," not the least of which is Nationalism.

That being said, yes, on a very brief review the setting does appear to strip as much xenophobia and "isms" as possible.

As long as we "keep score," "-isms" will still exist, even if only as a reason to advance/improve oneself.