Racism in roleplaying

[Dr Fear]

I thought this Q&A from the Dark Age of Camelot official board was funny.

Q: My character is a junior weaponsmith on a roleplay server. He refuses to serve nonhuman races; that is to say, he will not provide weaponry to Inconnu and Half-Ogres. When confronted by his "racism," he defends his right to not serve inconnu and other sub-human races. Sometimes he uses the word "peck," borrowed from the movie "Willow" – the intent is to make fun of the small size of the Inconnu.

Many players believe that it is role-playing and not a violation of the Code of Conduct, and whether or not they have fun with it, they leave me be. However, I'm also frequently being told by other players that I am violating the Code of Conduct on areas of both racist comment and verbal abuse, and that a report will be filed with a CSR.

I have no problem if someone wants to argue with my "no subhuman" stance in character. However, I get really bothered by threats to contact a CSR. As such, I wanted to find out if I am indeed violating the Code of Conduct.

A: I edited your question just to keep it from being a grab bag by itself. ;) For the benefit of the rest of tonight's readers – the player made it clear that he never uses real life slurs or language, and that he's strictly going along with our own backstory in which we indicate the presence of tensions between the mythical races.

Short answer – no, sir, you are not in violation of the COC. Rather, you're enriching the atmosphere of your server. As long as your language is clean, and doesn't drag real world horror into the fantasy world, you're in the clear.

Long answer – I asked the CS guys to look over your email to make sure I wasn't about to say anything crazy, and our Roleplay CSR gave me this reply:

"Racism, in any medium, is a very touchy subject and with good reason. However, there's a definite difference between racism in the real world and racial enmity and hatreds in a fantasy setting.

"Many, if not most, fantasy settings from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy to Gary Gygax's Dungeons and Dragons to Mythic's Dark Age of Camelot contain racial and cultural tensions and feuds. Elves and Dwarves, in most settings, dislike each other. Dark Elves typically hate every other race other than their own (and often their own at that). Same can be said with Orcs, trolls, goblins, etc. Culture, race and religion are defining characteristics of potential conflict and strife.

"Dark Age of Camelot is a game built on such conflict. Three realms with several races, cultures and religions clash with one another in effort to put an end to their enemies. Trolls and Dwarves are bitter combatants against Elves and Firbolgs who are in turn dire enemies of Avalonians and Saracens. This animosity is what fuels the Realm Vs Realm aspect of Camelot.

"DAoC has recently provided further fiction for roleplay potential within the realms with new races that are often seen with distrust or outright hatred. The Inconnu and Shar are notable examples of this. Not that such inter realm conflict is mandated, but it isn't frowned upon either if players choose to go that route. There are plenty of examples from our quests and encounters to back this up.

"The difference between roleplaying in game racial tensions and being racist in the real world is being able to differentiate between In Character and Out of Character. Roleplaying a Briton who dislikes the new upstart races of the Inconnu and Half Ogres is perfectly fine within the roleplay aspects of the game settings, and adds more depth in roleplay interaction. However, when real world terminology is used, and we all know what that is, then the line has been crossed and it is no longer "in character."

"We can't fault anyone for wanting to roleplay the tension between uneasy allies in game. It's definitely not a violation of the Code of Conduct, in any way in my opinion. At best the term "peck" may be considered a RP violation since it's from the movie Willow and even then I would think it's not a violation, no more than calling a dwarf, shorty or stubby or what have you. ;o)"

So there you go. Keep real world language out of it, be consistent, and hope that your fellows on a roleplay server understand that there's a difference between a character and a player.

[Jack]

Isn't role-playing all about greedy Dwarves, sneaky Halflings, aloof Elves, and earthy Humans? Oh, wait. That's stereotyping. Role-players never do that.

[SpoofyChop]

Willow was a terrible movie.

[Mark Asher]

There was a racist guild on either the DAoC PvP server or in SB -- can't remember. They only allowed human characters in their guild and some other race was KOS to them.

[SpoofyChop]

I'm not a real fan of the idea of "role-playing" an evil character or a character with immoral or anti-social beliefs or practices.

Quite frankly I think it's wrong to fantasize about being a bad person. I don't see any reason to suggest that games should help people to act out these fantasies.

Although I don't subscribe the the hysterical beliefs that games actually cause people to go on shooting rampages or something I certainly think that portraying an evil or anti-social character in a game can make that kind of behavior seem attractive to the player.

I can attest to this from personal experience. A few years ago when I was playing a lot of violent and aggressive games I became visibly more aggitated and surly. Several friends and family members noticed this and I eventually stopped playing violent or disturbing games for several years.

Only within the last year have I been cautiously playing certain violent games (DoD for instance) and only in measured doses.

I'm also not trying to say that everybody is succeptible to this problem, but I am saying that most people ignore the possibility that games might affect their behavior or attitude because the gaming community considers this kind of admission to be politically incorrect and absurd.

If I ever design a MMOG there will not be any options to role-play any evil characters and there will be extremely strict rules against griefing etc. Additionally, any player vs. player competition will of the "gentlemanly" variety.

[John Many Jars]

I'm impressed that such serious role-playing is going on in an MMORPG. When I played MUDs in the early and mid-90s, there were constant shouts about Tanya Harding and OJ Simpson and the previous night's Seinfeld, and the message boards were full of such pearls as "I could kick your ass in real life" and "Do you like Star Trek? I like Star Trek."

[Rollory]

Do you like Star Trek? I don't like Star Trek.

Oh, and Willow was a GREAT movie. And if you say differently, well, I could kick your ass in real life.

On the subject at hand though - to me, this seems like one of those things that is a good idea on paper but one hell of an annoyance when you actually run into it in-game. It depends of course in part on how many other weaponsmiths there are to choose from, but I am put in mind of one MUD I played on for a while, where the sole NPC weaponsmith in town didn't like humans, and would kick them out of his shop. As I was playing a human (thought that would be a safe, neutral choice), it was an incredibly frustrating and confusing situation - took me forever to figure out what was going on, and in the meantime I had no idea where or how to get decent weapons. Most of the time, when you're going shopping for equipment, you don't want to deal with RP stuff unless it's "on the side", as it were - you just want to get the errand done so you can go back to whatever else you have to do. Someone who gives you crap about something that isn't part of _active_ gameplay (and thus is something you really can't do much about) is someone who's asking to be griefed (and deserves it too), and is making the game a bit less fun than is necessary.

On the gripping hand, it is an RP server, and whether this is considered acceptable or not probably depends on the proportion of RP nazis around. My own opinion is that freeform RP that adds to regular gameplay is good; RP that limits what you could be able to do through normal use of the game systems is bad; and RP nazis should all be shot.

[Jaysun]

There was a racist guild on either the DAoC PvP server or in SB -- can't remember. They only allowed human characters in their guild and some other race was KOS to them.

I wonder if you mean the Shadowclan. I am part of them on Mourning Shadowbane and we are an Irekei only guild. Elves are KOS according to the lore, which we also followed. We tried playing an Irekei Virakt and take over the desert, which we did moderately well until almost everyone left the server for the New Shiny Thing, including many of our members.

That poor game. I liked it a lot, but they didn't build enough into the lore aspects to make lore based guilds competitive with All Race, All Class (ARAC) guilds. Too bad really, I enjoyed my time in it. Maybe it'll pick up again with the expansion.

[MattKeil]

Quite frankly I think it's wrong to fantasize about being a bad person. I don't see any reason to suggest that games should help people to act out these fantasies.

I see plenty of reason for it. It's fun. You get to be a bastard and nobody gets hurt except digital people.

Playing through KotOR as a ruthless Sith was the best time I've had playing a game all year.

~MJK

[SpoofyChop]

Tell that to the sorry people who committed suicide because their Everquest friends turned on them Matt.

"Roleplaying against remotes is one thing, roleplaying against the living? That's something else" to paraphrase Han.

[John Many Jars]

I'm not a real fan of the idea of "role-playing" an evil character or a character with immoral or anti-social beliefs or practices.

Isn't that what you do every day on this board? ;)

Actually, I don't like it either. I feel genuine remorse in RPGs when I do something evil accidentally; I'm always surprised that I feel it, but I always feel it. And I never choose the evil path through quests.

[John Many Jars]

Oh, and Willow was a GREAT movie. And if you say differently, well, I could kick your ass in real life.

It was the last great midget movie.

Farewell, Billy Barty. We hardly knew ye.

[Jason McCullough]

So the principle appears to be:

"Racism is ok as long is it's a) based on the avatar, not the player and b) you don't use any offensive language in the process."

Could lead to some interesting results as life becomes more and more virtual.

[SpoofyChop]

Ha!

It actually makes it sound just as pathetic as it really is when you boil it down to the "essentials."

Racism and racial hate is wrong whether it's virtual or real.

[Jason McCullough]

Is it? This is cultural theory way above my pay grade - like "is it ok to play a racist character in a play", almost.

[TheWombat]

While I'd generally agree with the sentiment that racism and hate is wrong, I don't think discriminating against a fantasy "race" in a game where such discrimination is part of the lore is even remotely the same thing. Unless you want to completely dispose of all backstories and make all MMOs reflections of the real world, differently "skinned" as it were, you have ot accept that in these virtual realities some things that apply in RL don't apply there. In a fantasy environment it's entirely reasonable to presuppose there are very real and justified reasons for one group to hate another. To assume that it's essentially an analogue of the RL--in terms of race relations, say--is both inaccurate and harmful IMO.

OTOH, a lot depends on how it's done. I agree that being nasty to people is bad. Carrying this sort of role-playing to extremes is bad. But if you have a business in the game and choose not to sell to one group, and it fits the story line, I find little wrong in that. Mind you, I could never play a character like that but some can, and the game obviously supports and encourages that sort of role-playing. Perhaps if the person in question gets a /tell asking why the other fellow can't buy, he'll /reply with the RP justification, and no one will be offended, etc. Or perhaps he'll be a dick about it, which is another thing entirely.

But while I personally feel icky playing bad guys--even in KOTOR--in some cases it's appropriate.

[Matt Perkins]

omg. People might be taking this WAY too seriously. Sure, racism in RL sucks and is ignorant. But roleplaying a character that doesn't want to serve dark elves is somehow "wrong"?

Get a grip.

[Mithix]

I completely agree with the response this guy got.

Certain races are defined by their hatred of other races. In Tokien's world, you would hardly expect a weaponsmith in Bree to sell a sword to an Orc.

Similarly, it seems not only acceptable but appropriate for this junior weaponsmith to refuse his wares to races he is not supposed to like.

Of course, there will be the occasional accepting, hippy member of any race, and that's perfectly appropriate as well.

[Robert Sharp]

Spoofy and Jason, I really can't tell if you two are serious or not. I'll assume you are joking though, at least about the problem with being racist in an RPG. They are roleplaying a character and the races aren't real. It's ridiculous to think that somehow makes the player a racist in RL. As far as we know, there is only one sentient race in real life, so I don't see the connection at all.

As for people committing suicide because of being ostracized in an MMORPG...that's pathetic. And a bit silly.

[Jason McCullough]

I didn't say I see anything wrong with it, but lots of people may not agree.

It's easy to make hypotheticals; say you make a Civil War MMORPG. If you go on and on about "defeating the evil Negro lovers" are you being in-character, or being a bastard? Most everyone would say you're being a bastard in that case, of course, but I'm unable to find a difference between that and the DAOC example other than "one's real, and one's not."

That sounds like a good rule, but what about metaphor? Can you do a search and replace on the way everyone looks and the names of all the groups and *then* it's ok to refuse service to orcs? On the other side, it's obviously ok to play a racist in a play about the Civil War, but why? What about in very loose interpretative plays where you're supposed to ad-lib all dialogue?

I know what I think is right and wrong here, but I'm disturbed that I can't really explain why.

[Mark Asher]

There was a racist guild on either the DAoC PvP server or in SB -- can't remember. They only allowed human characters in their guild and some other race was KOS to them.

I wonder if you mean the Shadowclan. I am part of them on Mourning Shadowbane and we are an Irekei only guild. Elves are KOS according to the lore, which we also followed. We tried playing an Irekei Virakt and take over the desert, which we did moderately well until almost everyone left the server for the New Shiny Thing, including many of our members.

That poor game. I liked it a lot, but they didn't build enough into the lore aspects to make lore based guilds competitive with All Race, All Class (ARAC) guilds. Too bad really, I enjoyed my time in it. Maybe it'll pick up again with the expansion.

I have been sorely tempted in the last week or so to reactivate my SB account. The new server, Corruption, is apparently doing very well, with peak server pops of 2000 players. It's got a new world map too, so things are a bit different. Other new rules are slower XP gain (not crazy about this), smaller gold drops, cheaper city maintenance costs but more costly city upgrade costs.

[Mithix]

It's easy to make hypotheticals; say you make a Civil War MMORPG. If you go on and on about "defeating the evil Negro lovers" are you being in-character, or being a bastard? Most everyone would say you're being a bastard in that case, of course, but I'm unable to find a difference between that and the DAOC example other than "one's real, and one's not."
I would say it's perfectly okay to make those comments (in character) in a Civil War MMORPG. Of course, it's definitely not okay to make those comments in real life, or even when out of character in the MMORPG. As you said, one is real and the other is not.

It's all about what world you're in. One of the reasons that people enjoy MMORPGs is that they get to immerse themselves in a fantasy world. The creators of DAoC decided that racial tension is a part of that world. At that point, racism in RPing was condoned, even encouraged.

[Jaysun]

There was a racist guild on either the DAoC PvP server or in SB -- can't remember. They only allowed human characters in their guild and some other race was KOS to them.

I wonder if you mean the Shadowclan. I am part of them on Mourning Shadowbane and we are an Irekei only guild. Elves are KOS according to the lore, which we also followed. We tried playing an Irekei Virakt and take over the desert, which we did moderately well until almost everyone left the server for the New Shiny Thing, including many of our members.

That poor game. I liked it a lot, but they didn't build enough into the lore aspects to make lore based guilds competitive with All Race, All Class (ARAC) guilds. Too bad really, I enjoyed my time in it. Maybe it'll pick up again with the expansion.

I have been sorely tempted in the last week or so to reactivate my SB account. The new server, Corruption, is apparently doing very well, with peak server pops of 2000 players. It's got a new world map too, so things are a bit different. Other new rules are slower XP gain (not crazy about this), smaller gold drops, cheaper city maintenance costs but more costly city upgrade costs.

Yeah, Wolfpack is on the right track there. It needs more lore based enhancements though to hook me completely. The slower XP gain is totally negated though if you are part of a guilds 'preferred' race or class combination, so it's easy to mitigate. And that's also one of the problems, it's easy for ARAC guilds to mitigate the 'penalties' of following the lore.

[Tim Partlett]

Is it racist to shoot Japs on BF:1942 (and secretly enjoy it)?

[XPav]

Is it racist to call your clan the "SS" and give each member tags of concentration camp governors?

[Jobe]

"Lo! I strike down racism in all its forms, even those forms that aren't really racism!"

How righteous.

[Kalle]

I've noticed that when it comes to RPG's I am always do-gooder wuss, so when KOTOR comes out for PC I have decided that no matter what I will become a Sith Lord and try to enjoy the path leading there. Selling friends into slavery, killing innocents, using force grip for fun, I'll do my best to be as evil as I can possibly be. I'll do it all and try to laugh at the pitiful fools who stand in my way.

I'm not sure if I can bear it though, when I tried that in Torment I could not force myself to be nasty to Annah, no matter what. But maybe that was because I knew the good ending, and the sacrifices Annah would make for me. Doing it in a new game probably makes it easier.

[Sharpe]

[quote="Kalle"]I've noticed that when it comes to RPG's I am always do-gooder wuss, so when KOTOR comes out for PC I have decided that no matter what I will become a Sith Lord and try to enjoy the path leading there. Selling friends into slavery, killing innocents, using force grip for fun, I'll do my best to be as evil as I can possibly be. I'll do it all and try to laugh at the pitiful fools who stand in my way. [quote]

There are two points on the dark path that are SOOOOOOO evil that I had real trouble clicking the evil option. But I was bound and determined to be a Sith Lord so I did. That game is the best RPG ever made. Absolutely fantastic how cool the good and evil routes are.

Hmm, maybe i should play it again :)

Dan

[Jason McCullough]

Is it better than Fallout 2? You know, the game where you could pimp your spouse out, sell 'em into slavery, then return and tell their Dad what you did, giving him a fatal heart attack.

[Sharpe]

Is it better than Fallout 2? You know, the game where you could pimp your spouse out, sell 'em into slavery, then return and tell their Dad what you did, giving him a fatal heart attack.

Well evil is subjective you know. But there's a certain thing you can make a certain person do to a certain other person thats pretty damn bad. Quite possibly worse than FO2.

Oh, small "style" bonus for this: in KOTOR as you go dark side your appearance becomes pasty and corpselike - you physically start looking a bit like Gollum. Its pretty damn cool.

[TheWombat]

Obviously (or it should be obvious), an SS clan with concentration camp tags or whatnot is not only in poor taste but is offensive; it's not roleplaying in any sense of the word and it brings RL stuff into the game in a most inappropriate way, in no way analogous to the fantasy race bias issue under discussion. Not to mention that "roleplaying" in the context of a shooter online is fairly ludicrous (and concentration camp stuff is utterly irrelevant to front line battles).

Personally I stay away from roleplaying servers on most of the MMOs I play (if they have them). I can't take the backstories seriously enough to participate.

[Mark Asher]

KOTOR has lesbian Jedis in it too, doesn't it? That must be some kind of ultimate geek fantasy.

[MattKeil]

Tell that to the sorry people who committed suicide because their Everquest friends turned on them Matt.

"Roleplaying against remotes is one thing, roleplaying against the living? That's something else" to paraphrase Han.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the evil RPers were not the root of the problem in that situation.

~MJK

[Anders Hallin]

KOTOR has lesbian Jedis in it too, doesn't it? That must be some kind of ultimate geek fantasy.
Damn it, I didn't intend to buy this game.

Anyway, I can almost never take the evil path either. I'm a do-gooder.

[Ryan A]

Is it racist to shoot Japs on BF:1942 (and secretly enjoy it)?

I don't think so, but then again I'd say you're racist for using the slur "Jap."

[SpoofyChop]

Gamers are so steeped in fantasies and virtual worlds that we can never believe that all of our make-believe could possibly have a detrimental effect.

If you think that way then it's you who need to get a grip.

Nobody would dare to suggest that the actions a persons "real world" friends cannot possibly drive them to commit suicide. But when you're defending your precious right to be a big fucking asshole online you scream bloody murder if anybody suggests it might cause problems.

Whenever we interact with people we can have a positive or negative impact on them. Just because the interaction happens over the internet does not mean that it is meaningless.

It's pretty ironic that all of the people that fought so hard to legitimize internet communities would so quickly change their tune when the going gets rough.

[SpoofyChop]

Tell that to the sorry people who committed suicide because their Everquest friends turned on them Matt.

"Roleplaying against remotes is one thing, roleplaying against the living? That's something else" to paraphrase Han.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the evil RPers were not the root of the problem in that situation.

~MJK

Hey Matt, did it hurt when you hit the ground after I sawed off the limb you were standing on just now?

:wink:

[Jason McCullough]

The correct racist term is "Nips". That's what Neal Stephenson told me, anyway.

[Jack]

I know society has become too sensitive when our own imaginations offend us. We're talking about a make-believe world with make-believe races. If this doesn't deserve a "get over it," nothing does.

Role-playing is only role-playing if everyone is nice? Imagine how bland movies and books would be if they were devoid of villains.

[Brian Rucker]

I'm impressed that such serious role-playing is going on in an MMORPG. When I played MUDs in the early and mid-90s, there were constant shouts about Tanya Harding and OJ Simpson and the previous night's Seinfeld, and the message boards were full of such pearls as "I could kick your ass in real life" and "Do you like Star Trek? I like Star Trek."

You'd be surprised, at least I was, by some settings in some places. I was fairly well convinced quality roleplaying was simply not possible on MMORPGs due to commercial considerations (gonna kick off a paying customer for not-roleplaying?) and limitations of game design - systems that rewarded OOC behavior and gamish attitudes toward the environment. Roleplaying seemed extremely out of place to me in my experience.

Unlike contemporary tabletop roleplaying or MUSH roleplaying the code of a MMORPG, or rules, wasn't there to expedite believable conflict, encourage immersive behavior or recreate a setting but rather it exists as its own be-all and end all or gaining personal power by whacking things. Sort of old school D&D with a comatose DM letting players run their own adventures, roll their own encounters and pick freely out of the treasure tables all day long, seven days a week. Anyone trying to roleplay around that table was really living in their own world and more of a distraction than a participant in the shared environment.

In SWG I've stumbled across quality roleplayers in fairly significant numbers, refugees from DAOC and AO seem to be the biggest slice and several of these are former EQers as well. There are also numbers of new MMORPGers, skeptical of previous incarnations, but drawn by the Star Wars setting. What's uncanny is a recent thread in my player city's forums and many folks are very close to my age with similiar backgrounds in Pencil and Paper gaming. Several others turned out, to their own surprise, to be old friends from something called The Red Dragon Inn (I think?) which was a pre-internet AOL roleplaying chatroom.

We do a huge amount of IC roleplaying including subplots, story arcs, unscripted and scripted events, as well as just bantering, plotting and dialogue. With elections now in player cities the roleplaying seems to be getting a finer point on it as issues of friendship or rivalry go from questions of personality to issues of potential power.

How long this can last and whether it can survive some pretty fatal conceptual flaws (freeform PvP in an environment in which /ban does not remove troublemakers from a city's boundaries) is still up in the air. But I'm very happily surprised to have met such good quality folks in such a high concentration, even as much as we fume and fight at times.

[SpoofyChop]

I know society has become too sensitive when our own imaginations offend us. We're talking about a make-believe world with make-believe races. If this doesn't deserve a "get over it," nothing does.

Role-playing is only role-playing if everyone is nice? Imagine how bland movies and books would be if they were devoid of villains.

Again, you are suggesting that pretending to be mean to somebody for pretend reasons cannot possibly make people angry or sad.

That is absurd. It happens all the time. People get frustrated and angry when they get killed in a MMORPG.

It's not like you just blithely say to yourself "Aha! Even though I spent three weeks building up my character and I was just PKd by somebody I thought was my friend, I will be happy because the whole thing was superbly role-played."

Now you guys are just being bloodyminded.

[Jack]

Again, you are suggesting that pretending to be mean to somebody for pretend reasons cannot possibly make people angry or sad.

I said that? Your subtext detector must be set at the angstrom level. Books, movies, MMORPGs, and even single-player games make people happy, sad, frustrated, angry, etc. Even message boards can be frustrating, huh? You could even argue that this realm is a form of role-playing.

The question isn't are these mediums causing emotions, but if they should cause emotions. Should we really be bothered if an online Dwarf has a hatred of Elves? To let something like that bother you* is probably a good reason to start taking psychotropic drugs.

* not specifically directed at anyone

[SpoofyChop]

Actually it's set for femtometers.

:D

[Angie Gallant]

It's not like you just blithely say to yourself "Aha! Even though I spent three weeks building up my character and I was just PKd by somebody I thought was my friend, I will be happy because the whole thing was superbly role-played."

Errr... yes, I do. When roleplaying I never get that attached to a character that it's death causes me any level of upset. MMORPG, MUSH, tabletop, it makes no difference. It's a construct to play a game and tell a story through and is disposable. I would say the people who get upset over character death have a problem, unfortunately the majority of people who roleplay overidentify with their characters and become irrationally protective of them. This isn't a necessary fascet of roleplaying, it's just a common trait and not a positive one. A person attacking you for real world properties is something that's understandable to get upset about, my character calling your character "another fucking worthless drow" is not.

[SpoofyChop]

I don't know anybody else who is like you Angie...

:D

[Brian Koontz]

I can't wait to play KOTOR and find out how ignorant the developers are about "evil".

Everyone thinks they are doing the right thing. Evil is a judgement by someone, using a set of morals, that the thing in question is "not good". Humorously is a kind of demonization and falsification of evil... it no longer becomes realistic but is treated as merely the caricatured antithesis of the existent... that which calls itself "Good". Notice that evil often looks fake, unreasonable, or insane... most "horror" movies, for example.

Reality is not comprised of "the good", its comprised of "the existent". So if Germany had won World War II the living humans would all be sitting around saying how great racism (and the Aryan race) is and how evil it is to be non-racist.

Yet how seriously and devoutly SpoofyChop appreciates the morals which happen to currently exist. He cheers the existent while mistaking it for the good. He apparently thinks that whichever army is more powerful has the greater morals... so what would he (or more accurately, the altered SpoofyChop existing in that alternate reality) be thinking right now if Germany had the more powerful army?

Alternate SpoofyChop is busy burning books written by "lesser species" and saying that he won't allow anyone to portray "evil" beings in games, because damnit, Hitler is the source of all morality by virtue of having won that war.

[MattKeil]

Tell that to the sorry people who committed suicide because their Everquest friends turned on them Matt.

"Roleplaying against remotes is one thing, roleplaying against the living? That's something else" to paraphrase Han.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the evil RPers were not the root of the problem in that situation.

~MJK

Hey Matt, did it hurt when you hit the ground after I sawed off the limb you were standing on just now?

:wink:

Nope, not at all, because you're out of your tree. If I may be permitted to club a metaphor to death. :wink:

~MJK

[MattKeil]

Gamers are so steeped in fantasies and virtual worlds that we can never believe that all of our make-believe could possibly have a detrimental effect.

If you think that way then it's you who need to get a grip.

Correction: I'm aware that fantasies and virtual worlds are just that, and as such should not have a detrimental effect on a healthy mind. Hence, I have a very firm grip, thanks.

Nobody would dare to suggest that the actions a persons "real world" friends cannot possibly drive them to commit suicide. But when you're defending your precious right to be a big fucking asshole online you scream bloody murder if anybody suggests it might cause problems.

Any problems it causes are the problems of the nutbars being upset by it. It's the equivalent of the guy playing Banquo being upset with the guy playing Macbeth because he though Macbeth was his friend. It's absolute lunacy.

Whenever we interact with people we can have a positive or negative impact on them. Just because the interaction happens over the internet does not mean that it is meaningless.

The meaning of the interaction varies according to the expectations of those interacting. If you're in a roleplaying game that involved prejudices, conflict, and/or combat, you'd damn well better expect that not everyone is going to be wonderful and kind. At the same time, you should damn well be aware that such behavior is PART OF THE GAME.

It angers me when someone is being an ass by scrolling or cheating or refusing to help me because my character "looks gay" or other such nonsense. If I'm an orc and a human blacksmith is roleplaying not wanting to do business with me, I'm hardly going to be offended out of character. If anything, I should thank the other player for helping support the illusion of the game world.

It's pretty ironic that all of the people that fought so hard to legitimize internet communities would so quickly change their tune when the going gets rough.

Tune seems pretty constant to me: It's a game. Get over it.

~MJK

[MattKeil]

I can't wait to play KOTOR and find out how ignorant the developers are about "evil".

Well, ignorance is not really a factor in the Star Wars universe, as good and evil are actually definable things due to the nature of the Force. Which is probably one reason people latch on to the simplistic morality found in myths of that nature.

What passes for "evil" in KotOR seems to be selfishness or the refusal to put others' well-being before your own. To some degree, it's harder than being good because you have to be ready to fight anyone and everyone you interact with. On the other hand, it lets you be underhanded and greedy, so you make far more money than you do playing a Light Side character.

You also turn all white and veiny.

~MJK

[Tim Partlett]

I don't think so, but then again I'd say you're racist for using the slur "Jap."

My apologies if you found my use of that term offensive. In the UK saying Jap for Japanese is the same as saying Aussie for Australian, at least that has always been my perception. I guess that's because we don't have any recent historical issues with the Japanese, like in America. I should be more aware of international sensibilities, though, so I'll mark that one down for future reference. If it makes you feel any better, I made the comment to raise an issue, and not because I enjoy shooting Japanese soldiers in BF:1942, in fact quite the opposite. I normally choose to play as Japanese or Germans, as I take a kind of perverse pleasure in playing the bad guys. My German friend likes to play as British or Americans, so we have some interesting games when we are on the same server.

[RichardC]

Not that it's a word I've ever used, but I'm not aware of it being a slur over here either, especially since we and just about everyone else in the English speaking world uses 'Brits'. It's not even up there with 'Yanks', 'Frogs' and 'Krauts' as nicknames.

[Fussbett]

I don't know anybody else who is like you Angie...
It's not surprising to hear that you're surrounded by whacked out people.

[Sean Tudor]

Not that it's a word I've ever used, but I'm not aware of it being a slur over here either, especially since we and just about everyone else in the English speaking world uses 'Brits'. It's not even up there with 'Yanks', 'Frogs' and 'Krauts' as nicknames.

Well most people here use the term "Whinging Poms" rather than "Brits". :wink: Brits does sound nicer though.

And saying "Japs" is often considered a derogatory term and is mostly used by war veterans here.

[Ryan A]

First, a disclaimer: I am about as anti-Politically Correct as they come and think most people who get offended by language just need thicker skin.

Secondly, an explanation:

I think the reasons most Americans don't get offended by the term "Yank" and most British don't get offended by the term "Brit" (and people from New Zealand actually seem to take pride in the term "Kiwi") is that none of those groups have ever been oppressed because of the fact that they are Yanks, Brits, or Kiwis.

As an American... one who the PC crowd would like to hyphenate into a Japanese-American... I can say the "Jap" thing is a touchy one... what with my grandparents having all their property stolen and being shipped off to prison camps simply becuase of their ethnic background - they were American through and through. Even 50 years later, I've never heard a fellow American use the term "Jap" affectionately... On the countrary, living in a rural area, I've heard it in the same vein one might here the "N-word."

That said, Mr. Partlett: I spoke glibly and hastily... I don't think you're a racist and don't even harbor ill will towards you now that I know your frame of reference... As far as I know, the U.K. was too busy surviving the war to begin imprisoning its own citizens without just cause...

Now... if anybody is still reading... I read some interesting and (in my opinion) rather stupid opinions about Fantasy as a genre: including books, games, movies, etc. Tolkien (whose work inspired every RPG fantasy setting imo) has been accused of being RACIST for the way he created Middle Earth, (C.S. Lewis was included in this as well for his Narnia) due to the fact that the people who lived in the "England-liike" climates were "good" while those in the warm southern lands (apparently a parallel to the Mid East and Africa) were "bad." Thoughts?

[Walter Yarbrough]

Jumping back to the original DAoC "race" roleplaying concept.

Shadowclan is a kobold only guild. They remain in character extensively in game, and tend to play their race to the hilt - extolling kobold superiority and communicating in 'kobold'. (at times even submitting appeals in kobold, which crosses the line for me (but I am not a CSR, that's just my opinion))

Also, the Lurikeen Resistance is a lurikeen only guild established on the Palomides server, although they eventually bent the rules to allow Firbolg "servants"

Significant changes to the game from the above.

1) A class was opened up to Lurikeens, Heros, because they lacked tanks

2) "Race" and "Class" restrictions were added to player housing. Owners of houses such as the Shadowclan can make their houses 'kobold only' if they wish. Discussion during implementation of this led to us also allowing class restrictions - so that Paladins could have a holy house without the influence of necromancers, reavers and cabalists, if they wish. (And vice versa)

-Walt

[Jack]

I read some interesting and (in my opinion) rather stupid opinions about Fantasy as a genre: including books, games, movies, etc. Tolkien (whose work inspired every RPG fantasy setting imo) has been accused of being RACIST for the way he created Middle Earth, (C.S. Lewis was included in this as well for his Narnia) due to the fact that the people who lived in the "England-liike" climates were "good" while those in the warm southern lands (apparently a parallel to the Mid East and Africa) were "bad." Thoughts?

That's an interesting observation. It's probably a case of unintentional allegory, where bits of the writer's subconscious seep into the fiction. Still, it's that type of stuff that makes fiction analysis fun.

Come to think of it, fantasy-world foozles tend to be from what are commonly called "extreme" climates. There's more to this than racism. It has to do with fear of the unknown and fear of being "out of your element." This is a generalization, I know, but I'm at work and not disposed to writing a Freudian deconstruction of fantasy literature.

[Chris Nahr]

It's probably a case of unintentional allegory, where bits of the writer's subconscious seep into the fiction. Still, it's that type of stuff that makes fiction analysis fun.

Calling such an obvious element of Tolkien's carefully crafted fantasy mythology "subconscious" is ridiculous and insulting. At Tolkien's time England was neither racially diverse nor afflicted with the blight of political correctness. His good guys are those whose myths he researched, those who looked like him and his people. The bad guys look different. Simple as that.

[Jack]

It's probably a case of unintentional allegory, where bits of the writer's subconscious seep into the fiction. Still, it's that type of stuff that makes fiction analysis fun.

Calling such an obvious element of Tolkien's carefully crafted fantasy mythology "subconscious" is ridiculous and insulting. At Tolkien's time England was neither racially diverse nor afflicted with the blight of political correctness. His good guys are those whose myths he researched, those who looked like him and his people. The bad guys look different. Simple as that.

Whoa, Chris. Far be it from me to cast any semblance of human fallicy upon the Mighty T-man. I must have forgotten that he was of such tremendous literary might as to be completely aware of any subtext which could ever be gleaned from his chrome-polished fiction.

Nor did I realize I claimed he was subject to political correctness. I realize the fact that I never stated such an absurdity would not stop you from reading such into my writing. I must have written it in those fine spaces between the words; this only proves my literary skill is but a gram of what T has to offer, as I must be victim of the dirty, dirty unconscious mind worming its way into my words. Lucky for me you have a sharp eye!

My deepest, most sincere apologies. I'm sure there's a effigy One Ring I can burn to atone for this.

[spacerat]

It's probably a case of unintentional allegory, where bits of the writer's subconscious seep into the fiction. Still, it's that type of stuff that makes fiction analysis fun.

Calling such an obvious element of Tolkien's carefully crafted fantasy mythology "subconscious" is ridiculous and insulting. At Tolkien's time England was neither racially diverse nor afflicted with the blight of political correctness. His good guys are those whose myths he researched, those who looked like him and his people. The bad guys look different. Simple as that.

Moreover Tolkein's antipathy towards allegory is pretty well documented (I'm pretty sure Tolkein himself outlines this in one of his forewards to Lord of the Rings; I dont have a copy handy), so if Tolkein was prone to include anything subconciously, I really doubt it would be allegory. I think he really was very sure of what he was writing...

[Jack]

Moreover Tolkein's antipathy towards allegory is pretty well documented (I'm pretty sure Tolkein himself outlines this in one of his forewards to Lord of the Rings; I dont have a copy handy), so if Tolkein was prone to include anything subconciously, I really doubt it would be allegory. I think he really was very sure of what he was writing...

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Maybe "allegory" might not have been the right word. That almost implies consciousness. A fiction writer can never be completely aware of all things he has written; plenty of things drawn from literary criticism were not within the writer's scope or even his knowledge, no matter how high the pedistal we put him on. Tolkein's disdain for interpretation of his works doesn't preclude people from deconstructing his writing. And it doesn't invalidate any such deconstruction. We're all human, and reading into art is also an art form.

I was just musing about Ryan's post. I thought it was an interesting point, and I wasn't just writing about Tolkein. If anyone takes offense that I would dare suggest that Tolkein may have been unaware of some allegorical angle, please ignore my comment and stay warm and comfy in your middle-earth coccoon. I really didn't mean to stir up the "Tolkein was the best evar!" arguments.

[spacerat]

I was just musing about Ryan's post. I thought it was an interesting point, and I wasn't just writing about Tolkein. If anyone takes offense that I would dare suggest that Tolkein may have been unaware of some allegorical angle, please ignore my comment and stay warm and comfy in your middle-earth coccoon. I really didn't mean to stir up the "Tolkein was the best evar!" arguments.

Understood, I didnt meant to come across as preachy. I love LOTR, but I certainly dont believe that it or Tolkein is beyond reproach. I guess it was just the word 'allegory' that stuck out at me.

[Rollory]

Calling such an obvious element of Tolkien's carefully crafted fantasy mythology "subconscious" is ridiculous and insulting. At Tolkien's time England was neither racially diverse nor afflicted with the blight of political correctness. His good guys are those whose myths he researched, those who looked like him and his people. The bad guys look different. Simple as that.

It is worth noting that Tolkien lived much of his life in South Africa.

[Mike Hussey]

It is worth noting that Tolkien lived much of his life in South Africa.

It's also worth noting that he spoke out against the proponents of apartheid.

[Tim Partlett]

Tolkien was born in South Africa, but left when he was only three years old. I wouldn't call that "much" of his life, and wouldn't think that it influenced anything that he wrote. His parents weren't South African either, and just spent a few years there, during which time he was born.

[Desslock]

It is worth noting that Tolkien lived much of his life in South Africa.

No, it's not, and it's also completely untrue.

[Ryan A]

While it's certainly politically incorrect to say such things these days, here goes:

I'm pretty sure Tolkien intentionally went about the the task of myth-making in creating Middle Earth. I'm also pretty sure sure he used the English as the inspiration for the noble but sleepy-headed Hobbits. Further, I think it would stand to reason that Tolkien thought fairly highly of his own culture... probably even thought of it as superior to other cultures.

Does this make the man a racist? I certainly don't think so, although I'm sure others would disagree.

Question: Is it bigotry/prejudice/racist if it is...

a) true
and
b) without malice

To make a Middle Earth example: would it be wrong to state that the culture of the Shire is a better... nicer culture than the culture of Modor?

[XPav]

David Brin (a scifi writer who's written some good stuff) had a "Lord of the Rings from the other side" piece.

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/12/17/tolkien_brin/index.html

Yes, I'm having fun with words like "really" -- relating to a made-up story. But come along with me for a minute: Next time you reread LOTR, count the number of powerful beings who are vastly uglier than anybody with that kind of power would allow themselves to be. Why? How does being grotesquely ugly help you govern an empire?

Then unleash your imagination a bit further.

Ask yourself: "How would Sauron have described the situation?"

And then: "What might 'really' have happened?"

Now ponder something that comes through even the party-line demonization of a crushed enemy -- this clear-cut and undeniable fact: Sauron's army was the one that included every species and race on Middle Earth, including all the despised colors of humanity, and all the lower classes.

Hmm. Did they all leave their homes and march to war thinking, "Oh, goody, let's go serve an evil Dark Lord"?

Or might they instead have thought they were the "good guys," with a justifiable grievance worth fighting for, rebelling against an ancient, rigid, pyramid-shaped, feudal hierarchy topped by invader-alien elfs and their Numenorean-colonialist human lackeys?

Picture, for a moment, Sauron the Eternal Rebel, relentlessly maligned by the victors of the War of the Ring -- the royalists who control the bards and scribes (and moviemakers). Sauron, champion of the common Middle Earthling! Vanquished but still revered by the innumerable poor and oppressed who sit in their squalid huts, wary of the royal secret police with their magical spy-eyes, yet continuing to whisper stories, secretly dreaming and hoping that someday he will return ... bringing more rings.

[Silverlight]

To make a Middle Earth example: would it be wrong to state that the culture of the Shire is a better... nicer culture than the culture of Mordor?
If it were wrong to regard Mordor's "culture" as anything but the worst sort compared to the Shire, it would be hard to find a better example of the excesses of cultural relativism.

[Bill Dungsroman]

You know what else is bad in games? Killing people. Let's ban that along with racism.

Pardon my French (stupid French!), but this has got to be one of the stupidest fucking arguments ever.

BDR