Here's a thought: could it be that some people don't want or like to play a racist PC because they don't want to spoil the other players' fun?

that's fine. nobody has to play a racist PC. but that doesn't mean that racism in SR has to be a black and white (heh!) issue. the problem isn't what people play, it's what the game presents as being playable.

I think the books convey a world rife with prejudice, but the stuff is generally written (and the shadowtalk exclusively written) from the point of view of Shadowrunners, who are hardly representative.

Shadowrunners tend to see a bit more of the world, they tend to work with lots of different people and races, they live more day-to-day, and if they've survived it's probable that they're a) fairly liberal on these matters, b) fairly tactful and unwilling to offend potential allies in the Shadows, or c) total monsters who don't give a rat's arse what you think of them.

except that lots of runners come from environments where racism would be how things run. all those ex-corp, ex-Yak, ex-mob runners? most of them should be pretty distrustful of metahumans, at the least. they were raised in that environment, and the stuff people learn when they're kids stays with them in one form or another for the rest of their lives. and it's not just tact, either; shadowposters actively deride racist posters. there should be a lot fewer b) and a lot more c).

which is exactly the problem.

So are you arguing that the SR books aren't realistic because there isn't enough racism (considered or otherwise) in them? Or that they are realistic but you take issue with Captain Chaos's editing?

neither. i take issue with the fact that racism in SR is a cartoonish parody, which naturally leads to guys like Captain Chaos and Fastjack dismissing it out of hand. the only reason Captain Chaos and Fastjack have an anti-anti bias is that the writing direction already has an anti-anti bias to begin with. racism shouldn't be something you can dismiss out of hand. Fastjack should have to defend his Humanis assistant programmer--"yeah, he's a racist and i hate it, but he's the qualified for the job." stuff like that.

I wouldn't say they're unrealistic, merely very strongly biaised while being presented as being neutral fact. Sure, IC, we're all well aware it's being slanted by Captain Chaos (or whoever is shouting down the idiot Humanis this time), and it adds flavor or whatever. But the thing is, it's a game book -- it's all the resource we get on a given subject, OOC, and the Humanis (or Sons of Sauron, or what-have-you) don't ever really get the chance, OOC, to state their side seriously. Sure, it's cool that in character Captain Chaos (despite proclaiming that knowledge should be free for everyone) puts his foot down and stands up for what he believes in, or whatever... but the end result is unrealistically slanted sourcebook material, that leaves you thinking all anti-meta racists are inbred rednecks who can't string together a sentence without cursing four times.

I think racism as presented in SR is fine. You want more, put it in yourself.

When designing a game world for publication, you WANT to downplay such themes or otherwise make them simple and as negative as possible. So you make what few racists you do put in mostly idiots and rednecks.

You do this because you are publishing a product designed for many different people with wildly differing sensibilities about the subject. You expect those that want more gritty and detailed content on racism to put it in themselves, in their home games.

Can you imagine the public backlash against any game that presented racism as anything but stupid and evil? You stick one subtle, effective, highly intelligent racist in your game and you'll get masses screaming that you, the publisher, support racism and bigotry. Regardless of what the context of who this NPC is.

Keeping subjects like racism simplistic is simply a factor of smart publishing design.


-karma

I'm just speculating about the depressingly common habit humans have of being offended by everything. How many "I'm offended by X" lawsuits and bills were filed last year?

While I'd like to hope that gamers on average are of smarter stock, I can't help but feel that more than a few folks would use this as an excuse to get offended.

God forbid the media got wind of it. We had enough trouble in the 80s convincing the public we weren't all satanists.


-karma

So you really think one of the "in the club" shadowtalk posters being an eloquent, reasonable, rational, well spoken, competent Shadowrunner that was also a subtle-but-noticeable trog-hater would get Shadowrun international media attention, and lawsuits?

I do agree with Jong, but when I reflect back on my gaming life I remember a number of occasions where there was unpleasantness such as racism flying around within the player team. While it was aggravating at the time, I can't deny that it was dramatically effective and created memorable conflicts.

This may miss some things that have now been covered. I had typed most of it out and then I got swamped at work.

'morning.

Yes, because because presidential and gubernatorial cannidates are hicks.

And when it was revealed that the real Kenneth Brakhaven was an ork who was murdered by his own father and replaced with an imposter the verified imposter and card-carrying humanis member actually becomes more popular.

Brackhaven is associated almost exclusivly with Humanis, which means hicks.

Oh hell, I almost forgot. SL James, I owe you an apology. I went flippant in response to that post last night, because I misread some things that you had posted and wrote off responding seriously as not worth the time. You can pretty much ignore that post for any actual attempt at content. Sorry about that.

I have to say, I'm a little bit baffled. I see a number of people criticizing the portrayal of racism in Shadowrun, but I see few suggestions from them on what might be a correct portrayal, aside from very broad and vague examples like "more realistic" and "less stupid."

Racism in Shadowrun tends to be portrayed in the extremes because those are the major plot points that spin off shadowruns. Alamo 20k leads to shadowruns. The middle classed guy down the street who makes off-color remarks about metahumans may be racist too, but he doesn't typically lead to shadowruns. That variety of racism is part of the mix that creates the Sixth World, like the facts of life of street crime, gang violence, and poverty. Poverty isn't directly mentioned much in Shadowrun either, but we know it exists, and we see extreme examples (or caricatures) like the Barrens.

Also, low key racism doesn't express very well in the written format of Shadowrun books. I could have a shadowtalk poster who dismisses everything an ork runner says out of hand or never replies to them at all, and readers might never make the connection that he's racist. Caricatures, while simplistic, do translate to the reader clearly, at least.

On the other side of the debate, people are talking about characters playing racists, which I think is entirely seperate from this debate. I think what is mostly being discussed is a portrayal of part of the setting, not encouraging players to play it. Like mfb mentioned, just because organlegging is part of the setting doesn't mean we're encouraging players to harvest people (though, I've read here about players doing it!).

Gee, wouldn't it be wonderful if racial tensions were handled as sensitively as that in SR? Like I said in my first post, there are people who survived the Night of Rage, but it's glossed over like it happened long, long ago. Back then. Thirty years is not that long ago.

Sorry if this has been said before. But didn't Surge have a large impact in flaring up racial (Or at least discriminatory) hatred again. The big riots and all that. Humanis blaming Metas for the plague. Not that anyone bought it.

See what the world needs is another VITAS douching. It'll bring everyone back together again. But then they'd just blame it on Catgirls so back to square one.

People underwent SURGE?

Hm... Could have fooled me.

To answer the topic's question of

Another thought just occurred. Writers tend to focus on the dramatic. Presumably because readers tend to enjoy the dramatic. [EDIT: I'm a scientist. Trust me I often hate this about the world.] I've written a story before with some characters who were, IMO, 'realistic racists': that attitude and opinion is there, but it's subtle. In fact you probably wouldn't notice it, if the story didn't directly concern those issues. I suspect there is room to infer such attitudes in many SR characters, but unfortunately in SR as in this world it is the unsubtle, the simplistic, and the dramatic that tend to be heard and noticed. Maybe it shouldn't be, but there you go.

Stop confusing drama with melodrama.

Don't reckon I have. But it's a mighty thin line.

i think James' point is that the Night of Rage is treated as history, like the Revolutionary War or something, rather than something that just happened.

i have, indeed, poked my head into that thread, eidolon.

And the civil rights movement is treated as history. In other words, it's a pretty accurate way of handling it in my opinion.

We as a society take great pains to pretend problems don't exist (especially when they don't directly relate to us). Why would people be any different in the SR world in that regard? And since people write the history, news, etc...

the civil rights movement is treated as history that has a very real impact on how we live our lives and interact with others. the war between Rhodes and Byzantium in the 2nd century BC? that we treat as history.