Full Version: Arise, humanity!
| QUOTE (knasser) |
| When a person comes out with something distasteful, whether it's racism or rape or any of the rest, it's not unreasonable to want to reassure yourself that this is not actually coming from their genuine desires or beliefs. With a machine-gun wielding troll mowing down dozens of security guards, it's usually apparent that it stems not from a genuine need to murder but from a video game mentality that doesn't really attach any emotional significance to things. When a more realistic and close to home thing appears, its very realism puts it on a different level. Hence a desire for reassurance and a common uncomfortability in playing such a character amongst players. |
"Common uncomfortability?" No offense, but I'm not sure it's as common as you think it is. Many groups are able to handle this sort of thing just fine. If you don't want to play a racist, that's fine. Not all groups work that way.
Just because someone plays an elf-hater doesn't mean they're racist against real people. You seem to get that. But you also seem to assume that other people don't, because you talk about how others will perceive someone who plays such a character. Again, this may be the way your group works; it is not the way all groups work. Many of us are in groups full of players who are able to seperate In Character from Out of Character. I don't need to restrict my choices in character creation in order to convince the people I play with that I'm not a racist; it's already as obvious to them as the fact that I'm not a machine-gun wielding troll who mows down dozens of security guards.
I think if we had to draw the line somewhere, we could do it between a character that represents a racist attitude, and a character that glorifies a racist attitude.
| QUOTE (knasser) | ||||
Absolutely true - different thresholds for different people. But my point was that it's a lot more likely that someone has racist beliefs than that they are a "slave broker". How distasteful someone finds something is a factor in whether they will play such a character. But the factor I was raising was how likely it is that others will perceive the player as having such traits. Some things, you just want to put distance between you and it.
If by mind playing them you mean I don't, no. I do have racist NPCs, though I play their attitudes as believable and not as caricatures. If you mean does it make me a little uncomfortable sometimes, then yes, a little.
When a person comes out with something distasteful, whether it's racism or rape or any of the rest, it's not unreasonable to want to reassure yourself that this is not actually coming from their genuine desires or beliefs. With a machine-gun wielding troll mowing down dozens of security guards, it's usually apparent that it stems not from a genuine need to murder but from a video game mentality that doesn't really attach any emotional significance to things. When a more realistic and close to home thing appears, its very realism puts it on a different level. Hence a desire for reassurance and a common uncomfortability in playing such a character amongst players. |
Whether it is alot more likely or not depends on where you are and who you play with. Playing with all caucasian males means racism is as common an "issue" as slavery.
Besides since racism is socially unacceptable, (just like murder, rape, etc.) it is easier to play. I remember when I played my racist elf that was prejudiced against humans, the DM changed his alignment from good to neutral.
If I always played racist characters and tried to justify out of game, I understand people could get ideas. But I like to have a clear distinction between game and RL. I've also played characters that society is biased against, for example I was playing a black man in an Al-Quadim setting, that also was a fire mage. So people was prejudiced against blacks (most people looked middle-eastern) as well as whites, but if they found out I was a fire mage they'd probably burn me at a stake. It was challenging playing a character everyone mistrusted (and he was shady as well, but a new experience. Would I like to experience that in RL? Of course not.
But let's face it, prejudice is ineherent in humans and I think a game without it is not as believable. Heck, even aliens, metahumans and other fantastical creatures are often preudiced some way or another, be it the Centauri/Narn hatred in B5, Orcs hating every other race in D&D, or HP in SR.
As for the racist NPCs, how do you think people portray them as "caricatures"? That the characters have no redeeming quality at all? Something else?
| QUOTE (knasser) | ||||||
Urk - sorry! Was typing from memory. Assumed that there was only the one ronin. *Runs*  |
LOL!
| QUOTE (CircuitBoyBlue) |
| "Common uncomfortability?" No offense, but I'm not sure it's as common as you think it is. Many groups are able to handle this sort of thing just fine. If you don't want to play a racist, that's fine. Not all groups work that way. |
No offense taken, but I'm not sure it's as uncommon as you think. Seriously, we're both talking about our own experiences, but I'm not saying that all groups are this way. I'm saying that it's common enough that we are all familiar with what I'm talking about. I've been playing and GM'ing RPGs for over a decade. I see people avoid lots of unpleasant things, such as racism, rape, whist simultaneously playing villainous murderers. The reason for this seems to me to be almost certainly that the distance between things like racism and the player is a lot less than it is between the player and mowing down security guards with a machine gun. To be absolutely clear here, when I say distance between the player and the activity, I am measuring that distance in three things: personal experience with that thing, certainty that one is free of such beliefs / desires and finally the risk that one may be perceived by the other players as condoning or enjoying such beliefs / desires.
When I've seen someone role-playing a character that has issues that are close to home, I also see a counter-action on the part of the player to distance himself from that character, comments to other players that emphasize that he is not that character.
This all seems very natural to me as does it being less common that someone would want to play such a character. After all, many of us play because we want to play someone better or freer than ourselves. We want to play characters we admire or would like to be.
Now this is all that I said originally and all that I'm still saying. I'm not sure why I'm getting comments that "it's not as common as I think it is" when most of us probably have come across such distancing if we've played with someone who runs such a character and when the reasons above are quite understandable to all of us. And if people disagree that there's a difference between distant evils (mowing down a shopping centre with an LMG) and close to home evils such as racism or rape, then tell me honestly that it wouldn't cause a player in your group to want to emphasize that they weren't reflecting some aspect of themselves when the GM asks them what their character is going to do after the run and they reply that their character is going to go out and beat up some niggers or rape someone or set fire to the local mosque. Honestly? That's not uncomfortable for people? That would pass for casual role-playing colour in your game? In mine and I am absolutely certain most peoples, the player that said that would be making it darn clear that they are not that character at all and a lot of players would do this by not making such a character in the first place.
Fuchs and CircuitBoyBlue, I haven't said that your groups act this way, but I stand by exactly what I said when I said that it is common to be uncomfortable with such things. Normal, in fact.
It sounds a little patronising when you say "many groups are able to handle this sort of thing just fine" implying that there's something lacking in the groups that I've run.
| QUOTE (CircuitBoyBlue) |
Just because someone plays an elf-hater doesn't mean they're racist against real people. You seem to get that. But you also seem to assume that other people don't, because you talk about how others will perceive someone who plays such a character. |
Yep. That's my point exactly. Believe me, if you joined my group and you said that your character made a habit of beating the shit out of gays, I have zero doubt that you would feel the need to clarify that you were only playing this character because you were interested in the role-playing aspects and not because you wanted to express such desires yourself. And that isn't because of what my groups are like, that's the situation in any game where you're not confident that everyone else knows you don't hold those beliefs (unless those beliefs are acceptable in that group, of course).
| QUOTE (CircuitBoyBlue) |
| Again, this may be the way your group works; it is not the way all groups work. |
Check what I wrote. I never said it is the way that all groups work, I said it was common and I believe it is. Honestly, do you see legions of Shadowrunners out there engaged in violent acts of profitless murder? Yes, I'm afraid you do. See many engaged in casual rape? Not so much. Yet rape happens far more frequently in real life than murder does. Would it not be more realistic for the stats to be the other way around. Yes, it would, but people don't want to play that because far too many of us have someone we are close to that has had that happen to her. I'm not talking about your group, I'm saying it's common. And that I'm certain is correct.
| QUOTE |
| Many of us are in groups full of players who are able to seperate In Character from Out of Character. I don't need to restrict my choices in character creation in order to convince the people I play with that I'm not a racist; it's already as obvious to them as the fact that I'm not a machine-gun wielding troll who mows down dozens of security guards. |
Good for you - it stands out like a beacon that you are incapable of racism. Many people have less faith in their self-image and wish to safe-guard it. I think you'll have to agree that for most people it is not as obvious that they are not a racist as it is that they are not a machine-gun wielding troll.
| QUOTE (FriendoftheDork) |
| But let's face it, prejudice is ineherent in humans and I think a game without it is not as believable. |
I like to believe that racism can be overcome. Humanity is doomed if it can't be. But that's another issue. I think I should clarify, because people seem to be reading things other than what I've written and thinking that I have a racism free setting. I don't. If anyone hasn't read the in character fiction I posted earlier in the thread, now would be a good time because it shows exactly how I play racism in my game: effective and contagious.
| QUOTE (Friendofthedork) |
| As for the racist NPCs, how do you think people portray them as "caricatures"? That the characters have no redeeming quality at all? Something else? |
A caricature is where one trait is exagerated above others to make it the defining quality of the image. In this case, two dimensional characters whose sole motivation seems to consist of "I hate metas" or whatever. Caricatures are bad for believability in the game regardless of what particular aspect you are playing them for. Humanis in particular has a long history of caricature in the Shadowrun game. Right back to the first edition with its white-hooded lynchers. If you want a current example, there's an adventure outline in Emergence (left vague to avoid a spoiler) in which some members of Humanis get hold of a new weapon and race across town to let it off in the middle of a metahuman neighbourhood. No real motivation, no sophistication, no consideration of the vastly negative impact a bunch of card-carrying Humanis members deploying bio-weapons in the city will have. Just the same tired cliché of idiots that have no reality beyond appearing out of nowhere to present themselves as targets to the PCs (who it's is acceptable to shoot because they are, you know, Humanis). Humanis as presented in a lot of Shadowrun material over the editions are this implausibly popular group of mass-murderers. Check my PDF for a more realistic take on them.
-K.
| QUOTE (knasser) |
| Fuchs and CircuitBoyBlue, I haven't said that your groups act this way, but I stand by exactly what I said when I said that it is common to be uncomfortable with such things. Normal, in fact. It sounds a little patronising when you say "many groups are able to handle this sort of thing just fine" implying that there's something lacking in the groups that I've run. |
It also comes of as insulting when you represent your personal views on the matter as 'common' and 'normal' and 'natural', and imply the people who don't do things your way are 'unnatural', 'abnormal', or even scary.
I have to side with knasser on this one. While it is not uncommon for someone to roleplay a character that's absolutely nothing like oneself, it is also reasonable to recognize that many other players might be uncomfortable with your actions if they strike 'close to home'.
I remember being appalled reading an article on female gamers once (written by a female gamer), where the author actually felt that she needed to admonish other [male] gamers not to rape the female PC character! Now, someone might say that the action was in line with their characters makeup and they would never do such a thing in real life, but it struck me as exceptionally tasteless and offensive.
Circuit Boy Blue and Friend of the Dork: if you had a new female player in the group, and happened to be playing true scumbag criminals, would you be comfortable stating that your characters were going to spend their down time stalking and raping women? Would you be just a tiny bit worried that such talk might make the woman at the table uncomfortable?
While it's fun to take on different personalities and be somebody else in an RPG, I think we all have a responsibility to make sure we don't mess up anybody else's fun at the same time.
[Edit] Sorry, looking over this now, it sounds 'preachy' to me. That wasn't intended. Please feel free to ignore if you think I'm full of shit.
I remember being appalled reading an article on female gamers once (written by a female gamer), where the author actually felt that she needed to admonish other [male] gamers not to rape the female PC character! Now, someone might say that the action was in line with their characters makeup and they would never do such a thing in real life, but it struck me as exceptionally tasteless and offensive.
Circuit Boy Blue and Friend of the Dork: if you had a new female player in the group, and happened to be playing true scumbag criminals, would you be comfortable stating that your characters were going to spend their down time stalking and raping women? Would you be just a tiny bit worried that such talk might make the woman at the table uncomfortable?
While it's fun to take on different personalities and be somebody else in an RPG, I think we all have a responsibility to make sure we don't mess up anybody else's fun at the same time.
[Edit] Sorry, looking over this now, it sounds 'preachy' to me. That wasn't intended. Please feel free to ignore if you think I'm full of shit.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| I mean, if you're just posting it to show off one of your characters as an example of a justified metaracist (which I'm a-okay with, I've got more than my share), that's cool. But realize you're just, y'know, digging a hole here. |
...that is part of what I have been doing (not necessarily "trying" to dig the hole) to illustrate that a deep seeded prejudice can also be borne from a horribly negative personal experience as KK went through. I am not implying it is "good" or "right" because of the circumstance that spawned it, even though the character from her vantage point may believe it is. Several other posts since have pretty much said part of what I was going to say, particularly on the topic of distinction between RL and the game. KK is actually one of two characters I have designed with this flaw (and yes, I see it as a character flaw).
The other one was Leela. Her prejudice was Ethnic rather than racially driven being that she came from the Balkans which in the 2050s - 60s was a factionalised mess (which is why I threw the bone out about ethnic based prejudice earlier this thread). In some ways, this form of racism can be even worse as we have seen in the 1990s with the Serbo-Croatian war and the "Ethnic Cleansing" in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The feelings of animosity in this region have existed since the 19th century and in some cases go back even further. Again I agree, there is no moral justification for such behaviour but after nearly two centuries of ingrained mutual hatred, in Leela's case, it almost "came with the territory" so to say. Growing up in this kind of atmosphere can have a very profound effect on a person particularly when certain events occur during a critical time in one's life to reinforce the emotions. The one thing was I never got to play this out to the end as the character was retired earlier than planned.
An observation as to Alexander the greats chance of making general in the current US army - 0. He was openly bisexual and had a range of male partners.
As for Orks in the UCAS military? They'd run the place, but probably not so much the officer corps.
If you follow the line that the 'people' have 2's across the board and then wack on racial templates, and orks typically come from disadvantaged communities, orks are ideal targets for military recruitment.
They are no stupider than human recruits, but they are very strong and tough, and if the UCAS army continues the modern US army pitch of come work with us and we can pay for college, give you a steady job and make you into something better, poor orks are going to be getting alot of that message and will probably say yes to it in droves.
As a result the ranks of the army are going to be comprised completely dis proportionally of orks and trolls, while humans and elves (who are statistically more likely to come from better educated backgrounds and can afford university or gain admission into officer training corps, and in the case of elves have better leadership abilities out of the box) are going to occupy officer ranks, elves at a disproportionate level.
Also the army is going to spend lots of dollars recruiting mages, but structural limitations (if todays limits are preserved) prevent the paying of really big dollars to match the private sector, so poor orks are going to be a prime target - the army is happy to develop the skill so is will to 'buy up' and develop poor orks, whereas the private sector will, as today just poach knowledge worker specialists out of universities and the military with big salaries.
If you think that orks are on average stupider (not my philosophy that they have less great minds, but the same number of middling ones), they will be significantly less represented in the military than humans because based on current trending warfare is getting more complex and the demands on the intelligence of recruits is increasing.
The officer corps will have heavy elf representation as before.
As for Orks in the UCAS military? They'd run the place, but probably not so much the officer corps.
If you follow the line that the 'people' have 2's across the board and then wack on racial templates, and orks typically come from disadvantaged communities, orks are ideal targets for military recruitment.
They are no stupider than human recruits, but they are very strong and tough, and if the UCAS army continues the modern US army pitch of come work with us and we can pay for college, give you a steady job and make you into something better, poor orks are going to be getting alot of that message and will probably say yes to it in droves.
As a result the ranks of the army are going to be comprised completely dis proportionally of orks and trolls, while humans and elves (who are statistically more likely to come from better educated backgrounds and can afford university or gain admission into officer training corps, and in the case of elves have better leadership abilities out of the box) are going to occupy officer ranks, elves at a disproportionate level.
Also the army is going to spend lots of dollars recruiting mages, but structural limitations (if todays limits are preserved) prevent the paying of really big dollars to match the private sector, so poor orks are going to be a prime target - the army is happy to develop the skill so is will to 'buy up' and develop poor orks, whereas the private sector will, as today just poach knowledge worker specialists out of universities and the military with big salaries.
If you think that orks are on average stupider (not my philosophy that they have less great minds, but the same number of middling ones), they will be significantly less represented in the military than humans because based on current trending warfare is getting more complex and the demands on the intelligence of recruits is increasing.
The officer corps will have heavy elf representation as before.
| QUOTE (Apathy) |
| Circuit Boy Blue and Friend of the Dork: if you had a new female player in the group, and happened to be playing true scumbag criminals, would you be comfortable stating that your characters were going to spend their down time stalking and raping women? Would you be just a tiny bit worried that such talk might make the woman at the table uncomfortable? While it's fun to take on different personalities and be somebody else in an RPG, I think we all have a responsibility to make sure we don't mess up anybody else's fun at the same time. [Edit] Sorry, looking over this now, it sounds 'preachy' to me. That wasn't intended. Please feel free to ignore if you think I'm full of shit. |
Actually it's funny that you're mentioning just that, because this is exactly what happened when I played Gurps: Rome. My character, being a greek mercenary actually asked a roman emmisary if it was ok to "take" the woman he was traveling with and even give her to his underlings for group rape. And yes the female character was indeed played by a female player.
Said female character also beat up 2 of my chars. mercenaries when their advances became too much. I don't doubt for a second that the girl was OK with the whole scene, as later that evening her character seized a soldier by his neck and made love to him.
Also, in some downtime the same night he expressed regret that Alexander didn't allow him and the rest of the army to rape any women in Persepolis. Instead he looted some mansions, claimed a slave as his own and probably killed anyone that got in his way.
Does that mean I condone such behavior? No, of course not, but I didn't have to say it.
| QUOTE (Knasser) |
| I like to believe that racism can be overcome. Humanity is doomed if it can't be. But that's another issue. I think I should clarify, because people seem to be reading things other than what I've written and thinking that I have a racism free setting. I don't. If anyone hasn't read the in character fiction I posted earlier in the thread, now would be a good time because it shows exactly how I play racism in my game: effective and contagious. |
Racism might be overcome, but hardly prejudice. People are always going to be scared of what they don't know, or jump to conlusions. If you have never been assaulted in all your life by your people or group, then suddenly are violently mugged by someone of a different group, it's very easy to be wary or even scared of that whole group even though it defies logic. And humanity will never be solely ruled by logic.
I've read your fiction and as I said earlier in this thread, excelent work! I think your presentation of racism in your game is very good, and I'll probably consider playing such a character (the HP) just to make my group shiver in horror
I've even used some of the same propaganda in my own game, which caused Uzz the elf to want to murder Kenneth Brackhaven 
Exactly what is normal or not in groups depends too much on location and milieu I think so that you can't really know if racism or rape is usually avoided in groups. If you make a worldwide poll, you can tell us the results but until then you can only tell us your experience, as we have done.
This is one of the reasons that I make it painfully clear before I agree to run a game that in my campaigns nothing is strictly off limits (I do tend to "Fade to Black" when necessary however.), if you are captured by a troll ganger who likes to rape humans up the ass then your character is very likely to get sodimized, and if you think one of your teamates might be stalking you in his free time then you had better do something about it in-character before he strikes.
Of course, I also have a VERY STRICT IC/OOC Barrier, if I ever find out that you are a fucked-up freak in real life then you are gone, no second chances.
Of course, I also have a VERY STRICT IC/OOC Barrier, if I ever find out that you are a fucked-up freak in real life then you are gone, no second chances.
| QUOTE (Mercer) |
| I think if we had to draw the line somewhere, we could do it between a character that represents a racist attitude, and a character that glorifies a racist attitude. |
Well put, Mercer.
KK plays a character who is Dain Bramaged. Doesn't mean that KK wishes he were, in real life, Dain Bramaged. It's a *negative* Quality. Difficulty establishing trust with elves, even when the elf in question is a known and proven ally, is kinda like a negative Quality. (Caution with unknown elves, when some elves are hunting you, is reasonable adaptive behavior.)
I played in a 1940s Golden Age of Superheroes campaign. My character was white, upper class, and he *started out* thinking of nonwhites as inferior. Another character played a masked mysterious avenger, of mixed race. When my PC eventually learned that PC's race, I took it as an opportunity for my PC to accept that at least one mulatto was a true hero and thus to question his assumptions about race in general. If I had taken a Negative Quality that made him stubbornly unable to change his worldview, I would have played differently... but playing a character who was unable to learn and grow probably wouldn't be much fun for me in general.
For what it's worth, I'm generally much more into the Robin Hood aspect of Shadowrun. "Racism is off limits, but kidnapping children as involuntary organ donors is OK?" is a straw man for me. If my PC discovers that he's been hired for that sort of job, then the next part of the story is deciding whether to return Mr. Johnson's money and cancel the job, or take down Mr. Johnson. (Mr. Johnson would have to be an idiot to have picked my PC as the guy for that job.)
| QUOTE (Cthulhudreams) |
| An observation as to Alexander the greats chance of making general in the current US army - 0. He was openly bisexual and had a range of male partners. |
That's kind of like saying he wouldn't have been able to fire a rifle because he only used swords, spears, and bows back in ancient Rome. Alexander was openly bisexual in a society that didn't care that he was bisexual. Ultimately, Alexander was ambitious and pragmatic, and was politically as well as tactically saavy. I don't find it unreasonable to think that Alexander would have 'played the game' and created a public personna that allowed him to advance in the Army, if he was in an environment where that was required. He'd still be boffing pretty boys on his own time, but he'd know how to keep his private life private, and as long as he did so the Army wouldn't care.
Please note that I'm not suggesting that gays should need to hide their orientation, either in the military or in society in general. Just that individuals are complex enough to adapt their behavior to new environments if sufficiently motivated to do so.
If we're putting Alexander into our society, I'm not sure it's clear that he'd be a general. I mean, as long as it's "today's" society, there's a seperation between political power and military power (at least in the countries I'm sure most of us are posting from). I'd say it's probably just as likely that Alexander would be president as it is that he'd be a general. I mean, he could use one to lead to the other by pulling a coup, but then it's not really "our" society or "today's" society.
It's not like a coup is the only way to go from military to political power, though. Especially if you're a successful, famous, rich-as-hell, military leader.
| QUOTE (knasser) |
| Yep. That's my point exactly. Believe me, if you joined my group and you said that your character made a habit of beating the shit out of gays, I have zero doubt that you would feel the need to clarify that you were only playing this character because you were interested in the role-playing aspects and not because you wanted to express such desires yourself. |
You know, I had this exact issue come up in a group once.
The difference between this and racism in Shadowrun is that gay people are real. I don't have to worry that one of my players is actually an Ork-hater in real life. Or if he is, I don't have to care, except maybe to worry about his grasp on reality.
Although I suppose if they're a Dwarf-hater, I might have to worry.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| It's not like a coup is the only way to go from military to political power, though. Especially if you're a successful, famous, rich-as-hell, military leader. |
True. But you can't really do it at the same time, the way Alexander did. I mean yes, the president of the US is also the commander-in-chief, but that's not exactly the type of general that Alexander was. In this day and age, you can't really be the head of state AND be out on the front line leading the troops.
I'm also not sure that military experience is seen as a positive quality in modern American politics. We haven't had a president with military experience in 16 years, and the last time we had a general become president was Eisenhower. The only generals that have had presidential aspirations in my lifetime have either gotten slaughtered really early on in the primaries, or had their hopes dashed before it even got to that point.
| QUOTE (Fuchs @ Jan 24 2008, 05:52 PM) | ||||
Why? I'd consider most cold hearted killers as sociopaths, and those can easily say "all trogs are bad, but Geeky here is ok, he's a good troll". We are talking about criminals, people shooting security guards for being in the way, people poisoning entire neighborhoods for cash, sabotaging planes and wrecking homes and lifes to further some johnson's ambition, sell people to organ leggers, and similar stuff. The idea that someone who dehumanises all his victims to the point of torturing them and selling them to be eaten/harvested for organs should suddenly care about the bunch of non-criminals who dislike metahumans seems rather odd. To quote the grimoire "Not unheard off, but odd" - and certainly not the norm in my games. |
Speaking as a (reformed) criminal. I take offense at the misrepresentation of our kind.
I can honestly say that in my time doing crimes for a profession (please don't ask for specifics on thread, Pm if you must) I have encountered Thugs, con-artists, burglars, car thieves, drug dealers, drug pushers, drug barons, and the occasional kidnapper and murderer.
None of them were even slightly racist, even the racially based gangs would do business with anyone regardless of skin tone (I hear that the gangs in the USA are different but I will not comment on that)
I am white, I am disabled.
I had friendly dealings with Black gangs and asian gangs. I worked with South American drug distributors and worked for an Asian crime boss.
None of them cared about my skin color, and the only times my disability came up was when it would cause a genuine problem with the performance of a task.
Now in 'law abiding' society I have had employers make excuses the second they see my disability. I have had people not want to hire me because i am a white male. I have had people not want to hire me because I am male, I have had people turn away from me in disgust because of my disability, or of my weight.
So the idea of hardened criminals having issues with racism is totaly realiatic in my experience. (considering how many of my colleagues went into crime because of racial or other prejudice against them, very much so)
| QUOTE (Riley37) | ||
If a player hates elves, and plays all their characters as elf-haters, then that's not *proof* that they're a racist about human skin color (and nose shape and so forth), but I would sure be wary of that player. There is a player in my group who runs his PC as a casual killer; I'll game with him, but I'm less likely to become close friends with him. The other players run their characters as killing when it's necessary, and not when it isn't. The discussions about when it is and isn't necessary are part of the game, and they also tell me something about the personalities of the players. Opposing the Tir nations and the machinations of the Immortal Elves is one thing. Saying "I hate them all, even the elf baby born yesterday to human parents" is another thing. I speculate that more often than not, it would reflect some deeper aspect of hatred in a person's worldview. |
So someone who runs a casual killer would make you less likely to be their friend?
What about the guy who runs a char that only uses Non lethal ammo on the living? never uses leathal takedowns and always makes sure hsi opponents will live, doing first aid on the enemy if necessary...
Or the guy who seems cold and uncaring on the job, but during downtime does various things to help get over the fact that he has killed.
those players?
because both of those players, and the casual killer, are all chars I have made
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) | ||
Oh come on. That's like saying movie actors who play villanous roles in films must be villanous people in real life. |
you mean AL pacino ISN'T really Don Satan?
| QUOTE (Cthulhudreams) |
| If you think that orks are on average stupider (not my philosophy that they have less great minds, but the same number of middling ones), they will be significantly less represented in the military than humans because based on current trending warfare is getting more complex and the demands on the intelligence of recruits is increasing. The officer corps will have heavy elf representation as before. |
Are we talking about the same military that has started printing equipment instructions in comic book form to allow a lower level of intelligence and education to get into the grunt corps?
| QUOTE (Kremlin KOA) | ||||
So someone who runs a casual killer would make you less likely to be their friend? What about the guy who runs a char that only uses Non lethal ammo on the living? never uses leathal takedowns and always makes sure hsi opponents will live, doing first aid on the enemy if necessary... Or the guy who seems cold and uncaring on the job, but during downtime does various things to help get over the fact that he has killed. those players? because both of those players, and the casual killer, are all chars I have made |
What? No, I wouldn't have problems with any of that. Some people seemed to be saying that if someone places a racist character in SR (remember, race in SR generally refers to metatype, not skin color) then they are more likely to be a racist person in real life (where race does refer to skin color). And I was disagreeing with that.
Take a deep breath.
I did have an issue once with a player who wanted to get extra points for their character for putting "Hatred: Fags" on his character sheet. I knew this person well enough, and I knew they were trying to get extra points as an excuse for them to vent their real-life hatred of homosexuals at the gaming table and to try to get "roleplaying" credit for it. I decided that I didn't want that sort of thing at my gaming table.
Out of my current group, if any one of them came to me saying that they wanted to play a character who had a problem with homosexuals (or any other group) I'd be inclined to allow it, because every one of my current group knows the difference between their character and the real world and I would know that they were simply trying to explore the concept of intolerance. We might discuss it and shift the intolerance to better suit the campaign, but I would allow it. For my current group.
All I'm saying is know your group, and if it's a newer group where that isn't possible, stay away from the controversial characters.
| QUOTE (Kremlin KOA) | ||
Are we talking about the same military that has started printing equipment instructions in comic book form to allow a lower level of intelligence and education to get into the grunt corps? |
Hey, you have to admit, pictures are easier to remember than paragraphs, and that applies to the vast majority of people of any intelligence level.
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
| The difference between this and racism in Shadowrun is that gay people are real. I don't have to worry that one of my players is actually an Ork-hater in real life. Or if he is, I don't have to care, except maybe to worry about his grasp on reality. |
This is a fair point, although particularly in Shadowrun (as opposed to say, dnd), metatype racism is about as thinly veiled as you can get.
I have a similar beef with the implicit racism of most fantasy systems (ever noticed how calculating, inscrutable snakemen are almost always portrayed as having an Asian culture?) but I'm guessing no one wants to get dragged down into that mudhole.
| QUOTE (Mercer) | ||
This is a fair point, although particularly in Shadowrun (as opposed to say, dnd), metatype racism is about as thinly veiled as you can get. I have a similar beef with the implicit racism of most fantasy systems (ever noticed how calculating, inscrutable snakemen are almost always portrayed as having an Asian culture?) but I'm guessing no one wants to get dragged down into that mudhole. |
Okay now, that I would agree with. But "thinly veiled fantasy racism" is a different argument than "fantasy racism indicates real-life racism."
| QUOTE (Apathy) |
| Circuit Boy Blue and Friend of the Dork: if you had a new female player in the group, and happened to be playing true scumbag criminals, would you be comfortable stating that your characters were going to spend their down time stalking and raping women? Would you be just a tiny bit worried that such talk might make the woman at the table uncomfortable? |
Females wouldn't associate with me!
Seriously, that's only meant to be half-flip. I pretty much don't game with anyone but my trusty circle of tight-knit friends. I realize not everyone does it that way, but it seriously does negate any hypotheticals like that; we don't have to be worried about things like that, because we all know each other, and where we're coming from, and we're all comfortable around each other.
Also, because the term's getting thrown around a lot in this thread, I think I should point out that I don't play many "casual killers." I prefer formal killers. They like to wait until there's an occasion, and they get all dressed up for the job, and mind their etiquette about which entrance to use, who to invite along, what gear goes where, which fork to use, etc.
| QUOTE (Riley37) |
| If a player hates elves, and plays all their characters as elf-haters, then that's not *proof* that they're a racist about human skin color (and nose shape and so forth), but I would sure be wary of that player. There is a player in my group who runs his PC as a casual killer; I'll game with him, but I'm less likely to become close friends with him. |
This got enough responses that I should clarify.
New emphasis on "...plays ALL their characters as elf-haters". If the player has a range of characters showing different aspects, that's different. Same goes for casual killer. One of my best friends ever was capable of playing a casual killer, or an innocent idealist, or a hardened, gritty character who still held onto their ideals. His ability to juggle different perspectives was part of why I considered him a best friend. This guy played a 1980s South African secret agent who was a white supremacist *and* casual killer, while I was playing a Eurasian civilian, they were allies against a mutual enemy, and it worked out OK.
Some posters have a conception of trolls as *all* stupid and antisocial. Others figure that they have a Gaussian (bell curve) distribution of ability, with a lower mean and mode than that of the human distribution due to the lower maximum. I figure that those posts about an imaginary metatype reflect differences of perspective, and if someone *prefers* a fantasy game in which one can immediately dismiss someone, by metatype, as 100% certain to be antisocial and stupid, then that tells me *something* about their worldview. Maybe they recognize that the real world is more complex, but at some level they yearn for it to be simpler. I've played games in which all orks are evil; I prefer games in which they vary; that says something about my worldview too.
Now if you're hearing that as "Anyone who plays a racist PC is racist, anyone who plays a casual killer is morally deficient"... then you're missing my point about the difference between making snap judgements, vs. living in a complex world in which truth emerges over time (if at all).
| QUOTE (Riley37 @ Jan 26 2008, 08:28 AM) |
| One of my best friends ever was capable of playing a casual killer, or an innocent idealist, or a hardened, gritty character who still held onto their ideals. His ability to juggle different perspectives was part of why I considered him a best friend. |
Your main criteria for a close friend is the ability to act (or lie convincingly)?
Edited: Fucking spellcheck should be able to check intent!
| QUOTE (Fortune @ Jan 25 2008, 06:08 PM) |
| Your main criteria for a close fiend is the ability to act (or lie convincingly)? |
Fiend's are like that ya' know.
[ Spoiler ]
QUOTE (Fuchs @ Jan 24 2008, 04:52 AM)
QUOTE (knasser @ Jan 24 2008, 09:47 AM)
QUOTE (Fuchs @ Jan 24 2008, 08:14 AM)
If the writers want to portray racism as bad, and so bad that even cold-hearted criminals hate it...
Well if the "cold-hearted criminals" are shadowrunners then yes, they probably would dislike Humanis and other overt-racists. After all, if your Ork/Human/Troll teammate saved your life by pulling you of a hail of bullets, then you'll be disinclined to support those that tell you he's sub-human.
Why? I'd consider most cold hearted killers as sociopaths, and those can easily say "all trogs are bad, but Geeky here is ok, he's a good troll".
We are talking about criminals, people shooting security guards for being in the way, people poisoning entire neighborhoods for cash, sabotaging planes and wrecking homes and lifes to further some johnson's ambition, sell people to organ leggers, and similar stuff. The idea that someone who dehumanises all his victims to the point of torturing them and selling them to be eaten/harvested for organs should suddenly care about the bunch of non-criminals who dislike metahumans seems rather odd. To quote the grimoire "Not unheard off, but odd" - and certainly not the norm in my games.
It isn't good to sterotype cold-hearted killers. One of them might get angry and kill you.
The ability to kill easily is generally the result of social condition, not a psychological defect. Training, peer and authority pressure, and experience all factor into it.
Start with the training. A person might shoot human shaped metal targets that fall down when hit several times a week or play light gun games with realistic human enemies every night. Then, that person gets into a situation like a kill-or-be-killed situation of some sort, or something that feels like one. Adrenalin races and all of that training kicks in and the person instinctively shoots at the dangerous-looking humanoid silhouettes and watches them fall.
If there is no kill-or-be-killed situation, it can be remedied with peer pressure, or, even better, pressure from an authority figure. Most people would torture someone to death if ordered to do so by a person with the proper air of authority. The person doesn't even have to be a real authority; just the acquirements are sufficient. A snazzy coat, an official-sounding title, and maybe a clipboard - that is all it takes to get practically any human being to torture another to death. It isn't difficult at all.
Peer pressure is very useful is well. If all of your good friends get together and suggest that you go out and kill a random stranger today, then it is very likely that you'll agree to it and go out with them to find a kill a random stranger. A little bit of poking and prodding and ribbing by friends can cajole most people into murder with fairly little effort. Of course, if you combine peer pressure with pressure from an authority then it is almost guaranteed that a person will torture and kill.
Either way, once the first kill is completed experience kicks in. Maybe it was a bad kill. Maybe the person took too long to die and screamed and cried and begged for help. Maybe the unexpected stench of the target's urine and feces, released upon death, makes the killer nauseas. Maybe the killer is caught immediately and imprisoned. Any of these things can make a person less likely to kill again. But maybe not. Maybe everything goes smoothly. Maybe the killer is rewarded with money, praise, sex, love, or some combination of these. Maybe the act of killing builds a camaraderie between friends and compatriots. Maybe it brings lovers even closer together. Maybe it brings riches. Maybe it is a satisfying revenge. Maybe it just isn't the end of the world. Because that is all that is necessary; the rest is just icing on the cake. If killing once isn't the end of the world, if it isn't terribly unpleasant, then it is easier to do the next time. And so on and so forth.
Of course, experience works both ways. If a person hesitates to kill, or refuses to kill, and bad things happen as a result, then the person will be more likely to kill next time. Maybe that 5-year-old boy walking down the street won that giant teddy bear at the carnivàle but maybe it is stuffed with enough C-12 to level a city block. Maybe, you give him the benefit of the doubt and stay behind cover, waiting for the child to pass. Maybe your best friends were killed by a 5-year-old suicide bomber carrying a teddy-bear full of explosives and you know that it is better to be safe than to be sorry so you put a bullet in his head without the slightest bit of hesitation and if the bear turns out to just be a toy, you can apologize later.
The casual killer doesn't need to be a sociopath. The casual killer doesn't need to dehumanize or to hate. In fact, it is best if he loves and respects those whom he kills. Falling into the trap of hatred simply leads to sloppiness and sloppiness leads to death. What is required is that he loves himself and his friends more than those whom he kills.
| QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0) |
| [ Spoiler ] |
Maybe I'm braindead today, but what the hell is this in reference to?
| QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0) | ||
Fiend's are like that ya' know. [ Spoiler ] |
beat me to it
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
Maybe I'm braindead today, but what the hell is this in reference to? |
He deleted your double post
| QUOTE (Kremlin KOA) |
| He deleted your double post |
Ok, it's official. I am definitely having a braindead day.
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
Ok, it's official. I am definitely having a braindead day. |
then repeat after me
brains, brraaiins BBRRRRAAAAAIIIIINNNNNSSSS!!!!!
| QUOTE (Kremlin KOA) | ||||
then repeat after me brains, brraaiins BBRRRRAAAAAIIIIINNNNNSSSS!!!!! |
Now repeat after me:
"Brain, brain, what is brain?"
(Bonus karma for the first person to get the reference)
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
Ok, it's official. I am definitely having a braindead day. |
...it's a Friday. After dealing with account managers and sales reps all week, my Logic attribute is about on par with the Short One.
| QUOTE (Zhan Shi) |
| ...a significant percentage of the Earth's population transforms into beings straight out of a Tolkien wet dream. Magic, mages, and spirits (re)appear, wielding strange powers. HMHVV gives rise to ghouls, vampires and other monsters. Dragons and Immortal Elves , who by their own admission have manipulated humanity over the millenia, continue their machinations for global dominance. Megacorps have all but destroyed the concept of nation-state. Nasty things from the Deep Metaplanes, such as insect spirits and shedim, threaten not only life, but the very soul as well... ... if humans want to survive and prosper in the Sixth World, they need to forget their petty differences and band together against their common enemies... |
If humans want to survive and prosper in the Sixth World, they do need to band together against the forces which actually hate them and/or can survive only by eating humans. They would do well to ally with the metahumans who share their enemies; all live metahumans are potential victims for shedim and insect spirits.
Making additional enemies is unwise. Your neighbor's child born as ork, elf, dwarf or troll is still your neighbor's child and can be raised with the values of your neighborhood; if they happen to be extra strong, strong-willed or charismatic, consider that the neighbors of Ma and Pa Kent mostly stand to benefit from Smallville having a particularly capable protector.
Shedim must just laugh their nonexistent heads off when Sons of Sauron and Humanitas have a rumble and are too busy killing each other to properly dispose of the bodies.
As for magic... is power bad whenever anyone who isn't you has it, or only bad when your enemy or rival has it? When your neighbor can cast Heal or Cure Disease, and will do so for a reasonable price and/or for community status, how exactly is that not a wonderfully good thing? Saying "Wow, there's this tremendously powerful phenomenon, I define my community as those who can't use it", is a good setup for having your community not survive competition.
As for "Tolkien wet dream"... I dunno about the wet aspect. "Tolkien dream", sure; but I don't much want to know about JRR's wet dreams, and I hope they didn't include Bubba the Love Troll.
| QUOTE (Fuchs) |
| We are talking about criminals, people shooting security guards for being in the way, people poisoning entire neighborhoods for cash, sabotaging planes and wrecking homes and lifes to further some johnson's ambition, sell people to organ leggers, and similar stuff. |
The fluff for SR4 starts off with a story of shadowrunners who were willing to *knock out* a guard, copy some data off a computer, and spoil the flavor of a cola drink, all for pay. When guards used lethal force on them, they used lethal force in return. They were explicitly unwilling to poison an entire neighborhood; that was a major point of the story - that Humanitas Policlub was using poison indiscriminately, and that shadowrunners were unhappy at being used to advance this plan.
If your game is about PCs poisoning neighborhoods for cash, that's your own choice.
| QUOTE (Riley37) |
| ...but I don't much want to know about JRR's wet dreams, and I hope they didn't include Bubba the Love Troll. |
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
Ok, it's official. I am definitely having a braindead day. |
Thanks KKOA. Just doing a little house keeping Fortuna.
So, as a direct result of your removal of one lone multiple post, we now have an additional 8 (and growing) off-topic posts replacing it to discuss and explain the action.
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| So, as a direct result of your removal of one lone multiple post, we now have an additional 8 (and growing) off-topic posts replacing it to discuss and explain the action. |
Heroes often fail?
| QUOTE (Riley37 @ Jan 25 2008, 08:35 PM) |
| Making additional enemies is unwise. Your neighbor's child born as ork, elf, dwarf or troll is still your neighbor's child and can be raised with the values of your neighborhood; if they happen to be extra strong, strong-willed or charismatic, consider that the neighbors of Ma and Pa Kent mostly stand to benefit from Smallville having a particularly capable protector. |
Yes, unless they happen to live on Earth-Three, in which case their only hope is to kill little Clark while he is still a baby, if that is even possible.
I need to find a clip of the SNL "Uberman" piece some day. "Fascism, Racism, and the Nazi Way of Life" IIRC...
| QUOTE (kzt) |
| I need to find a clip of the SNL "Uberman" piece some day. "Fascism, Racism, and the Nazi Way of Life" IIRC... |
snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78jwhatif.phtml
I tried a quick search on YouTube, but the owner of the clip probably doesn't want it to be available there.
"Spock's Brain" is an episode of Star Trek: The Original Series, first broadcast September 20, 1968. I'd like my bonus karma applied directly to my CHA, please.
| QUOTE (kzt) |
| I need to find a clip of the SNL "Uberman" piece some day. "Fascism, Racism, and the Nazi Way of Life" IIRC... |
...I was more partial to Middle Aged Man...
[MAM] "What? You're looking at my gut, aren't you?! Well, I'm working on it!"
[/Derail]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.