Barbarian OCC Gender?

[PalladiumBrony]

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

Then, in the Rifter #40, starting on page 18, we're introduced to the Berserker, Savage Warrior, Native Tribesman, Wildman and Amazon OCCs (though technically the Amazon isn't a true OCC, so much as a way to flavour other O.C.C.s by making them Large Powerful Women™). But in this article, unless I'm just being horribly blind, there's no mention of particular gender ratios for these latter classes - Only the first 2 from NH are restricted in any way by gender. Should I just abandon the restriction entirely for the first two OCCs, or are those mentioned in the Rifter #40 also supposed to be split along gender lines? I feel like this would be the more "thematic" option, but also that it would severely limit any player who wants to play a female Barbarian, considering how many more O.C.Cs would be open to a male character. Or perhaps I should say "your female barbarian character can be any class you like, but these particular classes are usually mostly men, so being a female Berserker, while possible, is exceedingly rare. You can and should roleplay into that."?

[Nekira Sudacne]

The OCC's that have listed gender restrictions have gender restrictions.

The OCC's that do not have listed gender restrictions do not.

There is no need to change either. Some roles a soceity is fine with with either gender being, some roles it restricts mostly to one or the other. If it's inconsistant, so are real soceities.

[drewkitty ~..~]

The is also that the Rifter text are Optional texts, for the greater part.

Then there are that in the real world, in the past, Gender Roles were a Very Real Thing. It is not surprising that in barbarian cultures (or any other medieval like culture like is found on the Pf world) that there are Classes that are limited by the Sex of the character. I will put in a 'however'.....even cultures that have defined sex (XX/XY) roles, there were those that brake the molds of those Sex Roles, by preforming the tasks of the other's Sex's role. It is these people that tend to become the 'adventurers' of their times.

As a GM I would let a Player play a cross Sex Role character....but they would have to come up with a very good backstory for me to allow it.

[ITWastrel]

Because some Palladium books have sexist or racist bits, you feel tempted to justify more sexism?

it's your game, but think about it a minute.

PB has a tendency to print material that contains WILDLY inappropriate* racial and gender stereotypes. Be better.




*Spirit West is, as a whole, Seriously Offensive. Native American stereotyping, othering, and the old white man's trope of the Magic Indian are 100% of this book. Many books have examples of white writers being unintentionally racist, but this one, from cover to cover, should have made someone ask if it was a good idea.

[ITWastrel]

As a GM I would let a Player play a cross Sex Role character....but they would have to come up with a very good backstory for me to allow it.

I missed this post for good reason, as the poster is my "foe" and I generally do not wish to see these posts.

However.

When someone says something offensive, I have to say something.

If the book is racist, sexist, or otherwise inappropriate, the job of the GM is to either adapt the material to be less offensive, or remove the materials from play.
I did that with Spirit West. It disgusted me. That book is unwelcome at my table.



To declare someone needed a "good reason" to play the character they want is a bad GM decision.

This bad reasoning is DOUBLY compounded by "this is a sexist class, you need a good reason for me, the GM, to allow you to disregard this sexism."

For my games, the answer "because I want a male barmaid or a female barbarian" is ALWAYS acceptable.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Because some Palladium books have sexist or racist bits, you feel tempted to justify more sexism?

it's your game, but think about it a minute.

PB has a tendency to print material that contains WILDLY inappropriate* racial and gender stereotypes. Be better.




*Spirit West is, as a whole, Seriously Offensive. Native American stereotyping, othering, and the old white man's trope of the Magic Indian are 100% of this book. Many books have examples of white writers being unintentionally racist, but this one, from cover to cover, should have made someone ask if it was a good idea.

I don't think I was ever actually able to finish reading Spirit West. the CPP (Cringe Per Page) ratio was too high to get through.

At the same time, I don't think you're arguing that fictional settings cannot have soceties with immoral laws or customs--I mean, the Coalition are not-at-all-veiled Nazis after all, to draw an example from rifts, and they're the designated Evil Empire in North America. The fact your setting can have bad people or bad soceities isn't inherently a problem, it not only makes it more realistic but also gives possible sources of conflict for players to resolve.

For myself, I'd have no problem with a player wanting to play individual PC's who break their soceitial taboos for whatever soceity they come from. They can be great fun, and indeed, reforming soceity can make a good plot. If that's what they want. If they just want to play a female barbarian who left to go find somewhere they're accepted, and that's why they fell in with this group, and they don't want to explore the underlying soceity any more because the game takes place in the Western Empire and they're the only barbarian in 500 miles, that's fine too.

[Kraynic]

For myself, I'd have no problem with a player wanting to play individual PC's who break their soceitial taboos for whatever soceity they come from. They can be great fun, and indeed, reforming soceity can make a good plot. If that's what they want. If they just want to play a female barbarian who left to go find somewhere they're accepted, and that's why they fell in with this group, and they don't want to explore the underlying soceity any more because the game takes place in the Western Empire and they're the only barbarian in 500 miles, that's fine too.

Yeah, the book even mentions there are exceptions (5% of barbarians are female if I remember correctly). The book does have some fairly high stat requirements for a female to break into that OCC, but I think that is pretty easily ignored for what is (at its core) an aggressive and superstitious fighting character with a sub-optimal sense of self preservation.

[Veknironth]

Well, the Rifter article came out waaaay after the NH descrpition so it's possible that John Philpott had forgotten about that gender issue from NH. Or maybe he wanted to subtly correct it? I don't mean to speak for John or for Bill Coffin as to their intents, but it's probably just one author having a different view than another. Palladium books are unfortunately full of contradictory information from different authors. It's entirely possible that the discrepancy was missed (or created) in editing.

But, as Nekira and Warshield have said, there are ways around it.

-Vek
"I thought drewkitty was MY foe!"

[drewkitty ~..~]

Sexist and racist items are a part of reality, whether anyone would like to believe otherwise. (just look at the nightly news...)
Even so, Sex Roles in the past (times and cultures like those in the PF world) were what allowed humans to survive as societies. Which is saying they let them SURVIVE. Now there are a lot more people so there is more freedom for all people to ignore the past's SURVIVAL ROLES.

I do believe that sat least one out there didn't get the point of my post and spouted off with a knee jerk reaction about things that are normal in human societies that do not match his or her world view.

Since at least one person didn't get the point of what I said .... Those that tend to break the Sex Roles of a society, are the ones that tend to become adventures. The people that players play as their characters. This as a reason for GMs allowing players to use Cross Sex Role characters.

[ITWastrel]

Because some Palladium books have sexist or racist bits, you feel tempted to justify more sexism?

it's your game, but think about it a minute.

PB has a tendency to print material that contains WILDLY inappropriate* racial and gender stereotypes. Be better.




*Spirit West is, as a whole, Seriously Offensive. Native American stereotyping, othering, and the old white man's trope of the Magic Indian are 100% of this book. Many books have examples of white writers being unintentionally racist, but this one, from cover to cover, should have made someone ask if it was a good idea.

I don't think I was ever actually able to finish reading Spirit West. the CPP (Cringe Per Page) ratio was too high to get through.

At the same time, I don't think you're arguing that fictional settings cannot have soceties with immoral laws or customs--I mean, the Coalition are not-at-all-veiled Nazis after all, to draw an example from rifts, and they're the designated Evil Empire in North America. The fact your setting can have bad people or bad soceities isn't inherently a problem, it not only makes it more realistic but also gives possible sources of conflict for players to resolve.

Evil societies, nasty nations, and badness in general are required for drama and good RP.
Nobody wants to overthrow a society of unicorns and puppies, they want to defeat the Nazis.

The distinction I am making is, we, as players and GMs, must adapt our games to modern sensibilities.

Some of these books came out 30+ years ago. These are books from my generation, and my generation was, at best, insensitive.

At worst, we just sucked.

If the player wants to adapt this material, say to play a female barbarian, that's all good. Even if the game takes place in the village of the woman hating barbarians, and all the NPCs are barbarians, and this will cause a HUGE plot-hole, because everyone knows blah blah blah, then you, as a GM, must correct this plot hole.

if they won't train a woman, she'll train herself, or an NPC might, or a secret cabal of hidden female barbarians, or whatever.

Reasons are the job of the gamers and the GM. But if your reasons are "gender roles, mate. Now you get your pretty butt in the kitchen because HISTORY says you have to", then you're being a bad human, let alone GM.


Some people might not get the subtleties, so how about an extreme example?
Say the player wanted an educated, female black landowner in 1770 Colonial America.
Imagine the GM said "Sorry, mate, you can have that doctor, but it has to be a white male!" Or worse, "Nope, Black women cannot be educated in my game, Because HISTORY!!!"

If that sounds wrong, you're right.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Because some Palladium books have sexist or racist bits, you feel tempted to justify more sexism?

it's your game, but think about it a minute.

PB has a tendency to print material that contains WILDLY inappropriate* racial and gender stereotypes. Be better.




*Spirit West is, as a whole, Seriously Offensive. Native American stereotyping, othering, and the old white man's trope of the Magic Indian are 100% of this book. Many books have examples of white writers being unintentionally racist, but this one, from cover to cover, should have made someone ask if it was a good idea.

I don't think I was ever actually able to finish reading Spirit West. the CPP (Cringe Per Page) ratio was too high to get through.

At the same time, I don't think you're arguing that fictional settings cannot have soceties with immoral laws or customs--I mean, the Coalition are not-at-all-veiled Nazis after all, to draw an example from rifts, and they're the designated Evil Empire in North America. The fact your setting can have bad people or bad soceities isn't inherently a problem, it not only makes it more realistic but also gives possible sources of conflict for players to resolve.

Evil societies, nasty nations, and badness in general are required for drama and good RP.
Nobody wants to overthrow a society of unicorns and puppies, they want to defeat the Nazis.

The distinction I am making is, we, as players and GMs, must adapt our games to modern sensibilities.

Some of these books came out 30+ years ago. These are books from my generation, and my generation was, at best, insensitive.

At worst, we just sucked.

If the player wants to adapt this material, say to play a female barbarian, that's all good. Even if the game takes place in the village of the woman hating barbarians, and all the NPCs are barbarians, and this will cause a HUGE plot-hole, because everyone knows blah blah blah, then you, as a GM, must correct this plot hole.

if they won't train a woman, she'll train herself, or an NPC might, or a secret cabal of hidden female barbarians, or whatever.

Reasons are the job of the gamers and the GM. But if your reasons are "gender roles, mate. Now you get your pretty butt in the kitchen because HISTORY says you have to", then you're being a bad human, let alone GM.


Some people might not get the subtleties, so how about an extreme example?
Say the player wanted an educated, female black landowner in 1770 Colonial America.
Imagine the GM said "Sorry, mate, you can have that doctor, but it has to be a white male!" Or worse, "Nope, Black women cannot be educated in my game, Because HISTORY!!!"

If that sounds wrong, you're right.

Did you just stop reading where you cut the quote? I said I had no problem with someone wanting to play a female barbarian in my games and would work to integrate it into the game if they wanted. Try reading the whole post before replying. You just lectured me to do everything I said I would do.

[Library Ogre]

Well, the Rifter article came out waaaay after the NH descrpition so it's possible that John Philpott had forgotten about that gender issue from NH. Or maybe he wanted to subtly correct it? I don't mean to speak for John or for Bill Coffin as to their intents, but it's probably just one author having a different view than another. Palladium books are unfortunately full of contradictory information from different authors. It's entirely possible that the discrepancy was missed (or created) in editing.

It's also possible that was a Kevin addition.

[The Dark Elf]

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

Then, in the Rifter #40, starting on page 18, we're introduced to the Berserker, Savage Warrior, Native Tribesman, Wildman and Amazon OCCs (though technically the Amazon isn't a true OCC, so much as a way to flavour other O.C.C.s by making them Large Powerful Women™). But in this article, unless I'm just being horribly blind, there's no mention of particular gender ratios for these latter classes - Only the first 2 from NH are restricted in any way by gender. Should I just abandon the restriction entirely for the first two OCCs, or are those mentioned in the Rifter #40 also supposed to be split along gender lines? I feel like this would be the more "thematic" option, but also that it would severely limit any player who wants to play a female Barbarian, considering how many more O.C.Cs would be open to a male character. Or perhaps I should say "your female barbarian character can be any class you like, but these particular classes are usually mostly men, so being a female Berserker, while possible, is exceedingly rare. You can and should roleplay into that."?

Easiest reply ever - It is absolutely up to you. Ignore our opinions, we dont matter. What do to you want and way that up against what your players might enjoy. Thats all the decision making you need to do!

[kiralon]

And most importantly it is a game aimed at having fun, if it's not fun no-one will play anyway, and everyone likes and dislikes different things.
However I have no problems with male or female dominated places, as I have both, and racism and speciesism tends to be more of a problem anyway.
I have sexism (both ways), racism and speciesism in my games as it adds diversity, tends to be more realistic and as mentioned, having a powerful male in a female dominated society can be just as much fun to play a powerful woman in a male dominated society, or a politically powerful monster race (say a wolfen) in the western empire.
As long as you give options (some may be harder than the others) to the players they will enjoy the game.

[Zer0 Kay]

As a GM I would let a Player play a cross Sex Role character....but they would have to come up with a very good backstory for me to allow it.

I missed this post for good reason, as the poster is my "foe" and I generally do not wish to see these posts.

However.

When someone says something offensive, I have to say something.

If the book is racist, sexist, or otherwise inappropriate, the job of the GM is to either adapt the material to be less offensive, or remove the materials from play.
I did that with Spirit West. It disgusted me. That book is unwelcome at my table.



To declare someone needed a "good reason" to play the character they want is a bad GM decision.

This bad reasoning is DOUBLY compounded by "this is a sexist class, you need a good reason for me, the GM, to allow you to disregard this sexism."

For my games, the answer "because I want a male barmaid or a female barbarian" is ALWAYS acceptable.

So is the new RPG coming out, Shield Maiden, disgusting to you?

[Zer0 Kay]

Well, the Rifter article came out waaaay after the NH descrpition so it's possible that John Philpott had forgotten about that gender issue from NH. Or maybe he wanted to subtly correct it? I don't mean to speak for John or for Bill Coffin as to their intents, but it's probably just one author having a different view than another. Palladium books are unfortunately full of contradictory information from different authors. It's entirely possible that the discrepancy was missed (or created) in editing.

But, as Nekira and Warshield have said, there are ways around it.

-Vek
"I thought drewkitty was MY foe!"

No he is my foe!
Pfffth if Drewkitty isn't your foe... (Making "foing" Drewkitty a badge)

[Zer0 Kay]

Because some Palladium books have sexist or racist bits, you feel tempted to justify more sexism?

it's your game, but think about it a minute.

PB has a tendency to print material that contains WILDLY inappropriate* racial and gender stereotypes. Be better.




*Spirit West is, as a whole, Seriously Offensive. Native American stereotyping, othering, and the old white man's trope of the Magic Indian are 100% of this book. Many books have examples of white writers being unintentionally racist, but this one, from cover to cover, should have made someone ask if it was a good idea.

I don't think I was ever actually able to finish reading Spirit West. the CPP (Cringe Per Page) ratio was too high to get through.

At the same time, I don't think you're arguing that fictional settings cannot have soceties with immoral laws or customs--I mean, the Coalition are not-at-all-veiled Nazis after all, to draw an example from rifts, and they're the designated Evil Empire in North America. The fact your setting can have bad people or bad soceities isn't inherently a problem, it not only makes it more realistic but also gives possible sources of conflict for players to resolve.

Evil societies, nasty nations, and badness in general are required for drama and good RP.
Nobody wants to overthrow a society of unicorns and puppies, they want to defeat the Nazis.

The distinction I am making is, we, as players and GMs, must adapt our games to modern sensibilities.

Some of these books came out 30+ years ago. These are books from my generation, and my generation was, at best, insensitive.

At worst, we just sucked.

If the player wants to adapt this material, say to play a female barbarian, that's all good. Even if the game takes place in the village of the woman hating barbarians, and all the NPCs are barbarians, and this will cause a HUGE plot-hole, because everyone knows blah blah blah, then you, as a GM, must correct this plot hole.

if they won't train a woman, she'll train herself, or an NPC might, or a secret cabal of hidden female barbarians, or whatever.

Reasons are the job of the gamers and the GM. But if your reasons are "gender roles, mate. Now you get your pretty butt in the kitchen because HISTORY says you have to", then you're being a bad human, let alone GM.


Some people might not get the subtleties, so how about an extreme example?
Say the player wanted an educated, female black landowner in 1770 Colonial America.
Imagine the GM said "Sorry, mate, you can have that doctor, but it has to be a white male!" Or worse, "Nope, Black women cannot be educated in my game, Because HISTORY!!!"

If that sounds wrong, you're right.

Pffth. I want to overthrow a society of Unicorns and Puppies, because they make bad political decisions and their laws are all make-believe and misogynistic on the part of the unicorns I mean come on they'll only let virgin women do anything! Stupid unicorns. At least the puppies have an excuse. They're just young and they're mom was a real Big Itch minus the "ig ".

WHAT?!?!? As players and GM's we DO NOT HAVE TO adapt our games to modern sensibilities. So if tomorrow modern sensibilities say YOU are bad you'd be cool with that? So if we were back in the 60's you'd be cool with the misogyny? If an individual change their sensibilities based on the masses they're pointless as a person. Claiming the same now only because now suits their sensibilities is plain weak. If I decide to play a historically accurate game based in Celt controlled England then I'm not going to allow women in the invading army of Rome nor am I allowing anyone other than Celts to be a Celt. If I'm in Ptolemaic Egypt then no Africans can be in the ruling class and only Greeks can.

Now if I am going to be playing a purely fantasy game and I like the setting I'm playing the setting. If it is a generic setting that has no real stances on skin color, equipment between ones legs or land of origin... then I don't care.

But no as GM I am not supposed to correct that plot hole. If the setting says so then it isn't plot hole it is a story opportunity and it isn't the job of the GM to correct it it is the job of the GM to allow a player to roleplay the situation.

[Zer0 Kay]

Because some Palladium books have sexist or racist bits, you feel tempted to justify more sexism?

it's your game, but think about it a minute.

PB has a tendency to print material that contains WILDLY inappropriate* racial and gender stereotypes. Be better.




*Spirit West is, as a whole, Seriously Offensive. Native American stereotyping, othering, and the old white man's trope of the Magic Indian are 100% of this book. Many books have examples of white writers being unintentionally racist, but this one, from cover to cover, should have made someone ask if it was a good idea.

I don't think I was ever actually able to finish reading Spirit West. the CPP (Cringe Per Page) ratio was too high to get through.

At the same time, I don't think you're arguing that fictional settings cannot have soceties with immoral laws or customs--I mean, the Coalition are not-at-all-veiled Nazis after all, to draw an example from rifts, and they're the designated Evil Empire in North America. The fact your setting can have bad people or bad soceities isn't inherently a problem, it not only makes it more realistic but also gives possible sources of conflict for players to resolve.

Evil societies, nasty nations, and badness in general are required for drama and good RP.
Nobody wants to overthrow a society of unicorns and puppies, they want to defeat the Nazis.

The distinction I am making is, we, as players and GMs, must adapt our games to modern sensibilities.

Some of these books came out 30+ years ago. These are books from my generation, and my generation was, at best, insensitive.

At worst, we just sucked.

If the player wants to adapt this material, say to play a female barbarian, that's all good. Even if the game takes place in the village of the woman hating barbarians, and all the NPCs are barbarians, and this will cause a HUGE plot-hole, because everyone knows blah blah blah, then you, as a GM, must correct this plot hole.

if they won't train a woman, she'll train herself, or an NPC might, or a secret cabal of hidden female barbarians, or whatever.

Reasons are the job of the gamers and the GM. But if your reasons are "gender roles, mate. Now you get your pretty butt in the kitchen because HISTORY says you have to", then you're being a bad human, let alone GM.


Some people might not get the subtleties, so how about an extreme example?
Say the player wanted an educated, female black landowner in 1770 Colonial America.
Imagine the GM said "Sorry, mate, you can have that doctor, but it has to be a white male!" Or worse, "Nope, Black women cannot be educated in my game, Because HISTORY!!!"

If that sounds wrong, you're right.

So your cool and encourage a Japanese Abraham Lincoln, an African George Washinton, an Indian Steve Jobs, a Hispanic Nicola Tesla, an Arab Charlemagne or a American Indigenous Alexander the Great?

[Zer0 Kay]

And most importantly it is a game aimed at having fun, if it's not fun no-one will play anyway, and everyone likes and dislikes different things.
However I have no problems with male or female dominated places, as I have both, and racism and speciesism tends to be more of a problem anyway.
I have sexism (both ways), racism and speciesism in my games as it adds diversity, tends to be more realistic and as mentioned, having a powerful male in a female dominated society can be just as much fun to play a powerful woman in a male dominated society, or a politically powerful monster race (say a wolfen) in the western empire.
As long as you give options (some may be harder than the others) to the players they will enjoy the game.

YES. One of the worst games ever, Synnabar, was supposed to be a single book game system the book was about two inches thick. But the guy decided that his world was too shallow with all the PC races getting along together so he made another book that was filled with each cultures beliefs and it made it more realistic. Everyone will never get along as long as there are different cultures and that is made more apparent when race isn't defined by the content of melanin in ones skin or the shape of ones nose or texture of ones hair but by an actual separation of species. So sure now all humans get along but why should creatures that came before or creatures that can easily overpower you consider you an equal? Because equality is good? Equality goes against evolution. Evolution does not favor all equally, evolution does not like anything that doesn't reproduce. Claiming that equality is the ultimate good capable by the most evolved is idiotic. Now claiming understanding, learning and tolerance are evolutionary pinnacles is... less stupid but evolution demands they be discarded if they are holding evolution back.

[Zer0 Kay]

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

Then, in the Rifter #40, starting on page 18, we're introduced to the Berserker, Savage Warrior, Native Tribesman, Wildman and Amazon OCCs (though technically the Amazon isn't a true OCC, so much as a way to flavour other O.C.C.s by making them Large Powerful Women™). But in this article, unless I'm just being horribly blind, there's no mention of particular gender ratios for these latter classes - Only the first 2 from NH are restricted in any way by gender. Should I just abandon the restriction entirely for the first two OCCs, or are those mentioned in the Rifter #40 also supposed to be split along gender lines? I feel like this would be the more "thematic" option, but also that it would severely limit any player who wants to play a female Barbarian, considering how many more O.C.Cs would be open to a male character. Or perhaps I should say "your female barbarian character can be any class you like, but these particular classes are usually mostly men, so being a female Berserker, while possible, is exceedingly rare. You can and should roleplay into that."?

Easiest reply ever - It is absolutely up to you. Ignore our opinions, we dont matter. What do to you want and way that up against what your players might enjoy. Thats all the decision making you need to do!

Is it? What by some miracle someone surround themselves with free thinkers who have different opinions on things but in this case they decide that they'd rather play in a historically accurate world or at least one that may be fantasy but would follow Earth's historical notions for the time period. But the GM decides that they want to be progressive. Who's idea has more weight? The GM or the group? Is it the same if there is one player or eighteen?

Shouldn't it be the GM's prerogative to run the game how ever the heck they feel like it?
Shouldn't it be the players prerogative to choose not to play?

So GM's run the game the way you want. If you want to keep a player take their thoughts into account. Players play the game you want if the GM isn't running the game in your flavor don't be a jackwagon and try to dismantle it be good and just back out. It isn't your place to teach a lesson. You are there to play a game and the GM is there to tell a story, you are in the GMs world. If you want to fight the norms, role-play it but expect resistance from the world. GMs... that resistance shouldn't be in the form of natural disasters or creatures suddenly favoring the flesh of x, y or z.

Geez people, develop a thicker skin, be nice and have fun.

[ITWastrel]

So your cool and encourage a Japanese Abraham Lincoln, an African George Washinton, an Indian Steve Jobs, a Hispanic Nicola Tesla, an Arab Charlemagne or a American Indigenous Alexander the Great?

Have you seen Hamilton?
You just argued historical figures shouldn't be race swapped.

I said I don't want my culture to be a joke.

I also said it is the moral responsibility of everyone to not be a racist, a sexist, or generally evil. GMs have a responsibility to make sure their players are comfortable.

Maybe some groups are made entirely of white rednecks who are perfectly happy enjoying all the racist tropes they can get.

My group isn't like that.

[drewkitty ~..~]

When someone says something quite stupid about my posts I do chime in to counter their stupidity. (And yes I'm not mincing words.) And since I don't see the Wastrel's posts cause he is on my foes list it takes someone quoting that poster for me to even see anything that poster posts. In this case, it was so great that someone PM'ed me why there was so much hate in the Wastrel's posts.

When someone says something offensive, I have to say something.

The truth is normally offensive to those who find the truth to be counter to their world view.
Those that are ignorant of history, tent to repeat history.

However, As I said in a prevues post (I will say it a bit differently here), the Historic roles for each sex were Survival Roles, not nessessarily demeaning or sexist. This is not saying that yah there were a lot of people forced into roles counter to their talents/leanings because they had to be in those roles to SURVIVE. Whether it was because of the harsh natural world or the societies they lived in. It matters not which harsh environment being talked about, if the people do not Survive they Die Out. Very Darwinian.

Now days in the USA and europe things are, society wise, more permissive because Survival is not #1 priority.

Again, I am speaking of literal truths about what has happened in the past, not pandering to any social 'point of view' (i.e.: opinion) by not talking about what happened in the past to keep people ignotent so they don't know what happened elsewhere so only my viewpoint is the acceptable one becasue it is the only one. As someone else is arguing to limit people from knowing that that person's POV isn't the only one.

As to my social views...

Spoiler:

...we, male and female alike, are created in Jehovah's image (our minds) and are all equally invited to accept the forgiveness he already paid for through being killed on a cross. If people live in that forgiveness, following the path laid out for us by Jehovah for each person, their wouldn't be all this malice and strife.

[Rogerd]

WHAT?!?!? As players and GM's we DO NOT HAVE TO adapt our games to modern sensibilities.

Stopping you right there.

You absolutely should - it is why Green Ronin with their new KS Cthulhu Awakes they have explicitly said that it removes all of HPL Racism, and anyone that wants to bring that back into their game - GR would rather do without their money. This type of stuff should not be tolerated at the table in anyway.

Another example is look at the old Bob Hope and Bing Crosby films, they would never get made now and for good reason.

[Library Ogre]

I mean, for a pretty long time Palladium's had a "throw all the stereotypes about an area you can" into the books. England? Let's pack it full of King Arthur and Druids. Are we going to talk about the Roma? Let's make 'em all thieves and fortune tellers. Hey, let's turn the Russians back into Communists, and cram as many ninjas as possible into Japan! Hey, they even gave us Illinois Nazis.

This is not a good look for any company... or any body.

[Kraynic]

WHAT?!?!? As players and GM's we DO NOT HAVE TO adapt our games to modern sensibilities.

Stopping you right there.

You absolutely should - it is why Green Ronin with their new KS Cthulhu Awakes they have explicitly said that it removes all of HPL Racism, and anyone that wants to bring that back into their game - GR would rather do without their money. This type of stuff should not be tolerated at the table in anyway.

Another example is look at the old Bob Hope and Bing Crosby films, they would never get made now and for good reason.

I think the best thing we can do is to not tell others how to live their lives or run their games.

Is it ok for Trolls to eat Gnomes in a fantasy world?
Is it ok for a species to think it has a mandate to incorporate and organize all civilizations in a fantasy world (Wolfen)?

If those (and associated) things offend you and/or your players, then it matters. If those don't offend you and your players, then it doesn't matter.

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

[Zer0 Kay]

WHAT?!?!? As players and GM's we DO NOT HAVE TO adapt our games to modern sensibilities.

Stopping you right there.

You absolutely should - it is why Green Ronin with their new KS Cthulhu Awakes they have explicitly said that it removes all of HPL Racism, and anyone that wants to bring that back into their game - GR would rather do without their money. This type of stuff should not be tolerated at the table in anyway.

Another example is look at the old Bob Hope and Bing Crosby films, they would never get made now and for good reason.

Let me stop you right there.
Are you seriously holding up a company as your symbol of anti racism that has culturally appropriated "Ronin"?

I never said someone couldn't play a black doctor in the Antibellum South. I said they'd have to role play it. If Racism and other bad standards are removed from humanity in a period game then there was no reason for much of the conflict. No reason for heroes like Moses, Abraham Lincoln, MLK Jr. Or Ghandhi

No Navajo Knight in Medieval Europe isn't raceism. No Chinease Zulu Warriors and no Aztec Priests with Irish accents also isn't racist.

Modern sensibilities are stupid. It is okay for a Hispanic to play John Adams or a Black man to play Geroge Washington (not Carver) but it is not okay for a white man to play Poncho Villa or Kunta Kinte. I do applauded Hamilton for not having the actors put on white face but their casting call for certain characters specifically said no whites making it a racist hiring practice.

[Zer0 Kay]

WHAT?!?!? As players and GM's we DO NOT HAVE TO adapt our games to modern sensibilities.

Stopping you right there.

You absolutely should - it is why Green Ronin with their new KS Cthulhu Awakes they have explicitly said that it removes all of HPL Racism, and anyone that wants to bring that back into their game - GR would rather do without their money. This type of stuff should not be tolerated at the table in anyway.

Another example is look at the old Bob Hope and Bing Crosby films, they would never get made now and for good reason.

I think the best thing we can do is to not tell others how to live their lives or run their games.

Is it ok for Trolls to eat Gnomes in a fantasy world?
Is it ok for a species to think it has a mandate to incorporate and organize all civilizations in a fantasy world (Wolfen)?

If those (and associated) things offend you and/or your players, then it matters. If those don't offend you and your players, then it doesn't matter.

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

Agreed dictating how anyone plays their games is fascistic EVEN if they're game is super racist or really inappropriate. Just like the government should stay out of people's bedrooms, self-righteous activists need to stay out of people's living rooms or kitchens.

[Zer0 Kay]

WHAT?!?!? As players and GM's we DO NOT HAVE TO adapt our games to modern sensibilities.

Stopping you right there.

You absolutely should - it is why Green Ronin with their new KS Cthulhu Awakes they have explicitly said that it removes all of HPL Racism, and anyone that wants to bring that back into their game - GR would rather do without their money. This type of stuff should not be tolerated at the table in anyway.

Another example is look at the old Bob Hope and Bing Crosby films, they would never get made now and for good reason.

I think the best thing we can do is to not tell others how to live their lives or run their games.

Is it ok for Trolls to eat Gnomes in a fantasy world?
Is it ok for a species to think it has a mandate to incorporate and organize all civilizations in a fantasy world (Wolfen)?

If those (and associated) things offend you and/or your players, then it matters. If those don't offend you and your players, then it doesn't matter.

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

Is it offensive to tell people to think for themselves?

[Rogerd]

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

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

Modern sensibilities are stupid.

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

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

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

[Library Ogre]

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

[Rogerd]

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

Exactly that, there are plenty of other character arcs that can be explored, instead of sensitive subjects.

[Kraynic]

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

Exactly that, there are plenty of other character arcs that can be explored, instead of sensitive subjects.

Ok, hmm...

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

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

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


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

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

[Rogerd]

Ok, hmm...

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

It really is not that difficult.

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

[Library Ogre]

It sounds like a complete straw man of a setup, unrelated to anything actually said.

The question asked was "Why do you want them to be major themes of your game", not "Why should they be elements of the story?"

Let us take, for example, the Kankoran, and compare them to Spirit West. The Kankoran are a fictional people who share some broad similarities with Native Americans (they're specifically described as being Zen-like, but their naming system tends to be stereotypically Native American). Spirit West posits that white people didn't REALLY genocide Native Americans, but that most of them were whisked away by powerful magical creatures, and came back, with, amazingly, the exact same stereotypes people have about Native Americans being true. The Rifts version of the Roma? They WANT to be thieves. Literally, in the text. I mean, I'm letting the g-word pass, since that was a lot less well-known in the 90s... but "Hey, these folks are all thieves because they like it that way" is pretty blatant.

Lots of places in the games have stereotypical gender roles, sure. It's part of the setting. But, they're
1) Not game rules (qv barbarian)
2) Semi-ignorable.
Sure, most women in this society are homemakers etc., but we don't, as players and GMs, actually need to play that up. We can kind of let the dwarf-elf hatred slide, or make it a feature in one character, as opposed to an entire race.

We don't need to really play up the racism in the game unless people want to. We don't need to play up sexism in our games unless we want to. Some people might want to deal with it, others don't. And, unless I've made a grave error, no one has executed you, yet, for your views. We're just questioning why you think its so fun to play with a lot of racism and sexism... and judging you for it, but in a moral way, not a legal one.

[Kraynic]

The question asked was "Why do you want them to be major themes of your game", not "Why should they be elements of the story?"

When did I say I have them as major themes in my games? As far as I can tell, the only thing I am "guilty" of is thinking that having only 5% of barbarians (a totally idiotic OCC in my opinion) being female is ok. For that I am a horrible person and should be ashamed of myself? Is it horrible that I think just passing judgment on someone and their games when you neither know them or have played in their games is unreasonable behavior?

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

[ITWastrel]

It's my own fault.
I'd forgotten I was on the internet.
I'd forgotten how many keyboard racists are out there, flat sprung on defending their edgelord views.

I'm about done, here. This whole thread is a bunch of pathetic Redhat white boys screaming "We LIKE being SCUMBAGS! You play your way, We'll play ours!"

Followed up by normal people just trying to be heard.

Why do I even come to this site anymore?

[Rogerd]

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

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

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

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

[Kraynic]

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

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

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

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

I never said I did. I'm now trying to find out how you know I am so offensive. If I am creating strawmen, it is because straws are all I have to cling to, due to you pulling "facts" about me out of fairly thin air. Where does your authority and basis for judgment against me come from? This is not moving the goal posts. This is asking you to defend your position that I am somehow such a horrible person that I should be shunned by society.

[Kraynic]

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

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

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

[Rogerd]

I never said I did. I'm now trying to find out how you know I am so offensive.

Again this is a total strawman.

If I am creating strawmen, it is because straws are all I have to cling to, due to you pulling "facts" about me out of fairly thin air.

No, this is because your attempt to justify your arguments are laughable, coupled with non sequitur logic which has nothing to do with the points being made. Something that I and Mark Hall have mentioned.

Where does your authority and basis for judgment against me come from? This is not moving the goal posts. This is asking you to defend your position that I am somehow such a horrible person that I should be shunned by society.

What we have been saying is that bringing sensitive subjects to the gaming table is not really necessary when you can have a marvelous time without such crap. Now one thing DnD fanbase does, and I dislike this immensely, is make certain Outsiders irredeemably evil, or good, same for vampires, and this existed through most additions.

So when DnD 4e came out, and literally kicked all this to the curb the fans were up in arms about it. They literally made it so that demons, angels, devils, vampires, or any creature could be good, or evil as suited their personalities. And something a lot of 5e gamers are doing is removing alignment altogether and going back to other cosmologies.

These are all examples of stereotyping being removed from games, and does not need to exist anymore.

[Kraynic]

I never said I did. I'm now trying to find out how you know I am so offensive.

Again this is a total strawman.

If I am creating strawmen, it is because straws are all I have to cling to, due to you pulling "facts" about me out of fairly thin air.

No, this is because your attempt to justify your arguments are laughable, coupled with non sequitur logic which has nothing to do with the points being made. Something that I and Mark Hall have mentioned.

Where does your authority and basis for judgment against me come from? This is not moving the goal posts. This is asking you to defend your position that I am somehow such a horrible person that I should be shunned by society.

What we have been saying is that bringing sensitive subjects to the gaming table is not really necessary when you can have a marvelous time without such crap. Now one thing DnD fanbase does, and I dislike this immensely, is make certain Outsiders irredeemably evil, or good, same for vampires.

So when DnD 4e came out, and literally kicked all this to the curb the fans were up in arms about it. They literally made it so that demons, angels, devils, vampires, or any creature could be good, or evil as suited their personalities. And something a lot of 5e gamers are doing is removing alignment altogether and going back to other cosmologies.

These are all examples of stereotyping being removed from games, and does not need to exist anymore.

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

[Rogerd]

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

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

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

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

[Kraynic]

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

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

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

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

I am NOT shifting the goalposts. This is the whole point of my objections to statements made in this thread. It is as if anyone who uses the any of the setting that you object to should be ashamed of running or playing in games that don't totally change everything about every race in the world. I'm not sure I should have to explain this to a grown adult either.

Does it make someone a horrible person if they use Wolfen in the form of expansionist Rome they are modeled after? Yes or no.
Does it make someone a horrible person if they say there are female barbarians, but they are not as common as male barbarians? Yes or no.
If someone disagrees with you about something about a setting in a fantasy game, is that ok, or is your way the only way? Yes or no.

[Rogerd]

I am NOT shifting the goalposts. This is the whole point of my objections to statements made in this thread. It is as if anyone who uses the any of the setting that you object to should be ashamed of running or playing in games that don't totally change everything about every race in the world. I'm not sure I should have to explain this to a grown adult either.

Does it make someone a horrible person if they use Wolfen in the form of expansionist Rome they are modeled after? Yes or no.
Does it make someone a horrible person if they say there are female barbarians, but they are not as common as male barbarians? Yes or no.
If someone disagrees with you about something about a setting in a fantasy game, is that ok, or is your way the only way? Yes or no.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof to someone else, instead of justifying your statements.
Coupled with shifting the goalposts.
And a massive bunch of non sequiturs.

At this point you must be trolling, or trying to be some internet tough guy by trying to not justify their Edgelord opinions.

And quite frankly, the term barbarian could be negatively construed too, and it is why A5U has referred to them as Berserkers.

[Kraynic]

I am NOT shifting the goalposts. This is the whole point of my objections to statements made in this thread. It is as if anyone who uses the any of the setting that you object to should be ashamed of running or playing in games that don't totally change everything about every race in the world. I'm not sure I should have to explain this to a grown adult either.

Does it make someone a horrible person if they use Wolfen in the form of expansionist Rome they are modeled after? Yes or no.
Does it make someone a horrible person if they say there are female barbarians, but they are not as common as male barbarians? Yes or no.
If someone disagrees with you about something about a setting in a fantasy game, is that ok, or is your way the only way? Yes or no.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof to someone else, instead of yourself for making such statements. That is literally the meaning of shifting the goalposts.

At this point you must be trolling, or trying to be some internet tough guy by trying to not justify their Edgelord opinions.

And quite frankly, the term barbarian could be negatively construed too, and it is why A5U has referred to them as Berserkers.

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

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

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

[Rogerd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kraynic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. I don't need to justify my position. I have been trying to get you to justify your correlation between portraying certain fantasy elements being analogous to full on racism and sexism in real life outside the game.
2. It doesn't matter whether it is required or optional. Does the inclusion of steriotypes in a game automatically correlate to the people participating in that game being racist, and/or sexist in real life?
3. It doesn't matter whether it is required or optional. Does the inclusion of any racial hatred in a fantasy game automatically correlate to the people participating in the game being racist in real life?
4. Is it still ok for some people to think differently than others, or does everyone have to conform to one way of thinking? As an extension, is it ok for some people to enjoy games that use a different setting than you do?

[Rogerd]

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

Failing the burden of proof.

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

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

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

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

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

[Kraynic]

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

Failing the burden of proof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do those statements correctly represent your position?

[Rogerd]

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

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

Do those statements correctly represent your position?

Non sequitur.