Quote from: Pat;1108254No, it's really not.


D&D is also outside the norm. Do you think D&D is also equivalent to depicting rape?

I used the word rape intentionally.  It doesn't bother most people that you might slice and dice some orcs while playing an imaginary elf game; but if you say that you also forcibly acquire a shot of poontang, suddenly all hell breaks loose.

Quote from: Pat;1108264I was pretty blatantly implying it's a terrible example. I phrased it as a question to soften it a bit, in case Razor hadn't really thought the comparison through. You don't just randomly compare things to rape, unless you want to totally derail a conversation.

But you knew exactly what he meant, regardless of whether you thought it was a "good example". I, and anyone else with common sense, that engages in these discussions in good faith, already know *this* is the level of discussion people invariably has to descend to in order to point it out. And yet... even this doesn't apparently suffice.

Quote from: Pat;1108264No idea what you mean about political pandering, so that entire first paragraph doesn't parse. And the digression about murder seems irrelevant. People don't have the same emotional reaction to murder in fiction that they do to rape.

SJWS at WotC/Paizo are running the show. They're pandering to the SJW's they believe are the majority of consumers. The SJW agenda is political pandering. Period. The degree to which they do it is what this thread is partially about and worth discussion. The point of Razor's - since you're literally making me spell it out - is that you created the digression as a rhetorical tactic to make it about "rape" when he used it *specifically* as an arbitrary thing we *ALL* agree is an outlier to gaming and proclaiming it so makes you "good". But if you say *anything* about the proclivity of inserting the SJW pandering bits - you're the Devil, either by directly or by insinuation.

It's ARBITRARY by example. You are the one now claiming he's equating being gay with rape. And it is the peculiar disingenuous tactic of SJWs (not saying YOU are an SJW - just that this is a common rhetorical tactic) to ignore the real point, in order to deflect in order to shoot for the more inane point that no one is really making.

That's why I brought up MURDER as a specific digression to point out how your framing of his valid point derails the discussion. Now the natural course is - "Let's debate on whether murder or rape is more heinous? Or let's debate about people's emotional reaction to murder vs. rape in fiction? BLAH BLAH - nicely deflected off of Razor's obvious point...

Quote from: Pat;1108264Agree that I can't believe this actually being disputed.

And with this - you're either doubling down on being disingenuous. OR you truly missed Razor's point. In either case that makes having the discussion pretty difficult.

Quote from: tenbones;1108272But you knew exactly what he meant, regardless of whether you thought it was a "good example". I, and anyone else with common sense, that engages in these discussions in good faith, already know *this* is the level of discussion people invariably has to descend to in order to point it out. And yet... even this doesn't apparently suffice.



SJWS at WotC/Paizo are running the show. They're pandering to the SJW's they believe are the majority of consumers. The SJW agenda is political pandering. Period. The degree to which they do it is what this thread is partially about and worth discussion. The point of Razor's - since you're literally making me spell it out - is that you created the digression as a rhetorical tactic to make it about "rape" when he used it *specifically* as an arbitrary thing we *ALL* agree is an outlier to gaming and proclaiming it so makes you "good". But if you say *anything* about the proclivity of inserting the SJW pandering bits - you're the Devil, either by directly or by insinuation.

It's ARBITRARY by example. You are the one now claiming he's equating being gay with rape. And it is the peculiar disingenuous tactic of SJWs (not saying YOU are an SJW - just that this is a common rhetorical tactic) to ignore the real point, in order to deflect in order to shoot for the more inane point that no one is really making.

That's why I brought up MURDER as a specific digression to point out how your framing of his valid point derails the discussion. Now the natural course is - "Let's debate on whether murder or rape is more heinous? Or let's debate about people's emotional reaction to murder vs. rape in fiction? BLAH BLAH - nicely deflected off of Razor's obvious point...



And with this - you're either doubling down on being disingenuous. OR you truly missed Razor's point. In either case that makes having the discussion pretty difficult.

Fuck you. The problem isn't anything I've said. You're not the victim here. You are the one being disingenuous.

I made a clear point, and I've clarified that point. Using rape as an analogy is a conversation ender. It's an awful conversational tactic, regardless of how much you try to justify it by shifting the blame. The problem is you're reading shit into what I said. I didn't address Razor's point, anywhere. Why? Because this started with my post, where I was talking about the differences between fiction and reality. And Razor replied by randomly bringing up rape. So that digression you're talking about? It was 100% Razor, 0% me. Rape is the type of thing that causes all rational talk to come screeching to a halt, just like it did here thanks to Razor, Teodrik, and you. That's what I addressed.

Re-read what you wrote about "good faith". You've built up this imaginary edifice of what conversations on this topic are like, and you just randomly assigned half of it to me because... fuck if I know why. That's the exact opposite of good faith. This need not just to take sides, but to assume there are only two sides, and to view everything anyone says as being some kind of code that indicates which side they're on; and then the moment you decide someone's not on your side based on those invisible, imaginary cues, you ascribe to them this long list of random things you think are bad; is a pathology. One shared by both you, and the SJWs. And it's the reason why nobody sane wants to participate in these conversations, because they're basically just crazy people shouting at each other.

I wonder how those defending the notion that "everyone is gay because ... fiction!" would feel about every character in their games and other media having an average of 12 children. Aragorn: 12 kids. Legolas: 8 kids. Gandalf: 16 kids. Every hobbit family, everyone in Bree. No reason related to the story at all of course (it's "Lord of the Rings", not "Why are there so many kids")

If you think that's weird at all then you hate children, right?

Next, try to wrap your head around the fact that everyone having an average of 12 kids each is a similarly unreal ratio to that in which our games and media are populated with homosexuals (again, with zero bearing on the point of the story). I think it's OK to think that's weird.

Quote from: Zalman;1108288I wonder how those defending the notion that "everyone is gay because ... fiction!" would feel about every character in their games and other media having an average of 12 children. Aragorn: 12 kids. Legolas: 8 kids. Gandalf: 16 kids. Every hobbit family, everyone in Bree. No reason related to the story at all of course (it's "Lord of the Rings", not "Why are there so many kids")

If you think that's weird at all then you hate children, right?

Next, try to wrap your head around the fact that everyone having an average of 12 kids each is a similarly unreal ratio to that in which our games and media are populated with homosexuals (again, with zero bearing on the point of the story). I think it's OK to think that's weird.

    Heck, let them have children, period. Around this time last year, when Dragon Heist was getting attention for its Waterdeep-as-Fantasy-Seattle approach, I asked people who owned the product "Okay, do we have any families with children in among all this LBGTQ+ representation?" The answer, as I recall, was 'well, no ...'.

Quote from: Pat;1108279I made a clear point, and I've clarified that point. Using rape as an analogy is a conversation ender. It's an awful conversational tactic, regardless of how much you try to justify it by shifting the blame. The problem is you're reading shit into what I said. I didn't address Razor's point, anywhere. Why? Because this started with my post, where I was talking about the differences between fiction and reality. And Razor replied by randomly bringing up rape. So that digression you're talking about? It was 100% Razor, 0% me. Rape is the type of thing that causes all rational talk to come screeching to a halt, just like it did here thanks to Razor, Teodrik, and you. That's what I addressed.

I agree that the rape analogy is bullshit and a derailing. Further, it's hidden a switch of goalposts. In the previous conversation, the argument from Zalman was in favor of supposed greater realism -- namely that the percentage of LGBT characters in modules should match real life. This was being used as an argument against WotC, which supposedly had higher than 4% (or whatever). But Razor's counter was to argue that it's OK to want 0% LGBT characters.

To try to re-rail, here's the conversation from post #251 to post #261:

Quote from: ZalmanAs to fiction resembling real life even "vaguely" ... that's a non-sequitur: we always expect the details of a fictional story that aren't integral to the story being told to be realistic. That's how we can tell which parts are fiction. We expect that the Fellowship of the Ring to be able to march across the land without floating away because we expect gravity to work the same way that it does in real life. If gravity doesn't work the same way in that piece of fiction, we expect an explanation.

Quote from: PatWe absolutely do not expect the details of fiction to be realistic. We do demand verisimilitude in some things, but only in certain very narrow and very specific areas, and those areas vary by person. More importantly, verisimilitude isn't reality, it's a sleight of hand, a deception, designed to trick our brains. When the details of fiction are closely examined, for example when transcripts of actual conversations are compared to the dialog in successful stories, the elements from the stories bear very little resemblance to reality. In fact, it's the elements from reality that often seems fake or unrealistic. That's because fiction is a set of devices designed to fools our minds into accepting the alternate reality of a story, and it fulls exploits the way the human mind fills in gaps, recognizes and completes patterns, demands moral outcomes, identifies with stories and characters, and engages memory. Storytelling techniques are closer to dream logic, and use cues like genre conventions or perceived social pressure to guide our reactions, and then build in underlying themes and other connections to bind it into a coherent piece. We're not just willing to overlook gaps and outrageous inconsistencies, we're entirely blind to their existence because our minds fills over any holes and stamps down any proud nails, and this occurs at below the level of conscious thought.

Quote from: Razor 007;1108214Man, that's a longggg paragraph.

There are people who don't want to see certain things depicted in their games.  If you say you don't want to see rape depicted in your games, most people will say that makes you a good person.  However; if you say you don't want to see LGBTQ+ content in your games, you are considered a horrible person.  That is crazy.  Both are outside of the norm.

I agree with Pat and disagree with Zalman about realism. Fiction doesn't have to be realistic, even in background details like economics, clothing, demographics, etc. Thus, I disagree with the argument that LGBT characters in modules should have to statistically match their frequency in reality.

If Razor wants to have zero percent LGBT characters in his games, I don't particularly care -- because I don't think games are real life. But his gaming preferences are his taste, not an objective mark against WotC.

Greetings!

What the hell is the stupid obsession with rape, and the constant posturing of "Rape Inclusion" or whatever as some kind of moral badge? In my campaigns, *Rape* is a pretty common and ordinary activity--for conquering armies, barbarian hordes, and mass assaults and invasions by wicked, evil humanoids. Much like the news, Bards and other people in the campaign world reference rape of various individuals as appropriate, or unfortunate populations, again as appropriate to the situation and events at hand.

Villainous characters also engage in rape, brutal torture, murder and sacrifice, among other horrific atrocities.

Do so many of you actually have *player characters* that go around raping women? In my campaigns, such activity would earn most such characters a villainous reputation, with a likely judicial or communal judgement of being executed, tortured, or maimed in some compacity. Conquering armies and bands of mercenaries would otherwise benefit from a somewhat different metric, depending on the nation, people, alignment, and culture--much like we see in our own historical records.

It's almost like some kind of taboo terminology with hushed, magical properties, whenever anyone even so much as mentions *Rape*. As I noted, such sensitive sensibilities would likely be severely triggered reading any of dozens, hundredsof historical books and accounts--as well as the Bible. In a dark, brutal and violent world, women are frequently raped as a matter of course. It's a trapping of being female throughout history in virtually every culture and time. In history, women are frequently raped. In a warlike fantasy world, women are likewise often subjected to rape, just like men are often brutally tortured and killed. Children are slaughtered, or enslaved. So what? It's a historically-flavoured fantasy game. Lots of terrible things happen, like being tortured, slaughtered by weapons, roasted alive by fire, or eaten by some horrifying monster.

In such a game for exmple, a player character might learn that their home village was conquered by an army of savage beastmen. Most everyone was slaughtered and eaten, while the women were raped and enslaved. NEXT?

Perhaps the player characters can investigate and discover if some of their female relatives or friends still live, and may be rescued? Whatever. Geesus. The whole triggering angst about the term being referenced is just stupid to me.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Zalman;1108288I wonder how those defending the notion that "everyone is gay because ... fiction!" would feel about every character in their games and other media having an average of 12 children. Aragorn: 12 kids. Legolas: 8 kids. Gandalf: 16 kids. Every hobbit family, everyone in Bree. No reason related to the story at all of course (it's "Lord of the Rings", not "Why are there so many kids")

If you think that's weird at all then you hate children, right?

Next, try to wrap your head around the fact that everyone having an average of 12 kids each is a similarly unreal ratio to that in which our games and media are populated with homosexuals (again, with zero bearing on the point of the story). I think it's OK to think that's weird.

The average number of kids in pre-industrial society was much higher than today. A dozen kids isn't THAT noteworthy in a medieval setting (heck, I know a couple Catholic families in my area in the present with over a dozen kids and over a hundred grandkids). On the high side, but not strange.

In other words, your numbers are off. To properly convey the ridiculousness of the gay gnome kings in the setting the typical human family needs to have a HUNDRED children (so 33 sets of triplets back-to-back starting from the age of 15 to actually physically accomplish that). That's how unbelievable the co-ruling gay kings are.

To be fair though, the most ridiculous part was calling them kings when their community was just 40 people.

Quote from: Zalman;1108288I wonder how those defending the notion that "everyone is gay because ... fiction!" would feel about every character in their games and other media having an average of 12 children. Aragorn: 12 kids. Legolas: 8 kids. Gandalf: 16 kids. Every hobbit family, everyone in Bree. No reason related to the story at all of course (it's "Lord of the Rings", not "Why are there so many kids")

If you think that's weird at all then you hate children, right?

During the series, Aragorn is frickin 87 years old -- never been married, no children. In a world without birth control, this would normally be interpreted as being flamingly gay. In fact, the entire fellowship is like this. Frodo is 50 years old, never been married, no children. The youngest among them is Pippin at 28 -- but all were unmarried with no children.

I think what you suggest would actually be far more normal than what is portrayed in Lord of the Rings.

Moreover, you're comparing to a hypothetical of *every* character is gay -- as opposed to what's seen in the module, which is a *single couple* being gay.


EDITED TO ADD: Cross-posted with Chris24601

Quote from: Chris24601;1108298To properly convey the ridiculousness of the gay gnome kings in the setting the typical human family needs to have a HUNDRED children (so 33 sets of triplets back-to-back starting from the age of 15 to actually physically accomplish that). That's how unbelievable the co-ruling gay kings are.

To be fair though, the most ridiculous part was calling them kings when their community was just 40 people.

I don't even understand this. How is *one couple* being gay comparable to changing the standards of *every* family in the entire setting to be over-the-top? That doesn't make sense to me. The gnome kings are of the sort of inclusion of "blink and you'll miss it". One could easily play through the module and not encounter them at all.

As for their tiny kingdom, the Arthurian sagas and other tales seem to be full of threadbare "kings" who have little more than the clothes on their backs.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1108294Heck, let them have children, period. Around this time last year, when Dragon Heist was getting attention for its Waterdeep-as-Fantasy-Seattle approach, I asked people who owned the product "Okay, do we have any families with children in among all this LBGTQ+ representation?" The answer, as I recall, was 'well, no ...'.

That's more interesting to me than the presence of LGBTetc. characters. I recall when the monster manual talked about young appearing in bands of humans, demihumans, and humanoids, and I've always assumed that they were still there if unmentioned. I guess the same could have been said for the LGBTetc. groups, but now they must be mentioned, but no one thinks of the children (except for the now-dead Epstein and, of course, R. Kelly). I wonder when they will become the "must be mentioned group" in RPGs. I also wonder if there is a connection between NPCs never having children and PCs so often being orphans...

Quote from: SHARK;1108296Greetings!

What the hell is the stupid obsession with rape, and the constant posturing of "Rape Inclusion" or whatever as some kind of moral badge? In my campaigns, *Rape* is a pretty common and ordinary activity--for conquering armies, barbarian hordes, and mass assaults and invasions by wicked, evil humanoids. Much like the news, Bards and other people in the campaign world reference rape of various individuals as appropriate, or unfortunate populations, again as appropriate to the situation and events at hand.

Villainous characters also engage in rape, brutal torture, murder and sacrifice, among other horrific atrocities.

Do so many of you actually have *player characters* that go around raping women? In my campaigns, such activity would earn most such characters a villainous reputation, with a likely judicial or communal judgement of being executed, tortured, or maimed in some compacity. Conquering armies and bands of mercenaries would otherwise benefit from a somewhat different metric, depending on the nation, people, alignment, and culture--much like we see in our own historical records.

It's almost like some kind of taboo terminology with hushed, magical properties, whenever anyone even so much as mentions *Rape*. As I noted, such sensitive sensibilities would likely be severely triggered reading any of dozens, hundredsof historical books and accounts--as well as the Bible. In a dark, brutal and violent world, women are frequently raped as a matter of course. It's a trapping of being female throughout history in virtually every culture and time. In history, women are frequently raped. In a warlike fantasy world, women are likewise often subjected to rape, just like men are often brutally tortured and killed. Children are slaughtered, or enslaved. So what? It's a historically-flavoured fantasy game. Lots of terrible things happen, like being tortured, slaughtered by weapons, roasted alive by fire, or eaten by some horrifying monster.

In such a game for exmple, a player character might learn that their home village was conquered by an army of savage beastmen. Most everyone was slaughtered and eaten, while the women were raped and enslaved. NEXT?

Perhaps the player characters can investigate and discover if some of their female relatives or friends still live, and may be rescued? Whatever. Geesus. The whole triggering angst about the term being referenced is just stupid to me.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

It is common in wartime conditions for the pillagers to rape men too. The belief that only women are raped is unrealistic, sexist, homophobic, ageist, blah blah blah, but more importantly this false belief contributes to the persecution of male survivors.

The belief that men don't have to worry about being raped in wartime is a childish fiction, the equivalent of Disney sanitizing fairy tales of their copious amounts of rape and cannibalism. To indiscriminate rapists, holes are holes. Assuming that the man survives, he will never be able to tell anyone else about what happened without being persecuted as unmanly.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Pillagers will rape everyone, engage in sexual torture, brutal mass murder, and desecration of the dead. One only needs to look at Nanking, the Balkans, or Africa for well-documented examples of these wartime sexual atrocities.

Quote from: Pat;1108279Fuck you. The problem isn't anything I've said. You're not the victim here. You are the one being disingenuous.

Easy tiger. I'm pointing out the OBVIOUS. Don't take my word for it: take the word of Razor himself. HE even said it. YOU even said it by saying it was a "terrible example" - that is an implication that you understood what he meant, but your own personal decision to focus on the example instead of the point was YOURS.

And I'm certainly no victim in *anything*. I'm merely having a discussion. So unfuck me, please?

Quote from: Pat;1108279I made a clear point, and I've clarified that point. Using rape as an analogy is a conversation ender.

Who gets to decide that? If you knew damn well why he used it, and I backed it up since the word "rape" comes across your ocular sensory organs like a cheesegrater - I used Murder - for the INTENT of staying on Razor's more valid point, then why did you shift the point to comparing Rape to Murder vs. the real point he was making?

It appears the only person making *any* analogy a conversation ender is you. I'm game to use, Rape, Murder, Incest, Genocide, -cide, Drug use - whatever - a discussion point that stays on topic of pandering. You are the one making exceptions. /shrug

Quote from: Pat;1108279It's an awful conversational tactic, regardless of how much you try to justify it by shifting the blame. The problem is you're reading shit into what I said. I didn't address Razor's point, anywhere. Why? Because this started with my post, where I was talking about the differences between fiction and reality. And Razor replied by randomly bringing up rape. So that digression you're talking about? It was 100% Razor, 0% me. Rape is the type of thing that causes all rational talk to come screeching to a halt, just like it did here thanks to Razor, Teodrik, and you. That's what I addressed.

So to stay on Razor's REAL point of value - I switched it to "/random roll of horrible shit worse than merely being gay that's ACTUALLY commong in RPG's" - MURDER. Which you then decided to naturally turn away from the real point into yet, something else. *That* is the only conversational tactic in play. I'm the one trying to stay on point. The larger point. The point that is actually germane to the thread topic. I'm not trying to make demands of people here on what words are allowed and not allowed to be used as a contrast to political pandering. That's silly.

Quote from: Pat;1108279Re-read what you wrote about "good faith". You've built up this imaginary edifice of what conversations on this topic are like, and you just randomly assigned half of it to me because... fuck if I know why.

How imaginary is it - when you just literally did it?

Quote from: Pat;1108279That's the exact opposite of good faith. This need not just to take sides, but to assume there are only two sides, and to view everything anyone says as being some kind of code that indicates which side they're on; and then the moment you decide someone's not on your side based on those invisible, imaginary cues, you ascribe to them this long list of random things you think are bad; is a pathology. One shared by both you, and the SJWs. And it's the reason why nobody sane wants to participate in these conversations, because they're basically just crazy people shouting at each other.

And since I'm trying to stay on topic - and not telling you what words to use, and which ones not to use - I'm backing up Razor's claim about the prevalence of what is political pandering on various levels, and HE merely brought up the observation you don't seem okay with discussing?

I'm not imagining *anything* - the words are literally right there on the screen. I don't even know why you're apparently angry? I'm not angry. I'm merely saying it's a bad rhetorical tool you're using. Otherwise speak to the point, not your feelings about the choice of words he used - when you *clearly* by your own words understood what he was getting at.

Quote from: jhkim;1108306During the series, Aragorn is frickin 87 years old -- never been married, no children. In a world without birth control, this would normally be interpreted as being flamingly gay. In fact, the entire fellowship is like this. Frodo is 50 years old, never been married, no children. The youngest among them is Pippin at 28 -- but all were unmarried with no children.

I think what you suggest would actually be far more normal than what is portrayed in Lord of the Rings.

Moreover, you're comparing to a hypothetical of *every* character is gay -- as opposed to what's seen in the module, which is a *single couple* being gay.

Nah - it's the fact that it's not necessary at all to have every Intersectional Denomination of Identity in every piece of fiction for the ulterior purposes to the fiction itself. Which is true the *vast* majority of the time.

So I don't get lost in the stupid weeds:

Razors's contention is: Rape is an outlier to most games. i.e. it shouldn't be part of the game. Since being LGBT is an outlier - let's *remove* Rape as a comparison since it hurts people's feelings. And use...

Eating Exclusively With Our Left Hand

We all agree that having representations of Eating Exclusively With Our Left Hand is probably not useful in our games. Why is it merely saying that having LGBT elements in our games is villainizing for saying we don't need those elements either?

(And I'm still waiting for WotC to magically give me any representation for my ethnic heritage lo these many years... and yet... I survive! See? I'm not victim! I'm a Non-Representation Survivor!)

Quote from: tenbones;1108312I'm a Non-Representation Survivor!

You poor thing! You've hopelessly internalized your own marginalization! As a white guy who finds this deeply disturbing, let me tell you why you're part of your own non-problem - and how that is a real problem!