Quote from: David R;480833Bren, most of my campaigns are what most would consider morally ambiguos. There is plenty of violence in my games. It's just that my players have never had an interest in playing iredeemabely evil characters. Their characters may not be "good" but they do live by a code. However when they are playing heroic characters, they tend to act in accordance with their own personal belief of what is heroic and I guess most would consider that prosaic.

Regards,
David R

Okay, I think I missed the "iredeemably" part. Sounds like you listen to your players preferences on these matters which I can't argue with.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;480831This is one thing I probably wouldn't allow in my campaigns [terrorist PCs]

If we're talking ex-terrorist bomber who ends up Assamite in a Vampire game, I'm fine with it, because it's a background, it's not the focus of the game. If we're talking a sort of ultra-realist war scenario and the point is to show us how "terrorists are people like us" then I'm going to be a lot more weary - I might not play at all, as a matter of fact. James Bond games types I'm completely fine with. Getting into the modern warfare gaming with a political morale attached to it... no, thanks.

Quote from: Benoist;480835If we're talking ex-terrorist bomber who ends up Assamite in a Vampire game, I'm fine with it, because it's a background, it's not the focus of the game. If we're talking a sort of ultra-realist war scenario and the point is to show us how "terrorists are people like us" then I'm going to be a lot more weary - I might not play at all, as a matter of fact. James Bond games types I'm completely fine with. Getting into the modern warfare gaming with a political morale attached to it... no, thanks.

I think the example you gave wouldn't be an issue in my game. The second example (the realistic one) would be. So i think we are pretty much on the same page.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;480750I think this is where I was getting hung up as well. I don't believe anyone is arguing that D&D can't be used by racists to promote their ideology, or that the inclusion of racial concepts are an obvious path for them to utilize. But guys like storm seem to be saying the problem is something of a natural outgrowth of the game. Whereas we are saying all mediums can be abused by racists one way or another. And just because racists are grabbing onto something present in D&D it doesn't make that something "dark". Nor does the existence of racists who game (or use the game as a promotional tool) mean the hobby has a "dark side".

Let me switch up your wording, not as a trick, but to clarify.

You say "natural outgrowth", which means (to me) "it follows logically" or "most people would make the connection".  For example, cars are a "natural outgrowth" of horse drawn carriages.  The form was already there, people just needed to add a self-contained engine.  Dozens of companies were doing it in the early days.  In that sense, I don't think adding any specific world-views is precisely a "natural outgrowth" of RPGs.  Some people have interests others don't, obviously, so what is "natural" for me may be utterly foreign for you.  For instance, there have been plenty of posts around here detailing inclusion of this movie or that book into an RPG.  There have been rather fewer posts about making your game fit some polynomial curve.  For most people, the former is a "natural outgrowth" of using the system; adding in characters or events from other media is fairly logical.  For some, puzzling out how a game would unfold if it followed a polynomial curve is a "natural outgrowth" of using the system; events or stories can be broadly thought of in quantitative terms, and could be graphed in such a manner.  But in essence, the process of including those things brings me to my point.

Rather, I would say "the outgrowth is natural", as in, the hooks or connecting points are already there, it's just a matter of using them.  So, as you mentioned, racists will use them to express racism.  An English Major will use them to express literary themes.  A military historian will use them to express their views on war.  And so on.  In our case, the OP saw those same hooks, and was commenting on how he saw them being used.  And if his commentary was on how stupid it is for English Majors using them to express literary themes, he would have been, by turns, applauded as sophisticated and condemned as a Swine here.

What would not have happened is a thousand posts expressing shock, disdain and/or outrage that he had the temerity to simply point out one particular usage of these hooks, and his interpretation or opinion thereof.  Hardly a capital crime around these parts.

So, largely, this hasn't been a discussion about his points, which can be argued as good or bad.  It's been a panic about exactly how illegitimate it is to so much as comment on one particular use of this process that people are uncomfortable with.  In that light, everyone seems to be trying to make absolutely sure that these elements are not used for "bad" things, and when they are, it's because these hooks didn't actually exist in the first place.  In other words, they aren't using D&D to express their ideology, they are mis-using D&D to express their ideology.  Usually this is in the same breath as "it's just an inanimate tool".  Unless people are doing things with it they don't approve of.

Anyway, I'm not trying to draw you into this, but since you asked rather politely, I thought I would respond.  You don't have to agree, and I my intention is not to convince you.  If we agree to disagree, so be it; no discontent from me.

Quote from: StormBringer;480843Rather, I would say "the outgrowth is natural", as in, the hooks or connecting points are already there, it's just a matter of using them.  So, as you mentioned, racists will use them to express racism.  An English Major will use them to express literary themes.  A military historian will use them to express their views on war.  And so on.  In our case, the OP saw those same hooks, and was commenting on how he saw them being used.  And if his commentary was on how stupid it is for English Majors using them to express literary themes, he would have been, by turns, applauded as sophisticated and condemned as a Swine here.

What would not have happened is a thousand posts expressing shock, disdain and/or outrage that he had the temerity to simply point out one particular usage of these hooks, and his interpretation or opinion thereof.  Hardly a capital crime around these parts.

.

I think part of the issue is we simply disagree on what the OP was saying (which is fine, because he did say a lot and there was certainly room for different interpretations).

I don't generally engage in debates about "swine", etc because that has no impact on my gaming and I am all for people playing the game the way they want. But the OP was veering into the territory of saying people shouldn't game this way becuase it is somekind of endorsement of racist colonialism. the reason I reacted strongly to the OPs post is I take exception to his observations. It felt like a moral lecture to me.

As I said, I don't care what this guy does in his game. But I think the anger you saw expressed was because gamers are seeing more and more of the OPs ideas being put forward (though I think it is still pretty limited to the internet) and they disagree strongly with his connclusions. Add to that the fact that similar kinds of arguments have been made in past to get the hobby banned, I think it is natural people would bristle a bit. Do I think this guy's reasoning will gain traction? Probably not. If anything I can see it gaining currency in certain circles. But I can see game companies going back to something like the TSR design guidelines we saw (only this time to avoid offending guys like the OP) if a small but loud minority of gamers echo the OP's sentiments.

Quote from: StormBringer;480843So, largely, this hasn't been a discussion about his points, which can be argued as good or bad.  It's been a panic about exactly how illegitimate it is to so much as comment on one particular use of this process that people are uncomfortable with.  In that light, everyone seems to be trying to make absolutely sure that these elements are not used for "bad" things, and when they are, it's because these hooks didn't actually exist in the first place.  In other words, they aren't using D&D to express their ideology, they are mis-using D&D to express their ideology.  Usually this is in the same breath as "it's just an inanimate tool".  Unless people are doing things with it they don't approve of.

You are completely misreading what's been said. Mr. Gray's point was that the setup, the structure of D&D itself is layered with a "kind of privileged, colonial, expansionist, genocidal viewpoint" that he is grown mature enough, "at that stage of his life", to no longer ignore, unlike those who (1) play on these themes willingly, or (2) ignore those themes altogether because they don't know any better.

This is this particular point that is raising outrage. And rightfully so.

The part where you are right is that the likes of me think racists are indeed mis-using the structure and themes of D&D to project their agendas onto them, and that these agenda are not part of the game itself.

Quote from: StormBringer;480843Let me switch up your wording, not as a trick, but to clarify.

You say "natural outgrowth", which means (to me) "it follows logically" or "most people would make the connection".  For example, cars are a "natural outgrowth" of horse drawn carriages.  The form was already there, people just needed to add a self-contained engine.  Dozens of companies were doing it in the early days.  In that sense, I don't think adding any specific world-views is precisely a "natural outgrowth" of RPGs.  Some people have interests others don't, obviously, so what is "natural" for me may be utterly foreign for you.  For instance, there have been plenty of posts around here detailing inclusion of this movie or that book into an RPG.  There have been rather fewer posts about making your game fit some polynomial curve.  For most people, the former is a "natural outgrowth" of using the system; adding in characters or events from other media is fairly logical.  For some, puzzling out how a game would unfold if it followed a polynomial curve is a "natural outgrowth" of using the system; events or stories can be broadly thought of in quantitative terms, and could be graphed in such a manner.  But in essence, the process of including those things brings me to my point.

.

Honestly we've all been saying a lot and I probably would have to review my own posts at this stage to recall exactly where I was going.

But when I said a natural outgrowth, I meant a causal and logiccal link. That the existence of races that are evil in the game, means the obvious interpretation is "RAHOWA". I don't think the connection between D&D's setting and these peoples' racist worldview is at all obvious, and I don't think their arguments (from what I understand of them) logically follow from the settings. Sure there are countless lenses out there these days, and theoretically you could find features within D&D that line up pretty well with the pet concerns of any given lens. I would also be very hesitant to put white supremacist racists on the same level as a military historian or english major. While I would probably think it silly for a literary person to plumb through D&D for meaning and trying to advance some kind of critical argument from it, I wouldn't regard it as destructive and morally wrong. But a racist exploiting D&D to advance his agenda is a much different story. However in both cases I don't think their links naturally flow from the game. They are both imposing meaning on it IMO.

Quote from: Benoist;480847You are completely misreading what's been said. Mr. Gray's point was that the setup, the structure of D&D itself is layered with a "kind of privileged, colonial, expansionist, genocidal viewpoint" that he is grown mature enough, "at that stage of his life", to no longer ignore, unlike those who (1) play on these themes willingly, or (2) ignore those themes altogether because they don't know any better.

This is this particular point that is raising outrage. And rightfully so.

The part where you are right is that the likes of me think racists are indeed mis-using the structure and themes of D&D to project their agendas onto them, and that these agenda are not part of the game itself.

This is my take as well.

Quote from: Benoist;480847You are completely misreading what's been said. Mr. Gray's point was that the setup, the structure of D&D itself is layered with a "kind of privileged, colonial, expansionist, genocidal viewpoint" that he is grown mature enough, "at that stage of his life", to no longer ignore, unlike those who (1) play on these themes willingly, or (2) ignore those themes altogether because they don't know any better.

This is this particular point that is raising outrage. And rightfully so.

The part where you are right is that the likes of me think racists are indeed mis-using the structure and themes of D&D to project their agendas onto them, and that these agenda are not part of the game itself.

I'm coming at it from this standpoint, too.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;480831This is one thing I probably wouldn't allow in my campaigns, if only because it would likely lead to all kinds of political arguments and I do know players who were personally impacted by terrorism in some way. I realize it is a little inconsistent for me to on the one hand be fine with mobsters but not okay with terrorists in a game, but I've just found the former doesn't lead to problems and the later does (at least in the games i've run).

Bajoran terrorists fighting the Cardassians? Human terrorists fighting the Cylons?

American terrorists fighting the Invading Red Army?

Quote from: jibbajibba;480876Bajoran terrorists fighting the Cardassians? Human terrorists fighting the Cylons?

American terrorists fighting the Invading Red Army?

No that wasn't the kind of terrorist I was thinking of. Though I would still approach it cautiously depending on my players as I think some might take issue with engaging in the tactic itself (unless they are, as Benoist mentioned, larger than life James Bond-type terrorists).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;480848But when I said a natural outgrowth, I meant a causal and logiccal link. That the existence of races that are evil in the game, means the obvious interpretation is "RAHOWA". I don't think the connection between D&D's setting and these peoples' racist worldview is at all obvious, and I don't think their arguments (from what I understand of them) logically follow from the settings.

Did you read the Storm Front thread that was referenced?  

The original poster in that thread said that learning D&D as a child guided his understanding of real-world races.  He said that he had been confronted by arguments claiming that the existence of smart black people disproved the idea that blacks were mentally less capable overall.  However, he found that D&D helped him understand how that argument was flawed, by the idea of a bell-curve distribution for attributes and modifiers to it.  

Now, he is correct that that particular argument for racial equality is flawed - but his overall view that real-world races have differences similar to D&D races is false.  

His association that real-world races differ similarly to D&D races is a misapplication - but I can easily see how it could happen in a young child who isn't taught better.  For better or worse, I learned a lot of things from RPGs as a child.  Much of my interest in physics (which I eventually got a PhD in) came from early play with Traveller - which has some excellent and correct science in it.  On the other hand, I also got some stuff wrong that I learned through RPGs - like what medieval armor & weapons were like and how they worked.  

RPGs shouldn't be held responsible for real-world education - but conversely we shouldn't be surprised if young kids learn things, right or wrong, from RPG play.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;480846I think part of the issue is we simply disagree on what the OP was saying (which is fine, because he did say a lot and there was certainly room for different interpretations).

I don't generally engage in debates about "swine", etc because that has no impact on my gaming and I am all for people playing the game the way they want. But the OP was veering into the territory of saying people shouldn't game this way becuase it is somekind of endorsement of racist colonialism. the reason I reacted strongly to the OPs post is I take exception to his observations. It felt like a moral lecture to me.

As I said, I don't care what this guy does in his game. But I think the anger you saw expressed was because gamers are seeing more and more of the OPs ideas being put forward (though I think it is still pretty limited to the internet) and they disagree strongly with his connclusions. Add to that the fact that similar kinds of arguments have been made in past to get the hobby banned, I think it is natural people would bristle a bit. Do I think this guy's reasoning will gain traction? Probably not. If anything I can see it gaining currency in certain circles. But I can see game companies going back to something like the TSR design guidelines we saw (only this time to avoid offending guys like the OP) if a small but loud minority of gamers echo the OP's sentiments.

I don't think the absent Mr Gray is saying don't game it's Terrible, after all he is still gaming. He is saying he finds elements of the traditional D&D set up difficult to deal with because he sees parallels with racism and colonialism. It's not so very different to David R saying his group doesn't play evil charaters or people not wanting to play terrorists.
Perhaps he goes a step further to suggest that these things are inherent in the system but he certainly doesn't try to make everyone in the world stop playing D&D and I suspect, and some of you may think I cut him too much slack here, that if he were here he would probably argue his case and then say but if you guys want to do x or y then its your game...

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;480879No that wasn't the kind of terrorist I was thinking of. Though I would still approach it cautiously depending on my players as I think some might take issue with engaging in the tactic itself (unless they are, as Benoist mentioned, larger than life James Bond-type terrorists).

So you'll only play good terrorists
Cool, sorted

Quote from: jibbajibba;480881[Mr. Gray] is saying he finds elements of the traditional D&D set up difficult to deal with because he sees parallels with racism and colonialism.

It's not just that he sees "parallels", no. When he's saying "So it all stinks to me of a kind of privileged, colonial, expansionist, genocidal viewpoint that makes my stomach turn", with "it" in "it all stinks" being "the D&D setup and design". It means that this setup and design are stinking of this priviledged, expansionist, genocidal viewpoint he despises.

Read the OP again. Come on. Stop trying to make what he's saying sound nicer than it really is.

Quote from: jibbajibba;480881It's not so very different to David R saying his group doesn't play evil charaters or people not wanting to play terrorists.
Perhaps he goes a step further to suggest that these things are inherent in the system but (...)

"But but but." Whatever with your 'but'. That's precisely what's making the whole difference!

"Your D&D stinks of privileged, colonial, genocidal, expansionist stuff that makes my stomach turn, but that's okay! You guys don't really know what you're doing, and even though I've outgrown that stage in my life and am now mature enough to put aside those nasty things, you can keep on playing like the simpletons you are. Or join me. Whichever way, I'm cool with it. Honest."

Right.