Oh good.  It wasn't just me

But surely magic can only discover what the child wants?  The issue isn't whether or not a child wants to have sex but whether or not that child has the mental capacities to make an informed decision to give his or her consent.

Whether or not a child is telling the truth when they say they enjoyed it is neither here nor there.  The fact is that paedophilia is wrong because kids don't have the emotional and intellectual maturity to understand sex.

Having said that, there's paedophilia in Huxley's with a similarly questionable justification.

I don't know whether "Approved by the NAMBLA" would be a selling point for a game...

I think I'd have to see a bit more of the game before I made a judgement call on it for certain, but this does sound like one of those cases of "sending a message".
More often, its the "anti" crowd which sends these kinds of messages.

In any case, to me it is really a question of trying to present things as they are, rather than making a convoluted effort at prosletyzing in some way.

For example, in ancient Rome the values on things like sexuality were totally utterly different from our own.
There was an awful lot of what we today would call pedophilia going on.
Not just that, but some of the very BEST emperors would have been labelled pedophiles today.
They also would have been labelled as "homosexuals", even though that isn't strictly correct either; its certainly nothing to do with how they would have likely viewed themselves.

So what can you do with all this?
Well, you could make a game where you impose 20th century values on ancient Rome, making it blatantly clear that "pedophilia (or homosexuality, if you happen to think that way) is evil" and making sure that, in the game, absolutely every incidence of this act ends up having terrible negative consequences, even though that isn't really the case historically.
Or you could, I suppose, turn it around, the way some gay academics have to try to present the "good emperors" as having been good BECAUSE they were gay, and turn the whole thing into a glorification of 20th century homosexuality, even though ancient roman homosexuality was nothing like modern homosexuality (or, substitute pedophilia for that if you happen to think THAT way...hell, I understand that Hadrian has been turned into something of a "poster boy" for NAMBLA).

Or you could, instead, make a game where you present the facts as they were, prejudices and habits of that time delineated such as they were, with no need for a "20th century commentary". That's usually what I choose to do.
But what makes that scary for some people is that it demonstrates how utterly relative many of what we believe to be our "absolute" values really are.

Meanwhile, when you figure out what things really are the same between us and the Romans (or other historical cultures), that's where you clue into what the REAL absolute human truths are.

RPGPundit

That's what I liked about Rome, the TV series. They went quite far in portraying the morals as they were then, especially compared to previous works (well, apart from "I, Claudius" maybe). But I didn't expect PC morals when John Milius is executive producer...

I always find it rather disturbing when people assume there's some kind of moral evolution where the next step is by definition better than the previous one. It gets even more disturbing when someone tells me that the last step was done 2000 years ago...

Human nature hasn't really ever changed.  We're still all about getting fucked up, killing our enemies and shagging something young and energetic.

At the moment in Britain there's something of a moral panic going on about binge drinking but the thing is that the residents of these isles have always been complete piss-heads going back to Rome.  I mean the Romans used to drink their wine waterred down... the early British didn't though.

It's actually something I find quite comforting.  Whether we're decadent romans or goose-stepping Nazis we all want to acquire status, get wasted and maybe fuck something before going to sleep.

You're absolutely right about those universal values, analytical.  Mind you, I also think there are others too, some that might be seen as a little more "virtuous", but really I think that there's a lot of virtue to be had in recognizing human nature warts and all.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIn any case, to me it is really a question of trying to present things as they are, rather than making a convoluted effort at prosletyzing in some way.

Quote from: RPGPunditMeanwhile, when you figure out what things really are the same between us and the Romans (or other historical cultures), that's where you clue into what the REAL absolute human truths are.

The thing is, people who proselytize often feel that they are trying to show things "as they are".  Indeed, you feel that you're communicating the real absolute human truths by showing things "as they are".  That's a form of proselytizing.  

Conversely, I believe that a game can have unhistorical characters -- i.e. good guys who are truly good, and villains who are capital-E Evil -- without feeling like a clumsy diatribe.  I think the difference in how well-executed and reasonable the portrayals are, not whether they say anything.

Quote from: jhkimThe thing is, people who proselytize often feel that they are trying to show things "as they are".  Indeed, you feel that you're communicating the real absolute human truths by showing things "as they are".  That's a form of proselytizing.

And how does that impact the issue of "realism" in role-playing games?  That's exactly the sort of issue I had in mind when I was talking about the subjective perspecitive that everyone has of reality.  We don't have to rehash everything that we've been going round and round on in other threads but I'm curious how this statement fits in with your other views about "realism" in role-playing games.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou're absolutely right about those universal values, analytical.  Mind you, I also think there are others too, some that might be seen as a little more "virtuous", but really I think that there's a lot of virtue to be had in recognizing human nature warts and all.

RPGPundit

Keeping this in mind will serve a GM well when attempting to create credible characters.

Regards,
David R

Well, at least no one is going on at great length about how their elves and dwarves are different!

I think it all depends on what the DM and players are comfortable with, specifically the level of submersion* they are seeking.

Some groups are comfortable with familiar tropes lightly sketched and can have a grand time with it, others may want to develop a setting which is very alien in mores and tone but has its own internal consistency and distinct feel.

*Immersion is like getting wet. Submersion means you intend to stay down for a while

I once played in a game where one of the characters had sex with a gnome. She was later executed for beastiality.

Quote from: RPGPunditFor example, in ancient Rome the values on things like sexuality were totally utterly different from our own.

In what ways were they totally utterly different?  

Do Roman views on male-male sexual relations really differ from what you'll find in an American prison?  Do you really think there weren't critiques of these things and other moral issues from other Romans?  

For example, have you read Tacitus' Germania where he contrasts the Germans with his own culture by saying, "In truth, nobody turns vices into mirth there, nor is the practice of corrupting and of yielding to corruption, called the custom of the Age."  Aren't you also turning "vices into mirth" and "corrupting and yielding to corruption" and calling it "the custom of the Age"?

Would you say that Tacitus was writing a "20th century commentary"  nearly 19 centuries before the 20th Century?

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, you could make a game where you impose 20th century values on ancient Rome, making it blatantly clear that "pedophilia (or homosexuality, if you happen to think that way) is evil" and making sure that, in the game, absolutely every incidence of this act ends up having terrible negative consequences, even though that isn't really the case historically.

Actually, there were a lot of terrible negative consequences.  They were simply willing to accept or overlook those consequences, much as people are willing to accept the consequences of drinking, smoking, or random sex with strangers.  The 100 or so dead newborns found in the sewers of Askalon, whether the result of prostitution or something else, suggest a pretty nasty underside to life in the Roman world.  

Quote from: RPGPunditOr you could, instead, make a game where you present the facts as they were, prejudices and habits of that time delineated such as they were, with no need for a "20th century commentary". That's usually what I choose to do.

You make it sound like the principles of the "20th century commentary" are somehow alien to earlier times.  I think that's cultural relativism running amok.

That a real Achilles might have ignored the screams and tears of the captive women he raped does not change moral implications of raping captive women or the fact that there would be screams and/or tears.   An Achilles would likely have not liked to find himself or his mother in such circumstances.  All it means is that an Achilles, despite whatever other virtues and military prowess he might have had, was indifferent to the pain and suffering of his victims.  He was a pouty prima donna.  And it's not as if modern Americans don't excuse and even admire pouty prima donnas, even those accused of rape (I can think of many examples, including sports figures, movie stars, a director, musicians, authors, politicians, and so on).

Quote from: RPGPunditBut what makes that scary for some people is that it demonstrates how utterly relative many of what we believe to be our "absolute" values really are.

Read Tacitus.  Look at how and why Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire, particularly among women of social standing.  The values and consequences were always there.  You can find evidence of them in Romans writing about themselves, for example in the writings of Tacitus.  An unless you want to argue that male-on-male rape in modern American prisons is morally acceptable there because it's part of the prevailing culture in those prisons, I think you need to realize that there is often a huge disconnect between what people know to be right and wrong and what they allow and practice.  And that people do things because they feel forced to do them doesn't mean that they consider them good or would continue to do them if they had a choice.

Quote from: RPGPunditMeanwhile, when you figure out what things really are the same between us and the Romans (or other historical cultures), that's where you clue into what the REAL absolute human truths are.

And what do you think those are?

On Dragon Earth pedophilia is seen as an illness. It is a psychiatric disorder in which the victim has a need to dominate and control. Invariably young children. Sometimes very young.

Consent has nothing to do with it. Often consent is unwanted, the pedophile wants rejection so he can overpower the child and have his way. It gives him a sense of power. A pedophile is nothing more than a serial killer who focuses on the immature. Under most legal codes on Dragon Earth pedophilia is defined as a form of rape. Often aggravated rape. The usual penalty is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

When a ten year old girl decides she wants to bond closer with her dad's friend, then arrangements are made so this bonding can proceed safely, and to the benefit of the child. The parents are supportive, society is supportive, her lover is supportive. And there are numerous cheap or free contraceptives available, along with "morning after" or even pregnancy termination techniques available just in case.

The people of Dragon Earth don't see consensual sex the way we do. They especially don't see it as harmful to the young. They do react as much as we do when children are harmed, for they are as dedicated to seeing their children grow up to be productive, contributing members of society as most of us.

Then you have pixies and fairies and critters like that. About as smart as you'd expect an animal with a brain that size to be. When a pixie swarm holds an orgy on a school ground, you'd better believe the kids are going to see it. A long time ago people decided it was better to teach the young how to do it right, them leave them ignorant. (Dragon Earth fairies are enthusiastic about copulation, but they are piss poor lovers.)

As for Dragon Earth adventurers, it wouldn't register. It's part of normal life. Now an eight year old boy getting beat up by his eight year old girl friend for trying to put it in the wrong hole would get attention, and few laughs, but nothing more than that. And except for the very young most people keep their sex private. Some cults engage in public sex acts on specific dates, and fertility rites always include public sex as part of the celebration, but the vast majority do it where they won't be interrupted by nosy parkers and bratty kids.

One last thing. Dragon Earth adults keep an eye out for the kids because of malevolent undead, ghouls, and fiends. When your hope for the future might end up an ambulatory corpse or eaten alive, their sexual behavior becomes a petty concern.

John: I'm not arguing that there wasn't a contemporary polemic about sexual mores, there was all kind of contemporary polemic. Tacitus was just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm saying that the nature of their debates and arguments were somewhat different. Some of their taboos were the same as ours, others were different. There were people like Tacitus, the emperor Augustus and others who were moralists of a sort, and had their particular causes or interests.  There was certainly condemnations of decadence, especially of the decadence of the courts of people like Caligula, Nero, or Domitian.  We know of Hadrian's wife's reaction to his behaviours as well.

Certainly, there was a reason for the promulgation of Christianity, and its virtues of chastity as well as its condemnation of "men lying with men".

What I'm saying is that some of the concepts of morality were nevertheless from a very different basis than ours. St. Augustine married a 10 year old girl because it was considered "more moral" for him to do so than to continue living in sin with an adult woman he appeared to love. Likewise, the concept of modern, 21st century homosexuality would have been almost totally foreign to the Romans. Their view on sexual identity worked from a different perspective, as do many cultures.

What I'm saying is that there's a tremendous difference in an RPG between approaching the views a (historical) culture would have on things like race, sex and sexual identity; or the logic of views that a fantasy society may have, and to simply slap on a 20th century point of view on these issues even though it creates a wierd kind of unbelievability or turns your game into a 21st century morality play.

As to what I think those objective values are; i think that the importance of family, the concept of things like individual liberty, valuing Truth, responsibility to the sources of one's virtue (be that the gods, one's personal philosophy, or the state, or the clan), the desire to better one's self and the next generation, cynicism and distrust of authorities.  There are surely many others that I'm forgetting at this late hour.

RPGPundit