Racism, sexism & bigotry

[Micamo]

The fear of death driving us? Our limited lifespan is a boon to ambition, while the elder races have the luxury of time on their side, and thus less drive? Could be considered an interesting culture clash, in the Knight of Swords the Vadhagh are amazed that the species of Mabden have evolved so quickly from the ape like creatures they studied a few centuries passed.

 

Been done dozens of times and not once has it ever worked. We have so little understanding of the moving parts of the human mind and how it affects society that it's utterly impossible for anyone to make a reasonable argument as to which changes to our psychology would lead to what social consequences: It always comes down to "because the author said so." Functionally, "limited lifespans makes humans more driven and ambitious, so they win at everything" is no better for verisimilitude than "I like humans the best, so they win at everything."

 

The real problem, as it often is in worldbuilding, is that you're starting with nonsense and trying to rationalize it. When you run into nonsense with your story, you throw that part out and start over, not cram in more nonsense to cover it up.

[mcmanusaur]

For me some form of bigotry is a must in a mature and convincing fantasy setting, but whether its Morrowind-esque xenophobia or something more familiar like sexism or racism is another question. Personally I prefer a xenophobic setting to one in which you have the same old "elves hate dwarves and dwarves hate elves, but both hate orcs" flavor of racism. I think it's most interesting when the aspects of a society that differ from real life give rise to forms of bigotry that would not exist in real life. For example, magic could conceivably be something of a class divide, though most of the people I see suggesting this seem to be doing so in an attempt to glorify their invariably magic-using characters.

 

I'm unsure whether reincarnation is a thing in Project Eternity what with all the souls business, but if it is then perhaps there could be discrimination based on one's past lives; forgive me if some other game has already done this. That to me would be really interesting and would beg the philosophical questions of responsibility/accountability along with more lore-centric issues. I like the idea that the PC in particular is the victim of discrimination, rather than simply observing bigotry elsewhere in society.

 

As far as having racial or even gender bonuses, these cannot exist in my opinion without some form of bigotry. If one race is objectively more intelligent than another or one gender is objectively stronger than the other, then there's really little excuse for there to not be racism or sexism. I'm not saying such bonuses are necessarily a good thing, mind you.

[PrimeJunta]

Some of the hints Obsidian has been dropping have been pretty promising. Perhaps some society is really strongly prejudiced against magic-users for example. That would be cool.

 

Re stats and bigotry, mmmmaybe. I just think it's unlikely that the bigotry would necessarily track the stats. The weaker or dumber could band together to keep the smarter or stronger down, for example. Being the smartest or strongest kid in the class is not an automatic ticket to being the most popular one, y'know.

[Nonek]

 

The fear of death driving us? Our limited lifespan is a boon to ambition, while the elder races have the luxury of time on their side, and thus less drive? Could be considered an interesting culture clash, in the Knight of Swords the Vadhagh are amazed that the species of Mabden have evolved so quickly from the ape like creatures they studied a few centuries passed.

 

Been done dozens of times and not once has it ever worked. We have so little understanding of the moving parts of the human mind and how it affects society that it's utterly impossible for anyone to make a reasonable argument as to which changes to our psychology would lead to what social consequences: It always comes down to "because the author said so." Functionally, "limited lifespans makes humans more driven and ambitious, so they win at everything" is no better for verisimilitude than "I like humans the best, so they win at everything."

 

The real problem, as it often is in worldbuilding, is that you're starting with nonsense and trying to rationalize it. When you run into nonsense with your story, you throw that part out and start over, not cram in more nonsense to cover it up.

 

 

I was unaware of other properties having dealt with this subject Ms Micamo, would you kindly point out a few for study as i'm ignorant on the subject.

 

Personally I would think anyone wanting an idealised version of humanity would look more to the elves, pretty, conceited, preachy and self assured in their supposed intellectual and emotional dominance. Obviously yes the whole race is as you say nonsensical and over idealised and to my mind should be discarded along with all other fantastical races, but they are included here and so must have some reasoning applied to them, rather than handwaving away the impact of their existence and relationship with every other race or species.

 

Edit: My intent is not to provide a reasoning for humanity "winning" all the time, merely to highlight a difference between the races. Centuries of extended lifespan would surely have an effect on a race, and i'd like to see that examined. I do not in particular care whom the dominant race and culture will be in Eternity, as I plan to play as a pariah uninterested in such things.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Nonek

[TrashMan]

 

 

However, the point I attempted to make was pretty much the same you're making. I.e., that it's fine for the world to be prejudiced, but it's not fine for the game to be the same.

 

Highly unlikely.

While a game that doesn't go all "united colors of Benneton, peace, love and tolerance = greatest thing ever, perfect ending" would certanly be something new and I'd love to see it, it will enver happen. Games have to follow the Political Correctness bandwagon.

[Malekith]

 

However, the point I attempted to make was pretty much the same you're making. I.e., that it's fine for the world to be prejudiced, but it's not fine for the game to be the same.

 

Highly unlikely.

While a game that doesn't go all "united colors of Benneton, peace, love and tolerance = greatest thing ever, perfect ending" would certanly be something new and I'd love to see it, it will enver happen. Games have to follow the Political Correctness bandwagon.

 

Why? Nothing forces them to be pollitically correct except publisers trying to be as inoffensive as possible to as big an audience as they can. Indie games have not the same restrictions, older games did not have the same restrictions, books and movies don't have the same restrictions. And still manage to sell very well. Why AAA publisers try to be as PC is beyond me. P:E will be publiser free, and only digital. So nothing restricts Obsidian.

I'm not saying that they sould go out of their way to make the game as disturbing as possible, but they should not go out of their way to make children unkillable either for example.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Malekith

[PrimeJunta]

What is this "Political Correctness bandwagon" you speak of?

[Ffordesoon]

What is this "Political Correctness bandwagon" you speak of?

People being nice to each other.

[Lephys]

What is this "Political Correctness bandwagon" you speak of?

I think it's the idea that every living soul is perfectly reasonable, and that, with enough effort, you can actually produce ideas, aesthetics and decisions that everyone will be happy with. Except, then you just go on to alienate one group in favor of another, but you pretend you didn't alienate anyone while you do it, 8P.

 

"Lots of people think the idea of fictitious magic is satanic and evil? Well, we'll just remove magic from the game, and pretend that makes everyone happy, 8D!"

[Micamo]

I was unaware of other properties having dealt with this subject Ms Micamo, would you kindly point out a few for study as i'm ignorant on the subject.

 

Ever play D&D? It's the default assumption for how human societies are different from other races. From the pathfinder core rules book:

 

Humans possess exceptional drive and a great capacity to endure and expand, and as such are currently the dominant race in the world. Their empires and nations are vast, sprawling things, and the citizens of these societies carve names for themselves with the strength of their sword arms and the power of their spells. Humanity is best characterized by its tumultuousness and diversity, and human cultures run the gamut from savage but honorable tribes to decadent, devil-worshiping noble families in the most cosmopolitan cities. Human curiosity and ambition often triumph over their predilection for a sedentary lifestyle, and many leave their homes to explore the innumerable forgotten corners of the world or lead mighty armies to conquer their neighbors, simply because they can.

[ManifestedISO]

Wait, isn't there a gradation of soul "quality" in P:E ... maybe they will introduce a kind of soul-istic bigotry more dynamic than a racial scheme. 

[Nonek]

 

I was unaware of other properties having dealt with this subject Ms Micamo, would you kindly point out a few for study as i'm ignorant on the subject.

 

Ever play D&D? It's the default assumption for how human societies are different from other races. From the pathfinder core rules book:

 

Humans possess exceptional drive and a great capacity to endure and expand, and as such are currently the dominant race in the world. Their empires and nations are vast, sprawling things, and the citizens of these societies carve names for themselves with the strength of their sword arms and the power of their spells. Humanity is best characterized by its tumultuousness and diversity, and human cultures run the gamut from savage but honorable tribes to decadent, devil-worshiping noble families in the most cosmopolitan cities. Human curiosity and ambition often triumph over their predilection for a sedentary lifestyle, and many leave their homes to explore the innumerable forgotten corners of the world or lead mighty armies to conquer their neighbors, simply because they can.

 

 

Ah thank you, I haven't as a point of fact played any D&D (let alone Pathfinder) except in crpg's, I DM'd 1st and 2nd edition AD&D before pioneering my own ruleset free of the more irritating aspects of the TSR behemoth, but that description was non existent in my day. Once again much obliged.

[Faerunner]

Good point. In my particular case, I assumed humans would be on top because of what Obsidian has told us about the world of P:E. They specifically mentioned that orlans are subject to prejudice and discrimination, and that Vailians – the most technologically advanced, richest, and most expansive civilization – are human. I would be very interested to play a game set in, say, a gynarchy. It would be an interesting way to explore this stuff from a different angle.

 

However, the point I attempted to make was pretty much the same you're making. I.e., that it's fine for the world to be prejudiced, but it's not fine for the game to be the same. The game could do this in any of a number of ways. IMO the best way would be to give each race/sex/whatever broad advantages in some circumstances and broad disadvantages in others. For example, assume that orlans are subject to discrimination. So then make a part of the game take place in a Vailian city, and another equally developed part in an orlan village. How will the humans treat the orlans? How will the orlans treat the humans? Maybe the human will find himself treated as a mark, a cop, or a tourist, and will have to fight a real uphill battle to get the locals to cooperate at all.

 

 

Oh, I see now. I agree. As long as the roleplay and gameplay advantages and disadvantages are roughly balanced out, I'll be happy.

 

You don't sound offensive you just need to read for meaning.  I am not saying humans are nice people, in fact, humans win in most fantasy worlds because they are not nice people.  When I said close minded and self interested I was referring to things like Dwarves refusal to live outside of mountains or underground cities, Elves who are happy to spend a decade doing nothing but tending a forest pasture, gnomes who can't be bothered to actually try using their inventions only inventing them in the first place or only using them for the exact purpose they were invented for.

 

A Human won't just sit in his garden for 10 years, he will go do "something else" sooner or later.  Humans are not content living in only one environment.  Humans when they find a cool invention start trying to use it for other things too, or even improve on it.  Also humans LOVE expansion and getting bigger.  Basically humans are never "content", elves don't have this problem.  Dwarves are never really "content" either but they are stereotypically only focused on gold and or jewels, not land, political power, magic, technology (other than mining tech), etc etc.

 

 

Humans want it all and aren't willing to take no for an answer.  Elves and the other races don't want it all. They lose off of a lack of initiative and numbers alone.

 

 

Again, those are how the races have been portrayed so far but it does not have to be universal. Let's face it, humans can also be very lazy, sedentary, unambitious, unwilling to change, and uninterested in anything beyond their own backyards too. Most authors have simply chosen to portray humans as being "universally" whatever way happens to place them top and center and give other races whatever combination of traits happen to place them at the bottom or off to the side. It does not have to be that way because humans also have self-defeating, self-destructive tendencies too and fictional races, by virtue of being fictional, can have traits that also place them higher in significance. Tweaking elves to have more ambition on top of longer lives, greater magic, greater understanding of the world and giving dwarves higher birthrates on top of already being very diligent and hardy can make them a force to be reckoned with for humans. Yet the same old formula and fantasy social hierarchy keeps being regurgitated back to us and I think fantasy authors and fans should think more about it.

[Karkarov]

 

Again, those are how the races have been portrayed so far but it does not have to be universal.

 

.....  I was explaining why they win in these types of settings traditionally.  Obviously Obsidian (or anyone else) can write it differently if they want.  I see no evidence to indicate they have in Project Eternity, in fact as a few others have mentioned all evidence indicates that Humans are top dog in this world too.  I have played in settings where Dwarves, Elves, even Orcs were the master race, and read fantasy novels with similar settings.  I hate to be honest, but they were no more interesting to me than a human dominated world and they normally were in charge via displaying very human like tendencies.  High levels of greed, need for expansion at any costs, willingness to accept massive civilian or monetary loss if it meant long term victory... etc etc.  Most of those stories end with the human faction rising up for the win too, which is even more cliche.

 

On the aside I hate race/ethnicity driven stories for the most part.  I find them boring, one dimensional most of the time, and fairly unoriginal.  Maybe that's because I have grown up in the southern states of the US and had race rammed down my throat as a "big issue" for as long as I can remember.

[TrashMan]

 

 

Highly unlikely.

While a game that doesn't go all "united colors of Benneton, peace, love and tolerance = greatest thing ever, perfect ending" would certanly be something new and I'd love to see it, it will enver happen. Games have to follow the Political Correctness bandwagon.

 

Why? Nothing forces them to be pollitically correct except publisers trying to be as inoffensive as possible to as big an audience as they can. Indie games have not the same restrictions, older games did not have the same restrictions, books and movies don't have the same restrictions. And still manage to sell very well. Why AAA publisers try to be as PC is beyond me. P:E will be publiser free, and only digital. So nothing restricts Obsidian.

I'm not saying that they sould go out of their way to make the game as disturbing as possible, but they should not go out of their way to make children unkillable either for example.

 

 

Aren't you forgeting something? Public pressure? All the PC white knights who are going to gleefully attack such a game with all their might? All the negative ratings it would get because of that?

 

Or are you forgetting what happened to some other games and movies?

IIRC, the resident evil that took place in rural africa, and there was outrage that zombies were black (zombies being white in previous games went by unnoticed).

 

You either get alogn with the program, and your'e going to be brainign a hatefull bigot/chauvinist ot whatnot, and that is not the kind of publicity a company wants. Many would avoid the product simply because of association.

[TrashMan]

What is this "Political Correctness bandwagon" you speak of?

 

A set of beliefs and oppinions that are enforced one way or another as superior and more right than anything else, coupled with complete intolerance for differing views.

[PrimeJunta]

A set of beliefs and oppinions that are enforced one way or another as superior and more right than anything else, coupled with complete intolerance for differing views.

So, you would consider, say, the Westboro Baptist Church 'politically correct' then?

[PrimeJunta]

Or are you forgetting what happened to some other games and movies?

IIRC, the resident evil that took place in rural africa, and there was outrage that zombies were black (zombies being white in previous games went by unnoticed).

Would you understand why someone might take offence with a game where you played as a German and the zombies happened wear yarmulkes and have names like Abram, David, Rebecca, and Rachel?

 

(Edit: Actually, it might be possible to pull that off. You'd just have to be really, really good at wildly over the top humor. The South Park guys might be able to do it, even if they too fall flat on their faces from time to time. You'd be making brutal fun of racists by turning all the knobs to eleven. But the zombie game you're referencing isn't like that at all; it just reinforces existing, entrenched stereotypes. Punching down is not the same as punching up, see.)

 

(Another edit: rephrased the question for more precisely communicating intent.)

Edited May 20, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[TrashMan]

 

A set of beliefs and oppinions that are enforced one way or another as superior and more right than anything else, coupled with complete intolerance for differing views.

So, you would consider, say, the Westboro Baptist Church 'politically correct' then?

 

 

I'm not following the WBC so I have no idea what they have been up to lately, but I'd assume yes.

 

The irony is that everyone is trying to force their views on everyone else, yet only some views are labeled as "politicly correct" and are tolerated.

Which views are those changes with time, but make no mistake - it's alwas the same basic dance going on, just the dancers change.

 

Of course, we like to belive that our current views are the most righteous and greatest and enlightened and correct, while everyone else in history was wrong, and when they were enforcing their views, it was for all the wrong reasons.

[TrashMan]

 

Or are you forgetting what happened to some other games and movies?

IIRC, the resident evil that took place in rural africa, and there was outrage that zombies were black (zombies being white in previous games went by unnoticed).

Would you understand why someone might take offence with a game where you played as a German and the zombies happened wear yarmulkes and have names like Abram, David, Rebecca, and Rachel?

 

(Edit: Actually, it might be possible to pull that off. You'd just have to be really, really good at wildly over the top humor. The South Park guys might be able to do it, even if they too fall flat on their faces from time to time. You'd be making brutal fun of racists by turning all the knobs to eleven. But the zombie game you're referencing isn't like that at all; it just reinforces existing, entrenched stereotypes. Punching down is not the same as punching up, see.)

 

(Another edit: rephrased the question for more precisely communicating intent.)

 

 

I consider the whole thing and excercise in human stupidity and overreaction. No, I don't see why people got so offended.

In fact I think they should be ashamed they got offended! (and people will get offended I said this. and I will take offense at their offense of my taking offense at their offense)

 

The game took place in rural africa among small villages - whom else are you supposed to encounter there other than blakc people? It made sense for the setting/loaction. Could they have used another location? Yes.

Should they? No.

 

I'm honestly sick an tired of all of these overreactions and "hoyl cows" that musn't be touched.

[Sensuki]

Probably not gonna see sexism in this game soz guys

[PrimeJunta]

Are you, by any chance, white, male, straight, with a middle-class (or higher) background, and living in a first-world country?

 

Serious question, 'cuz it's extermely relevant to the 'punching up vs punching down' thing. These things are not symmetrical because of power relations!

 

(Full disclosure: I am all of the above.)

[Malekith]

 

 

 

Highly unlikely.

While a game that doesn't go all "united colors of Benneton, peace, love and tolerance = greatest thing ever, perfect ending" would certanly be something new and I'd love to see it, it will enver happen. Games have to follow the Political Correctness bandwagon.

 

Why? Nothing forces them to be pollitically correct except publisers trying to be as inoffensive as possible to as big an audience as they can. Indie games have not the same restrictions, older games did not have the same restrictions, books and movies don't have the same restrictions. And still manage to sell very well. Why AAA publisers try to be as PC is beyond me. P:E will be publiser free, and only digital. So nothing restricts Obsidian.

I'm not saying that they sould go out of their way to make the game as disturbing as possible, but they should not go out of their way to make children unkillable either for example.

 

 

Aren't you forgeting something? Public pressure? All the PC white knights who are going to gleefully attack such a game with all their might? All the negative ratings it would get because of that?

 

Or are you forgetting what happened to some other games and movies?

IIRC, the resident evil that took place in rural africa, and there was outrage that zombies were black (zombies being white in previous games went by unnoticed).

 

You either get alogn with the program, and your'e going to be brainign a hatefull bigot/chauvinist ot whatnot, and that is not the kind of publicity a company wants. Many would avoid the product simply because of association.

 

Will it affect game sales negative? That's the only thing that matters and i have yet to see evidence that no-life white knights in blogs affect sales. Those other games you mentioned. Did the negative buzz affected them negativelly or boosted sales? After all is free publisity. Or it didn't have an effect at all?

I know about books and movies that have been ripped apart for being sexist in the extreme, but it didn't affect their sales. They have their loyal fans, plus all those who bought them just to see what the buzz was about and those who read it just to be able to complain

 

In games the only example that i can think of is Witcher, that has been critisised as sexist by some. And yet it does well finansialy. If a game had killable children, would sales drop? i don't think so. The people who would be offended(political groups mostly) aren't the people who generaly buy these games.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Malekith

[Sensuki]

Are you, by any chance, white, male, straight, with a middle-class (or higher) background, and living in a first-world country?

 

Serious question, 'cuz it's extermely relevant to the 'punching up vs punching down' thing. These things are not symmetrical because of power relations!

 

(Full disclosure: I am all of the above.)

 

If you were talking to me or the thread: yes

[Merlkir]

Are you, by any chance, white, male, straight, with a middle-class (or higher) background, and living in a first-world country?

 

Serious question, 'cuz it's extermely relevant to the 'punching up vs punching down' thing. These things are not symmetrical because of power relations!

 

(Full disclosure: I am all of the above.)

 

Oh yes, the absolutely worst caste of all.

 

Asymmetry is a dangerous concept, one that often leads to the slippery slope of "well it's fine for X to do this to Y, because Y is better off than X, so it's not in a bad overall context." Aka "there's no racism other than from white people", or "sexism is only when men do it". 

 

edit: or as in the case of RE:  "It's absolutely horrible for X to do this, because Y are offended and they have the right to be, because Y are so much worse off than X."

Edited May 20, 2013 by Merlkir