Race and gender affecting gameplay

[darthdraken]

Culture is a very powerful thing. With a wide mix across many years of tradition. But in the GAME we need good and bad things and all the grey inbetween so we as a character and player makes the good or bad or middle road choices.

And have a diverse and widely different cultural mix with good and bad points will help to flesh out the ethos of the game. Because hey not every civilization was a bed of roses it hads it darker and lighter sides. So coming across a slaver town is possible in a rpg fantasy game. Or a place where women are not allowed swords. Lord of the rings touched on that instance in the movies.

But then we could find a all women warrior civilization on the other side of the map where women are the hunters.

[Sarex]

DAO's origin stories were the only sections of the game where playing a different race felt different. In a game with that name extension, you expect more in this regard but being an elf/human/dwarf didn't really impact anything; some rare initial dialogue responses, maybe some other minor stuff and that was it. 

 

But then again that is more then any other game did, so that should tell you something.

[Oneiromancer]

I'd rather have the completely unrealistic "men and women are completely equal in this quasi-Medieval society" because at least that's not puerile, (it's also the thing I do in fantasy campaigns, because it's awkward for everyone when you try to simulate sexism in a fantasy RPG, especially PnP RPGs).

 

Simulating ancient times sexism is pointless anyway as the average fantasy setting is more of a mismatch of anachronistic morality standards (slavery is bad, racism is bad, ecc.), medieval and renaissance culture/technology and a usually completely non-sensical economic system. If you are going to whine about women not being used just as baby factories you might as well cut wizards creating matter from thin air with a snap of their fingers and some brow sweat and just make a realistic medieval setting.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Oneiromancer

[ronjs666]

Kind of a WALL OF TEXT but I had to write this down before the game was released. I have been playing RPGs since Quest for Glory on Amiga 500 so I want to give my input what I think is important in a RPG.

 

I feel it is really important that the race and gender you play has an impact on the world, with some races being more liked/hated/distrusted, has easier/harder/blocked access to certain areas/guilds/towns and different ways to solve quests and so on.

 

Gender should also matter in what access/solutions can take and how well like they are in their current area/situation.

 

There is nothing more boring than creating a certain race/gender and seeing that it has basically zero impact on the game. Dragon Age Origins is an example of a great RPG that really made the choice of race/gender feel different with each playthrough, now let me show a game that weren't as successful:

 

 

Skyrim: You can choose between 10 different races i believe, what race and gender you choose basically has zero impact on the world expect that the guards may change 1-2 greetings and about as many other dialogues are changed, that's it. Lets not even mention the fact that you can become guild master of everything there aswell in one playthrough that's just disgusting.

 

Bethesdas thinking "Everyone should be able to do everything"  actually reduces gameplay. It removes the point of creating a new char to explore new possibilites with quests/classes/interactions etc etc... The only difference is that your character will look different, which is not ok.

 

Wouldn't it have been alot more awesome if you were playing as a Khajit, and you were banned from going into cities? You had to sneak in at night maybe, or bribe a guards, or just hide under some robes while there. Excluding content for certain races/gender does actually increase gameplay, since I know for sure I wanna try out the other races/gender if they got different gameplay/interactions somewhere.

 

 

Obsidian kept genders interesting in FNV with women being basically slaves by one faction, and being exluded from certain events in that faction. Made gameplay as both genders feel different and fresh. I think of course that there could have been more differences but can't have it all i guess.

 

Make my choice in the start with race and gender count Obsidian, let me feel the hate of various NPCs in one playthough and let me see them treat me differentely in my next playthough with another race/gender. Just don't let them treat me the same no matter what, that would be the worst punishment of all!

 

 

For me racism in real life  is illogical.  I have to assume other worlds may not have this issue.  I.E.  If stuck in a burning car, do you look at the color of the hand that's saving you?  Would you say "Thanks but no thanks?"    Next; In construction, I chose the best tradesmen period.  Do you honestly think I care where they are from if they are masterful craftsmen?

 

Gender:  I have a wife and 2 adult daughter's.  One is an accomplished artist the second is in management (The latter saved and purchased a house in cash, she's not 30 yet.)  My wife was a partner of a consulting firm.   Need I go on?  Female doctors , African American President! 

 

Lastly, a world that has Orcs and magic can have no prejudices.  

 

If there is prejudice, tone it down please.  IMO

[Merlkir]

21st century goggles, hard. "I think this specific way and can't understand I would totally think differently under different circumstances."

[Tamerlane]

Elevating the importance of race is 21st (or 20th or 19th or 18th) century goggles, to a certain extent. A white man born-and-raised in 14th century Venice would have a lot more in common with - and a greater sense of kinship and connection to - a black man of the same background than he would with another white man from 14th century Novgorod. By the same token, I'd expect a Vailian elf and a Vailian dwarf to get on a lot better than a Vailian elf and a Glanfathan elf, who have no common culture despite their genetic similarities.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Tamerlane

[milczyciel]

For me racism in real life  is illogical.  I have to assume other worlds may not have this issue.  I.E.  If stuck in a burning car, do you look at the color of the hand that's saving you?  Would you say "Thanks but no thanks?"    Next; In construction, I chose the best tradesmen period.  Do you honestly think I care where they are from if they are masterful craftsmen?

 

Gender:  I have a wife and 2 adult daughter's.  One is an accomplished artist the second is in management (The latter saved and purchased a house in cash, she's not 30 yet.)  My wife was a partner of a consulting firm.   Need I go on?  Female doctors , African American President! 

 

Lastly, a world that has Orcs and magic can have no prejudices.  

 

If there is prejudice, tone it down please.  IMO

 

Let me quote Death Machine Miyagi here, because he pretty much nailed that particularly (imo) intriguing facet of fantastical settings.

What do you do when there is genuine and obvious differences between races, beyond superficial appearance? What do you do if one race is objectively dumber or weaker or more prone to violence than others? If a given race is physically strong and mentally weak, then might it actually make perfect sense for them to be relegated to the ranks of lowly workers, serfs, peasants and so on?

 

Not that we know enough about the various races to decide if such a large difference will exist. 

Edited February 17, 2014 by milczyciel

[tajerio]

Elevating the importance of race is 21st (or 20th or 19th or 18th) century goggles, to a certain extent. A white man born-and-raised in 14th century Venice would have a lot more in common with - and a greater sense of kinship and connection to - a black man of the same background than he would with another white man from 14th century Novgorod. By the same token, I'd expect a Vailian elf and a Vailian dwarf to get on a lot better than a Vailian elf and a Glanfathan elf, who have no common culture despite their genetic similarities.

 

This is a bit of an essentialization.  Attitudes towards race varied hugely by time and place across the medieval and Renaissance worlds--you could find nasty racism that would be at home in the twentieth century without looking too hard in the medieval world.  It's worth noting also that the Renaissance era and the era of colonialism also saw racism rise dramatically and start to become recognizably modern, and that's PoE's historical equivalency period, isn't it?

Edited February 17, 2014 by tajerio

[Lephys]

For me racism in real life  is illogical.

Granted. But, last time I checked, in real life, people are illogical.

 

Why would you try to focus your attention on something like painting your nails (and even use both hands to do so) whilst driving a 3,000lb hunk of metal through traffic, only to end up colliding with another 3,000lb hunk of metal filled with people? Because not-reasons, that's why.

[JFSOCC]

Racism in real life is not illogical. There are plenty of reasons why people become racist. It may be wrong, but the mechanisms are fairly well understood.

[rjshae]

Racism in real life is not illogical. There are plenty of reasons why people become racist. It may be wrong, but the mechanisms are fairly well understood.

 

 

Too true. Our minds are hardwired to take certain judgment shortcuts for survival purposes; racism and bigotry is likely one of the unfortunate results.

Edited February 17, 2014 by rjshae

[Lephys]

Racism in real life is not illogical. There are plenty of reasons why people become racist. It may be wrong, but the mechanisms are fairly well understood.

 

I dunno... it seems pretty illogical. "I had an interaction with some people who happened to be of a certain ethnicity, and they gave me a valid reason to hate them, specifically. Therefore, I shall deduce that the cause of their badness was their ethnicity, and assume I should hate all people who share that ethnicity!

 

I'm pretty sure that's literally a fallacy of logic. I could be wrong.

 

"Understood" and "logical" are not the same thing.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Lephys

[Ulquiorra]

 

Racism in real life is not illogical. There are plenty of reasons why people become racist. It may be wrong, but the mechanisms are fairly well understood.

 

I dunno... it seems pretty illogical. "I had an interaction with some people who happened to be of a certain ethnicity, and they gave me a valid reason to hate them, specifically. Therefore, I shall deduce that the cause of their badness was their ethnicity, and assume I should hate all people who share that ethnicity!

 

I'm pretty sure that's literally a fallacy of logic. I could be wrong.

 

"Understood" and "logical" are not the same thing.

 

 

Apart from real life.

 

If i hate ogre/ orcs/ undead etc. Becouse their monster that whant to kill me and are not someone that i convince .... and im hateing those races .. this meant that im a logical or illogical races ?

 

Now to a real life

 

I bring this topic becouse from historical pooint of view there "Was" same cultures that racism to them was "logical", mongole hordes (all of them were rapeing, killing, looting raiding) or a racism for germans in a World War 2, germans where thyring to complatly trying to derstoy Polish people Jews etc, it i was a Polish guy then racism for my opresors is logical or not ? For me racism is mostly illogical but in some extreme cases it is logical,

Edited February 18, 2014 by Ulquiorra

[Lephys]

I bring this topic becouse from historical pooint of view there "Was" same cultures that racism to them was "logical"

Something is either logical or it isn't. Stabbing myself in the eye with a fork, with my reason simply being "because penguins!" might be "logical," to me, but that doesn't make it actually-logical.

 

It's like truth, kind of. You can believe something's true, even if it isn't. Thus, something can be "true" to you, and yet still be false.

 

I'm not saying no one has a reason for doing anything. I'm saying illogical things are illogical.

 

Sure, it's easier to decide that avoiding/hating a specific group of people based on an identifiable factor (ethnicity) will yield statistically awesome benefits, after being wronged or otherwise negatively affected by one or more members of that group, than it is to deal with each and every person I come across as an individual with the potential to be any manner of person imaginable. That still doesn't make it logical.

[Ulquiorra]

 

I bring this topic becouse from historical pooint of view there "Was" same cultures that racism to them was "logical"

Sure, it's easier to decide that avoiding/hating a specific group of people based on an identifiable factor (ethnicity) will yield statistically awesome benefits, after being wronged or otherwise negatively affected by one or more members of that group, than it is to deal with each and every person I come across as an individual with the potential to be any manner of person imaginable. That still doesn't make it logical.

 

 

No i did't say about "some" sad events like "they robbed me so i hate them". But if a whole "etnicity" is at a war with mine isin't it at tihis point logical to hate them ?

 

For example we have a 2 nations who hate ech other, one nation is of blue people one of yellow, if a blue started ethnical cleansing of yellow people, those it mean that yellow have a right to "hate" the blue race as a whole ? And im talking about "Hate" racism not "my nation is better" racism.

 

Next more fantastical example

 

Orcs invade Elfs, they where killing robbing etc. If orcs as stupid monsters that bearly are able to use weapons but elfs are "higher" from civilizational develompment level and are more "civilized" then orcs will it not be normal for them to feel "hate racism" and "im better racism" at the same time ?

 

Games where always racis to orcs, ogres etc "becouse they are monsters". Games will never think about "not killing" them as they will do if they where encoutering humans. So there is some sort of "monster box" that we can put someone some-race without thinking twice.

 

Of cource that we can say "hay there ones that are attacking" but remember every conversation with a monsterlike-talking creature there war always a line "hay you can talk, i was thing that your king is mindless monsters" or "ohh... you are orc you must be realy stupid"... if this isn't some sort of racism then i don't know what is

[Tamerlane]

 

Elevating the importance of race is 21st (or 20th or 19th or 18th) century goggles, to a certain extent. A white man born-and-raised in 14th century Venice would have a lot more in common with - and a greater sense of kinship and connection to - a black man of the same background than he would with another white man from 14th century Novgorod. By the same token, I'd expect a Vailian elf and a Vailian dwarf to get on a lot better than a Vailian elf and a Glanfathan elf, who have no common culture despite their genetic similarities.

 

This is a bit of an essentialization.  Attitudes towards race varied hugely by time and place across the medieval and Renaissance worlds--you could find nasty racism that would be at home in the twentieth century without looking too hard in the medieval world.  It's worth noting also that the Renaissance era and the era of colonialism also saw racism rise dramatically and start to become recognizably modern, and that's PoE's historical equivalency period, isn't it?

 

Well... no, the racism of colonialism is still directed outwards at different (and newly discovered, often as not) nations and cultures, as opposed to the modern hate-thy-neighbour form.

 

That's not to say that there aren't counterexamples to what I'm talking about from that time period and earlier. The 11th century was not a good time for the Ashkenazi.

[Lephys]

No i did't say about "some" sad events like "they robbed me so i hate them". But if a whole "etnicity" is at a war with mine isin't it at tihis point logical to hate them ?

If an entire ethnicity declared war on you, babies and all, then sure. However, I'm fairly certain all the 6-year-old children of that nation/people aren't actually going to war with you. It's pretty much just the leadership who simultaneously decides "We're all at war with these other people now, and if you don't like it or try to not-fight, we'll claim you're a traitor or a risk to the safety of our people, and will kill you ourselves."

 

That's not really social racism, anyway. That's more "Well, you belong to this nation, so, I kind of cautiously am not going to have you over for tea or anything, because you're quite possibly trying to kill me, whether you want to or not, because you're 'the enemy' for now." If some "ethnicity" (nation) declared war on your land, and one of them was living amongst you as a merchant or something, and you started stoning the guy and tearing up his shop stall every day just because he had the same genetics as the people from across the border who were suddenly fighting against you, that would be pretty preposterous, don't you think? That guy wasn't even in that country/state/land when the war declaration was made.

 

Anywho, it's a generalized point. The point is that it's logical to hate someone for a reason. "Because I know nothing about you, specifically, but you share physiological traits with some other people I had a reason to hate" is not a logical reason. That's an arbitrary affiliation.

 

Humans do this with all kinds of stuff. Not just race. Someone murders some girl. Her family comes across that murderer's brother. He's the killer's family, so they hate him because they think of the killer. There's no REASON to hate him. He could've lived far, far away and never even talked to his brother much, and had absolutely nothing to do with any of his brother's behavior. And yet, they look at him, and all they see is "YOUR BROTHER KILLED OUR GIRL!". As if he can help the fact that he came from the same womb as someone who decided to kill a girl.

[tajerio]

Well... no, the racism of colonialism is still directed outwards at different (and newly discovered, often as not) nations and cultures, as opposed to the modern hate-thy-neighbour form.

 

That's not to say that there aren't counterexamples to what I'm talking about from that time period and earlier. The 11th century was not a good time for the Ashkenazi.

 

 

Ah, ok.  I see your point, but I still disagree.  From the European perspective at least, direct, sustained, and broad contact with people who weren't from Europe or the Mediterranean basin brought about a change in prejudice, from being principally ethnic (we hate these guys, but they're still Caucasian) to being more racist (we hate these guys and they are all different kinds of colors).  And the empires they built were institutionally racist in a way that Europeans had not been before colonialism.  And all of that went on well into the twentieth century, and outwardly directed racism (without the imperialism generally) is still alive and well today.  Look at rhetoric directed towards China, or the way Western nations often talk about African nations, for examples.  So I don't think the distinction between the racism of colonialism and modern racism is really a fair one.

 

It's also worth noting that most modern "hate-thy-neighbor" racism isn't possible without colonialism/imperialism creating societies that mixed white Europeans with Africans, Native Americans, and Asians, and that one of the cornerstones of racism is basically the belief that the people against whom prejudice is directed DO in fact constitute a separate society/culture.  I honestly can't think of any modern "hate-thy-neighbor" racism that simultaneously isn't directed against people of a different color AND doesn't originate before the Renaissance.

 

I think this does show that there are a number of ways Obsidian could go here--is the basis for prejudice going to be cultural (Glanfathans v. Aedyrans), racial (mountain dwarves v. boreal dwarves), or special (elves v. dwarves)?  Or, probably, parts of all three.

[Quillon]

 

DAO's origin stories were the only sections of the game where playing a different race felt different. In a game with that name extension, you expect more in this regard but being an elf/human/dwarf didn't really impact anything; some rare initial dialogue responses, maybe some other minor stuff and that was it. 

 

But then again that is more then any other game did, so that should tell you something.

 

It was better in vampire the masquerade/being a malkavian.

 

Since low int dialogue's confirmed and there is no/little(?) VO restrictions for writers; I'm hopeful for PoE to be better than above games in this respect.

[milczyciel]

It was better in vampire the masquerade/being a malkavian.

 

Since low int dialogue's confirmed and there is no/little(?) VO restrictions for writers; I'm hopeful for PoE to be better than above games in this respect.

I would love to see that, but I'm afraid they won't get further than aforementioned examples (DA:O, Arcanum, VtM:B) in that regard because of their limited budget.

Hope I'm wrong.

[ronjs666]

 

For me racism in real life  is illogical.

Granted. But, last time I checked, in real life, people are illogical.

 

Why would you try to focus your attention on something like painting your nails (and even use both hands to do so) whilst driving a 3,000lb hunk of metal through traffic, only to end up colliding with another 3,000lb hunk of metal filled with people? Because not-reasons, that's why.

 

By  Lephys being able to inject 'finger nail painting while driving' into a race / gender conversation proves beyond doubt the poster is multidimensional.  

[Jarmo]

 

No i did't say about "some" sad events like "they robbed me so i hate them". But if a whole "etnicity" is at a war with mine isin't it at tihis point logical to hate them ?

If an entire ethnicity declared war on you, babies and all, then sure. However, I'm fairly certain all the 6-year-old children of that nation/people aren't actually going to war with you. 

 

Generalizing is not necessary illogical though. To a racist your argument would sound a lot like:

 

A rabbit came to my garden and ate my lettuce.

But that's no reason to assume every rabbit would be a lettuce thief.

A lot of them are surely good law abiding rabbits.

 

Or to put it differently:

The damn orcs are violent and evil, every last one of them, because that's what they are.

It's a white mans burden to lead and manage those incapable of self rule. It's the best for everybody.

[Lephys]

Generalizing is not necessary illogical though.

It is when you don't have reason to. Which is exactly why I gave the example of someone who happens to be "one of the enemy" living peacefully in your town, operating a small shop stall. In other words...

 

To a racist your argument would sound a lot like:

A rabbit came to my garden and ate my lettuce.

But that's no reason to assume every rabbit would be a lettuce thief.

A lot of them are surely good law abiding rabbits.

... If rabbits were people instead of rabbits, there could actually be rabbits somewhere existing peacefully without taking anyone's lettuce, and if you took a mob to them and burned their house down and hung them because they're rabbits, too, and you've decided to hate rabbits, then you'd be illogical.

 

See, that's the difference between rabbits and people. You know rabbits are going to be rabbits. You also know that you just need to keep rabbits off of your property. Nobody's "specist" against rabbits. Nobody declares war on rabbits, and goes out actively trying to kill them all out in nature. They just kill them when they come into their garden, etc. The difference is, with people, we KNOW each individual person can choose whatever the hell they want to do. Even if all people of a certain type loved lettuce, they could easily just not-steal people's lettuce. And you inherently know this, because you're a people, and you're part of some ethnicity, members of which have done oodles of stuff that you have never done and will never do.

 

How is it anything but illogical to assume "well, MY ethnicity can choose on an individual basis, but THEIRS can only do bad things, and so I should just treat them all like crap!"? Where's your evidence or rationale behind that?

 

Or to put it differently:

The damn orcs are violent and evil, every last one of them, because that's what they are.

It's a white mans burden to lead and manage those incapable of self rule. It's the best for everybody.

Still not really relevant, because Orcs are fictional, and are generally written as evil. Which is even worse than just dangerous predators, like wolves or such, because wolves don't plan to take over villages.

 

IF Orcs, in a given lore, aren't inherently evil (which, again, doesn't even really exist in real life), then, yeah, it's actually pretty illogical to assume they're all evil and hate them on-sight. The second anyone ever meets an Orc who helps someone and/or doesn't want to fight and kill anyone, they now know that not all Orcs are evil.

 

Being racist and being cautiously aware of statistics are two completely different things. It's one thing to know that crime is highest, per capita, in one area of town, and to be cautious when in that area of town (simply because you know SOMEONE in the area is committing a lot of crime, but not specifically who), and another thing entirely to learn someone lives in that area, and decide they're a criminal and treat them like crap.

[Yonjuro]

 

 

No i did't say about "some" sad events like "they robbed me so i hate them". But if a whole "etnicity" is at a war with mine isin't it at tihis point logical to hate them ?

If an entire ethnicity declared war on you, babies and all, then sure. However, I'm fairly certain all the 6-year-old children of that nation/people aren't actually going to war with you. 

 

Generalizing is not necessary illogical though. To a racist your argument would sound a lot like:

 

 

 I'm going to go into overly pedantic mode for a moment:

 

 If you are doing a logical derivation and you reach a point where you can stick an upside-down E into your derivation and instead you stick an upside-down A there (that is, you derived an existential quantifier but added a universal quantifier instead) than that is the logical fallacy of 'over generalization.'

 

 Racism is basically that fallacy writ large. As others pointed out, humans are hardwired to overgeneralize dangers because those who didn't learn to run away from potential dangers eventually got eaten.

 

 So, I would put it this way: Racism is not logical (but it comes from reasonable mechanisms of self-preservation).

 

 We now return to our regularly scheduled non-overly pedantic programming.

[milczyciel]

Imagine creating character that doesn't follow all those tired stereotypes. Imagine a game* that recognizes, and then fully embrace your choice.

What do I mean? For example I expect PoE to let me play as a Wild Orlan that's exceptionally intelligent, educated, well-spoken and seemingly docile - all this shocking to the most colonist expecting you to rather attack them with teeth and pointy stick than well thought argument.

I believe an origin-like trait (in the spirit of Arcanum) would be more than helpful to create and establish such protagonist (or follower). So for the sake of argument let's imagine a trait that gives you all of the above, because you were kidnapped as an infant by rather powerful soul-mancer. Aside of being a subject for his experiments (bonus for RES, the violent aspect of your nature is toned down) you were also treated as something between pet and familiar (bonus to skills and INT).

I'll pass describing cons.

 

Such PC screams for recognition in the world of PoE and I would love to see most NPC reacting in a very different manner, than they would to the human or elf doing same skill / attribute checks. Something that DA:O (but also my beloved Arcanum) couldn't deliver in more than handful of instances.

 

As I said before, I understand PoE budget could be (if isn't) a potential deal breaker here, but I'd be more than grateful for even one such case of "race, gender affecting gameplay". That's something I would gladly support even in form of DLC or additional stretch goal.

VtM:B treatment of Malkavians proved IMO it's a valid (if expensive to include) way of widening the scope of replayability and that such variety is the next great thing after well established and beloved "stupid chars".

 

* computer game, we're not discussing PnP here, and aside from that I'm forev... erm, I like single player games more

Edited February 18, 2014 by milczyciel