PDA

View Full Version : [Any] Unmodern Worlds



Halaster
2009-11-29, 03:07 PM
Hi all.

I've recently been thinking about a problem that comes up in roleplaying games occasionally, in the context of introducing new players to gaming: some game worlds are not as enlightened as our own in many aspects. Well, our own world isn't all that enlightened in many places, but that would drift into areas of real-world politics I'd rather not touch. What I mean is this: players are usually accustomed to some fairly recent achievements in the realm of civil rights:
- equality of races, genders, sexual orientations and so on
- separation of church and state
- freedom from unjust prosecution, confiscation of property, unwarranted arrest etc.
- freedom of religion, freedom of expression, free choice of profession and place of residence

Now, not all game worlds offer those to a majority (or even a minority) of their inhabitants. And I don't mean worlds where denying such rights is a prerogative of villains. I mean those worlds (like our own in most of its history) where such privileges are simply unknown. How do you deal with such worlds?

Do you avoid them in favor of more politically correct ones? Most D&D worlds either avoid such topics, or assign violations of "modern" morals to the bad guys, so there is a wealth of choice.

Do you just play them straight? This is the middle ages, woman, so get yourself off to the kitchen! And if you do, how do your players react? Do they play enlightened characters, who try to better the world, even if this is anachronistic? Do they revel in flinging aside the moral codes of our time? Or are they just indifferent?

I was wondering, because I might have newbies to introduce to gaming in the near future, and was considering what game to start with. I have a broad choice of settings available, but some of those I would like to play are not exactly politically correct. Some examples:

- Pendragon: no female PCs need apply. Knights are men, ladies stay at home and do the needlework. Sure, there is no outright misogynism, knights are to respect ladies, but the girls don't get to play.
- Fading Suns: the new dark ages have the full package: (fantasy) racism, religious intolerance, absolutist nobles, a caste system, etc. Meant to be dark in tone, and allows for player characters with higher ethos, but still
- GURPS Age of Napoleon: the birth of our modern ideas, but their still in their infancy, so there's still lots of racism, genderism and religious strife - could be avoided by playing a rather regional campaign, I guess
- Hârnmaster: fantasy world that tries to be medieval, including the bad stuff
- Castle Falkenstein: fairly mild example, still, those stuck up Victorians can be a little off-putting when it comes to treating women and non New Europeans fairly

Don't get me wrong, I like those settings exactly because they don't kowtow to political correctness, but this might be hard to break to newbie gamers. So any help you have (including "don't do it") is appreciated.

CU,
Halaster

Sir_Elderberry
2009-11-29, 03:23 PM
I think a lot of this gets averted by the unrealities of the situation. Racism? In D&D? Remember, this is a world with orcs, elves, dragons, mind flayers, drow...Most D&D worlds probably practice some rather flagrant racism, it's just not like real-world racism. Humans don't have time to hate black humans. They're too busy hating the orcs.

Hashmir
2009-11-29, 03:24 PM
In general, I think it's all perfectly fine, as long as it stays within the setting of the game. I don't just mean not swapping woman jokes at the table (duh), but more that it has to allow for any given character.

For instance, in Pendragon, there are clearly and strictly defined gender roles. Obviously, this means that a standard party of random men and women would be absurd, but I think you should at least theoretically allow for a female PC. Perhaps someone raised as a tomboy, or whose family died, or whatever, and now disguises herself as a man because that's the only way to get real money in that setting.

Or something. I'm just saying that if you limit the character concepts, then you're just taking the problems with the setting and making them problems in the metagame. By all means, though, let the people in the setting react just as they would, but I feel the identity of the character can and should still be left entirely to the player.

Halaster
2009-11-29, 03:49 PM
In general, I think it's all perfectly fine, as long as it stays within the setting of the game. I don't just mean not swapping woman jokes at the table (duh), but more that it has to allow for any given character.

For instance, in Pendragon, there are clearly and strictly defined gender roles. Obviously, this means that a standard party of random men and women would be absurd, but I think you should at least theoretically allow for a female PC. Perhaps someone raised as a tomboy, or whose family died, or whatever, and now disguises herself as a man because that's the only way to get real money in that setting.

Or something. I'm just saying that if you limit the character concepts, then you're just taking the problems with the setting and making them problems in the metagame. By all means, though, let the people in the setting react just as they would, but I feel the identity of the character can and should still be left entirely to the player.

Very good point and one I intend to adhere to. You can play anything you like in my games, so long as you come up with a decent story to back it up. The girl in knight's armor is a classic, and most other settings allow for similar leeway. But if, as you say, the world reacts as it should, with rejection, if not downright disgust for the rules-breaker, do you think newcomers can handle that? Can they play the reaction of their characters (assuming they are law-abiding folk) to such an abomination? Of course, their fellow adventurers should eventually overcome their prejudices, but a simple "Oh, you're a fighting woman. Well, fine, just fall in line" just doesn't cut it.

Actually, I've seen old hand players fail at this. A (female) player, who insisted on wanting equal rights for female adventure in Pendragon, took quite a while to accept my clear "no". I offered her a hidden female, but it just didn't jibe with her feminist beliefs. She ultimately came around, but we've known each other for a while, which helped smooth things out. Now, if I do that same thing to a newbie, who may not realize my intentions, I might put her off for good. So I'm looking for a gentle way to put it, if there is one.

CU,
Halaster

Halaster
2009-11-29, 03:55 PM
I think a lot of this gets averted by the unrealities of the situation. Racism? In D&D? Remember, this is a world with orcs, elves, dragons, mind flayers, drow...Most D&D worlds probably practice some rather flagrant racism, it's just not like real-world racism. Humans don't have time to hate black humans. They're too busy hating the orcs.

That's why I wrote [Any] into the title. Many game worlds have no fantasy races. Others have other issues, like sexism, or religious fanaticism that translate pretty well to our own experiences (or lack thereof). Besides, fantasy racism feels quite racist to those who are sensible this way. Believe me, I've had players ask me, why they were killing those orcs; didn't they have lives and families and a right to exist? Taking tired fantasy clichés for granted is not something I like to expect from new players. The whole fantasy boom in cinemas since LotR may have helped, but still.

CU,
Halaster

Talyn
2009-11-29, 04:00 PM
The most important consideration is, of course, Rule 0 - the game exists to have fun.

If that means playing with historically accurate race and gender conflicts in the game, great! (I played a Call of Cthulu game, set in 1930, with 1930s attitudes, and it turned out very well, and added quite a bit to the characterization for the players.) If, on the other hand, those conflicts make the game less fun (your player really wants to play a woman in Pendragon who is openly an adventurer, as the previous poster demonstrated), then ignore them. Rule of Fun trumps, basically, everything else.

A caveat: if your gaming group wants to sit down and play a game with racial and gender conflicts, and one player does not, that conflict should not automatically be resolved in favor of the "does not" party. The "Rule of Fun" balancing test should involve the fun of the entire party, not any individual player.

On the other hand, if the group is fine with ignoring the gender conflicts, a game master should not tell them "nuh uh, that's not the setting in my game." The Rule of Fun balancing test does not automatically side with the Game Master, either.

Zeta Kai
2009-11-29, 04:04 PM
In most of my campaigns, the starting area kingdom is an enlightened place, where racial harmony has been mostly achieved, religious tolerance is commonplace, & gander roles are relaxed. And it is notable that this small dominion is an anomaly in those respects. This idyllic place is frequently threatened with invasion & other crises, so the nation's defenders fight all the harder for their unique beliefs.

The rest of the world has very different values, & the PCs are warned repeatedly that if they wander far enough, they will see things that are distasteful. There's a land where women are mere chattel. Another nation has no qualms with child labor & slavery. Several empires are xenophobically racist, often against fellow PC races. Life is ugly sometimes, & the players learn to adapt to it.

They also tend to come back to their tiny beleaguered home country. Which works for me because the starting land is the most fleshed out. It's actually a handy way to keep the players on rails.

Satyr
2009-11-29, 04:17 PM
I don't like pseudo-historical - or even truly historical - settings with anachronistic morals forced on a setting that just doesn't work that way. There is no emancipation, or equal rights in a feudal society. That is just a paradox. Good fantasy settings probably have to feel more realistic than the real world, as they don't have the convenience of being able to rely on cold, hard facts. That means that implausible or just naive idealisations are less forgivable than in a real world setting.

Besides, this enforced harmony is just dull. Conflicts are a great source of interesting tales and adventures and the strive between scoial groups, classes, people, etc.

And, hey it's fantasy. You can just balance things out with a vice versa approach - only because there are many patriarchalic societies (true to the historic era they are based on) doesn't mean that it doesn't work just as well if you turn it around and create a strictly matriarchalic society, just for an example.

A complete different issue is when the game itself - the rules , not the setting has notions to sexist - or much more often, racist -notuions, which are hard-wired in the rules and therefore become facts in the gaming worlds. Which is unfortunately wide-spread in many games.

I also think that it takes more away from characters than add to them if you make them all the sameand negates any social differences. If sex, for example, is just an asthetic decision, than you could just as well replace both sexes with hermaphrodites of either appearance.


So, if you think that the settings you listed are more interesting because they describe humans and societies more like they are are insterad of like they should be, you are probably right.
If I were you, and have those options you listed, I would combine Hârnmaster
for the rules and Pendragon for the setting, plus one or two of the modern versions of the Arthurian Legend, like The Mists of Avalon, and Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Trilogy (an excellent read). Men are hardy fighters, and knights and the like, but with a few exceptions, only women have a grasp on how magic works, and a sorceress, or priestress is a valid character, as is any Boudicca-inspired woman-at-arms. Yes, those would be extraordinary, but as PCs, they are extraordinary anyway.
And if you manage to treat all possible factions (Britons, Irish, Picts, Saxons, Roman wannabes, the different religious groups...) as equals, and make sure that a character's sex, or ethnic background makes a difference to the people in the setting, but not to you as the game master, there is nothing wrong with it.
Besides, Dark Age Arthurian tales are great fun.

Johel
2009-11-29, 04:28 PM
Players are adventurers. In most societies, even our so-called "open-minded" modern society, they would be seen as misfits or marginals. They aren't part of society : they live at the edge of it, take huge risks and sometime make huge profits.

In most fantasy settings :
Low-level adventurers are seen as a necessary evil because local authorities are powerless or unwilling to act. High-level adventurers were once seen like that but now, they are considered with respect because of their past deeds but also because of their actual power and wealth.
Then, a adventuring career offers roughly the same opportunity for social mobility as mercenaries or traveling merchants still have: you got nothing but what you can carry and protect yourself but you have effectively no lord or master whatsoever, since you are always on the move. If you are talented and lucky, you become "Somebody" and get to jump a few steps in the social pyramid, without concern for your origin, sex or past. If you aren't, well, you'll probably die horribly trying to achieve your dreams.

This life might attract any kind of people but will be really appealing for those who don't like their place in society and wish to screw the rules. A short happy life with the prospect of huge reward is preferable to a long, uneventful, miserable life. Or at least, that's the adventurer mindset.

With that kind of thing, it's normal that you find sword-wielding girls who were tomboys and didn't want to marry and spawn children, low-cast clerics who deserted the "traditionnal" way of the Clergy because they had no chance of promotion and felt they would serve their faith better on their own, young scholars who were supposed to burry in a library for 5 more years but decided to get some practice, street children who were a bit TOO successful in the "business" and had to leave their home city,...

So, no, the players shouldn't have problem with the whole cultural difference, since most characters don't even respect them in the first place.
But yes, the DM should play such cultural difference straight to make the players feel like outsiders : they are the misfits, on their road to become heroes.

Dienekes
2009-11-29, 04:35 PM
I've recently been thinking about a problem that comes up in roleplaying games occasionally, in the context of introducing new players to gaming: some game worlds are not as enlightened as our own in many aspects. Well, our own world isn't all that enlightened in many places, but that would drift into areas of real-world politics I'd rather not touch. What I mean is this: players are usually accustomed to some fairly recent achievements in the realm of civil rights:
- equality of races, genders, sexual orientations and so on

Depends in my game completely on which society, now generally the basic Medieval Stand In that centers my game really doesn't have this form of equality, at all. Speciesism and racism are a part of life, as are gender control. Though I do make it known that these are not my opinions but that of the much erred society. My token female player is ok with it, so it's cool.


- separation of church and state
Not in the slightest for some.


- freedom from unjust prosecution, confiscation of property, unwarranted arrest etc.
This would ruin rather a few of my plots as well


- freedom of religion, freedom of expression, free choice of profession and place of residence
I don't think a single one of mine has had this yet, must put in somewhere.



Do you avoid them in favor of more politically correct ones? Most D&D worlds either avoid such topics, or assign violations of "modern" morals to the bad guys, so there is a wealth of choice.

Not at all.



Do you just play them straight? This is the middle ages, woman, so get yourself off to the kitchen! And if you do, how do your players react? Do they play enlightened characters, who try to better the world, even if this is anachronistic? Do they revel in flinging aside the moral codes of our time? Or are they just indifferent?

Pretty much this, also in the middle ages women weren't even in the kitchen. Noble women did nothing at all, common women did everything a man did except go to war. My players are used to this by now, and as quite a few of them are history folk like me they have a wide variety of different characters. The aforementioned token female has played a girl who dresses as a man to make it in the man's world, a strong female character who is a bit anachronistic but enjoyed defending herself against the masses, and once a common everyday misogynistic male (rather funny since she's a strong feminist). My other players are generally as well rounded, except for the girls boyfriend who makes it a point to always stand for women's equality in his characters (personally I still think he's trying to impress her).

I was wondering, because I might have newbies to introduce to gaming in the near future, and was considering what game to start with. I have a broad choice of settings available, but some of those I would like to play are not exactly politically correct. [/QUOTE]

It depends entirely on your players, what I did at first was explain to them the rules of the game and asked if they were ok with it and if they feel they can roleplay through it or if they think they'll go on angry political rants every 5 minutes. If they aren't sure, I'd start out with something light until they get the hang of this whole roleplaying business.

horseboy
2009-11-29, 05:14 PM
There's one thing to remember: Not all cultures are equally -ist. France didn't burn Joan of Arc because she was a woman, England did. Generally Rae always played elf or 1/2 elf because she didn't want to have to do it, and Keri almost always seems to play an "urban rogue" type character.

So long as you're aware of it before you start building your character it's not really that big a deal. My second Fading Suns character I built was a Shantor that had been dyed teal and had storm clouds tattooed on his rump. It makes group origination so much easier, too.
"How do you know each other?"
"I'm her little pony."

Where there's creativity there's always a way. Too see how much it might effect a character once I sat down with the Tulgar in Privateers (who have a very strong gender role based society) and came up with a playable character for each class to make sure it could be done. It was actually a fun challenge.