feminist roleplaying

[Gwazi Magnum]

idlehands said
In the Middle Ages they were expected to resist sexual advances by anyone other than their husbands. I don't think being called a prude was something to worry about but the opposite. If they were open about their sexuality they could end up being labeled a loose woman all the way up to being forced into a priory or even called a witch.

Yes, but this is the same time era where the pillage of towns and the rape of woman were fully acceptable act's culturally.
It's not hard to imagine a man may act entitled to a woman's body.

[idlehands]

Magic Magnum said
Yes, but this is the same time era where the pillage of towns and the rape of woman were fully acceptable act's culturally.It's not hard to imagine a man may act entitled to a woman's body.

There's a difference though. While the rape and pillage of a conquered village was acceptable, going up to another man's wife or daughter and raping her was not. A double standard to be sure. It was more to do with war and putting a populace under heel than sex. But, of course, it doesn't change that some people think of other people as property in particular in a time like the Middle Ages when human rights was basically unheard of.

[Gwazi Magnum]

idlehands said
There's a difference though. While the rape and pillage of a conquered village was acceptable, going up to another man's wife or daughter and raping her was not. A double standard to be sure. It was more to do with war and putting a populace under heel than sex. But, of course, it doesn't change that some people think of other people as property in particular in a time like the Middle Ages when human rights was basically unheard of.

I will admit my Medieval knowledge isn't that great.
But it was a time where human rights were almost enough, and misogyny was rampant.

Very easy setting to have a "Woman are oppressed" setting if you ever wanted that to be the theme of the RP for some odd reason... :/
But also very easy setting to create really dickish villains who wouldn't realistically be in jail or suffer a death penalty.

[idlehands]

Magic Magnum said
I will admit my Medieval knowledge isn't that great.But it was a time where human rights were almost enough, and misogyny was rampant.Very easy setting to have a "Woman are oppressed" setting if you ever wanted that to be the theme of the RP for some odd reason... :/But also very easy setting to create really dickish villains who wouldn't realistically be in jail or suffer a death penalty.

I happen to be a bit of a history buff and historical RP is a favorite of mine so I feel I have to stay something about it. There is a very good reason to have a dickish villian that can be a rapist and get away with it. He could own slaves, he could be a lord of the lands and frighten his subjects into not defending their women. Depending on the place and time period of course. For example, in Scotland starting in about 5 or 6th century AD, there was laws against the beating and rape of women. A man could be punished harshly by the justice system at the time.

If you chose a time like the Dark Ages, after the fall of Rome in Britannia or during the 12-13th century Europe where it was constant warring between warlords, it would be hard to enforce any laws. Just like modern times, it depends on the society. If you go to the Sudan or Afghanistan, women are treated like property, even in 2014.

[Gwazi Magnum]

idlehands said
I happen to be a bit of a history buff and historical RP is a favorite of mine so I feel I have to stay something about it. There is a very good reason to have a dickish villian that can be a rapist and get away with it. He could own slaves, he could be a lord of the lands and frighten his subjects into not defending their women. Depending on the place and time period of course. For example, in Scotland starting in about 5 or 6th century AD, there was laws against the beating and rape of women. A man could be punished harshly by the justice system at the time. If you chose a time like the Dark Ages, after the fall of Rome in Britannia or during the 12-13th century Europe where it was constant warring between warlords, it would be hard to enforce any laws. Just like modern times, it depends on the society. If you go to the Sudan or Afghanistan, women are treated like property, even in 2014.

True.

I guess it's not something I think about much cause the majority of RP's I'm in take place in some kind of fantasy land.
So if people are going to a gritty/cruel medieval world they just make it that, not much need to focus on the specific year or location.

[idlehands]

Magic Magnum said
True.I guess it's not something I think about much cause the majority of RP's I'm in take place in some kind of fantasy land.So if people are going to a gritty/cruel medieval world they just make it that, not much need to focus on the specific year or location.

Of course, a fantasy world is easier to make up whatever you want, but people and cultures are complex and sometimes contradictory. I did an RP once set in the height of the Black Plague in Germany. It was pretty damn gritty and awful. Society breaks down and people prey on the weak, superstitions run wild and lead to mass murders. This was probably the closest to anarchy that occurred in the Middle Ages.

While life was certainly rough up until modern era and there was a reason for the gender roles seen as 'traditional' but like everything human, it is complex and not always what it appears. Certainly the Vikings raiding the coast of England and Ireland are a good example of barbaric hordes. They looted and burned, they took slaves and raped women. But on the home front a woman in pagan Viking society had a significant among of control over herself. Divorce was common and though it tended to favor men when it came to adultery, a woman could divorce her husband if they just did not get along. If he was caught hitting her in public, he would face a fine or even a challenge from the men of her family. So it was illegal for a man to abuse his wife and yet it was seen as perfectly fine for the same man to go rape an Irish woman during a raid or even kill his own slaves without a blink of an eye from the legal system.

Anyway, that's enough from me about that. I could dig up examples all night.

[Ellri]

Yes, feminism, however you define it, should not be forced into the setting or onto the character. It should be reasoned out. Even if its done on unreasonable levels (all men are swine), the character will have reasons behind it. They can be anything. Others have covered that bit better than us earlier here. no need for a recap on what might explain it.

In one RP we're in (The lower one in sig), we've built up a society in one Empire where genders are equal, while most others have a more traditional medieval setup. That society is constructed differently to make it work in a world so thoroughly different elsewhere. One easy way to implement such into a society is to borrow traits from other stories or the real world. You don't need to invent every bit of the society yourself. If there's a method/reason you particularly like in some book, just copy that and blend in a few of your own ideas. Saves a lot on time for making the design work. We've personally borrowed elements from at least three sources just for one group of people in that Empire. Other groups in the same empire don't share all those sources. Its more work that way, but the society ends up being more dynamic and considerably less "flat".

As for how we generally bring such elements into any RP: We do it by examples, by reasoned logic. If someone grew up with an abusive father, she might not be particularly fond of men. Or she might be abusive herself. If a female character got orphaned young, she is probably pretty strong personality-wise to have survived to adulthood. If a male character was raised solely by women, he would probably treat women much better than the average person. Or, if they couldn't understand him fully, he might end up disliking them. There are so many complexities to characters that nothing is pre-determined from a single set of traits, no matter what gender they have.

[Kestrel]

I don't see why people can't write feminist characters or activists in general. It'd be wrong to push a social agenda onto other players, sure, but if the setting allows it what's the problem? It's just another character. Yours even, so that's your idea. Likewise, for GM'ing, it'd be fine to boot up a roleplay about activists, the adversity they meet and their success and/or failure. I mean why not? Just don't force other people's characters to adhere by your ideals and you're all good.

[Brovo]

"How do you bring feminism, or anti-racism or other anti-oppressive thinking, into your characters or your GMing?"

Disclaimer: This is just my method, I do it purely for fun. Keep in mind that a setting that lacks racial or sexual diversity is not necessarily sexist and/or racist. The first Star Wars film ever released was pretty much an entirely white male cast save for two robots and an overgrown carpet, and a literal princess trapped in a literal tower spaceship, and yet that universe has plenty of diversity in it and the films are inspirational to people of all types.

So you know, the absence of something doesn't make it oppressive. As well, exploring themes of sexism or racism in the narrative doesn't make it oppressive either. (Au contraire, it can actually be quite liberating.)

Anyway.

Step 1: Grab some dice.
Step 2: Flip a coin for sex.
Step 3: Roll for ethnicity (d4 for broad, followed with a d20 if I want to get brutally nitpicky about it).
Step 4: Roll for sexuality. (d10.)
Step 5: Stare at the thing I've made. If I like it and can envision playing it, add appearance and history, basic but flexible motivation. Have fun. If I don't like what I see, scrap it and start over.

Keep in mind that I'll also auto-adjust to the cast around me which curbs random results. If there's lots of male characters, I'll roll a female, and vice versa.

Haven't really noticed any seriously oppressive stuff going on here though. Seems pretty chill.

[Lo Pellegrino]

twelveobin said
How do you bring feminism, or anti-racism or other anti-oppressive thinking, into your characters or your GMing?

Note: if you don't agree with feminism etc you can just pass over this thread. I will not be engaging in debate and I don't encourage anyone else to engage either.

I love roleplay as a means to engage with these issues. You can basically create a world where social structures are flipped, or rather characters can actually do something about them, which even in the most modern, realistic roleplay would be fantastical. It's also not hard to bring anti-racism, anti-oppresssion, and feminist values. Essentially these three words are just people asking for quality. That's it. My familial roots cross through American slavery and Native American genocide, and the implications have followed me through my childhood in a very blatant way, but I don't create worlds where these issues don't exist. In fact, I do my best to highlight oppression and the feeling of being second-class because I truly cannot a imagine a crueller villain than one who undervalues a people and shrugs it off as if nothing.

One reason why I think this is important is the venue. From what I've seen, people here express some pretty extreme views as opposed to conversations I've heard face-to-face (obviously including those who do not abide by my perspective). I figure this is just the internet having its way and everyone being a badass behind the glowing screen. So be it. But that screen also allows us to be whatever we'd like. It means that a very white, very entitled young dude who doesn't really give a shit about the experiences of others could play a game that opens their mind to more empathetic thinking -- even if only for a moment. That opportunity is well worth the struggle. The thing is, these ideas are about equality and happiness. We're not talking about assigning a new superiority or set of characteristics to overvalue as is the case today, we're talking about evening that playing field. Really, I can't imagine a better message behind a story.

[Gwazi Magnum]

idlehands said Of course, a fantasy world is easier to make up whatever you want, but people and cultures are complex and sometimes contradictory. I did an RP once set in the height of the Black Plague in Germany. It was pretty damn gritty and awful. Society breaks down and people prey on the weak, superstitions run wild and lead to mass murders. This was probably the closest to anarchy that occurred in the Middle Ages.While life was certainly rough up until modern era and there was a reason for the gender roles seen as 'traditional' but like everything human, it is complex and not always what it appears. Certainly the Vikings raiding the coast of England and Ireland are a good example of barbaric hordes. They looted and burned, they took slaves and raped women. But on the home front a woman in pagan Viking society had a significant among of control over herself. Divorce was common and though it tended to favor men when it came to adultery, a woman could divorce her husband if they just did not get along. If he was caught hitting her in public, he would face a fine or even a challenge from the men of her family. So it was illegal for a man to abuse his wife and yet it was seen as perfectly fine for the same man to go rape an Irish woman during a raid or even kill his own slaves without a blink of an eye from the legal system. Anyway, that's enough from me about that. I could dig up examples all night.

On the bright side they had really good boats.

But yea, in practice that seems pretty double standard but honestly that just looks like a case of "You're a viking women, you will be treated well. But you're not a Viking women... rape!".
Essentially they care about their own and treat their own well, but anyone outside is suspect to anything. It is still a double standard, but it at least isn't one within their own community.

Kestrel said I don't see why people can't write feminist characters or activists in general. It'd be wrong to push a social agenda onto other players, sure, but if the setting allows it what's the problem? It's just another character. Yours even, so that's your idea. Likewise, for GM'ing, it'd be fine to boot up a roleplay about activists, the adversity they meet and their success and/or failure. I mean why not? Just don't force other people's characters to adhere by your ideals and you're all good.

Obviously in an RP made around activism an outright feminist would fit in.
But activism probably wouldn't be an appealing topic to most people, I can only see that facing a very niche target.
A target that get's even more niche because to avoid players all wandering off on their own protests they'd all have to be focused on the same charity or cause.

While in a non-feminist/activist roleplay, someone going around saying "These women are being victimized by sexism!" would just get really annoying when everyone else is trying to be enjoying a plot or story.
For another example, imagine you're doing some sort of Avatar Last Airbender RP and atm the Fire Nation is invading the Water Nation. While the rest of the players may be for the invasion, or focused on fending them off you got this one player running around going "Think about the seals! Baby seals are in danger!". It just doesn't mix well with the plot, theme or the other characters.

[Kestrel]

I could probably set up an interesting RP about activism. There is a lot of inter-character drama that will bloom so very easily with the subject, you just need to set the scenarios and bring in characters with a common goal but a different means to achieve it. Also you can throw in adventure, like stealing a ship to block a trade route or invading a facility to interrupt a speech.

As for your example... It's totally fine for a character to have the baby seals on their mind. I mean let's be honest here, not everyone is going to like everyone's characters. I know I've played with a couple people whose characters I wanted to hit over the head with a brick. But you know why I didn't tell people to change their characters? It's because I don't get to decide other people's characters for them. Your characters can get pissed, dump the Greenpeace freak for the mission or lock them up for jeopardising the operation, etc.There is that option for repercussions, sure, but you can't tell the players "Your character can get angry at X but not at Y because I want your character to act like Z."

tl;dr Stop being such a narrow-minded jerk. It's becoming a recurring theme with you.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Stealing a ship is outright illegal and would count as terrorism to start. That automatically adds value because it's an illegal act and most likely harming people.

Facility Interrupting a speech... All that's doing is stopping someone from talking.
Now, any DM or Player can make any topic work with the right effort but flat out going "Let's stop this person from talking, that will make the RP Interesting" isn't probably such a good call.

And my point with the Baby Seals is that while a major plot point is going on, the player/character is focused on something completely separate/unrelated to the RP. Essentially ignoring the RP for their own things. Having a character care about baby seals is fine, having an RP about baby seals is fine. But running off ignoring the Roleplay because of Baby Seals is not fine. That's not a matter of "Your character has to be Z because I'm angry at X", that's a matter of an RP is a group effort and players should be expected to focus on the RP, not completely stop, de-rail or ignore it.

Kestrel said tl;dr Stop being such a narrow-minded jerk. It's becoming a recurring theme with you.

Yup, a difference of opinion totally means me being a jerk... Great reasoning.

[Kestrel]

Stop the person from spreading X idea. Judging from your avatar you should know all about employing censorship as a form of activism. Fire alarm ringing any bells? That was celebrated like a big victory. It can be a valid goal for an RP. Now make the facility guarded of some sort, and you have a goal and a challenge.

Likewise, not all activism is legal. Greenpeace, anyone?

If someone is going away from the plot to go on their own adventure, people will start ignoring them. The GM won't provide material. The player in question will be playing with their self. The problem isn't the character's ideals anymore, but about being non-interactive and no longer being an asset to the RP... Which really is something that will nearly always solve itself (either by the player adapting or dropping based on this feedback.) Still, that could be for any reason, not activism itself. It's not the subject of activism or the player being an activist, it's bad roleplaying.

Also the reason I call you a narrow-minded jerk isn't for having a different opinion. It's mostly for generalising. And the LOLFREE SUX-topic.

[Gwazi Magnum]

That would fall under the 'niche' thing I referred to first.

Magic Magnum said Obviously in an RP made around activism an outright feminist would fit in.But activism probably wouldn't be an appealing topic to most people, I can only see that facing a very niche target.A target that get's even more niche because to avoid players all wandering off on their own protests they'd all have to be focused on the same charity or cause.

It can work, but you're bound to only reach a very small portion of the Roleplay audience being interested in such a thing.
As for players wandering off, that becomes an issue though if the player now either leaves the RP (You're down a player) or they are posting about entirely unrelated things... Essentially spamming/squeezing two different RP's into one.

But like I said, an Activism based roleplay can work, it's just that it's target audience will be very small.
For everyone else it will just be causing characters to halt story progression and stretch it in different directions.

Kestrel said Judging from your avatar you should know all about employing censorship as a form of activism.

Yea, me making a joke with my Avatar obviously means I am an individual you would instantly know about X event... Great reasoning.

For the record, I did know about that. But your process of determining that is just awful.

Kestrel said Also the reason I call you a narrow-minded jerk isn't for having a different opinion. It's mostly for generalising. And the LOLFREE SUX-topic.

1. You're now carrying conflict across topics, that's a big no-no by forum standards.

2. That was one topic, the fact you called it a 'Trend' implies multiple cases. Which naturally suggests you are referring to this as being narrow minded. Where the only thing I've done that could (somewhat) warrant that is disagreeing with you.

[Kestrel]

Feminism as activism in an RP would be a niche, but activism in general would be as much as fantasy is. Unless non-violence is a niche, then sure, but simply removing violence from a lot of RP's would make them viable playgrounds for activism because it is a method to bring change. How is something this broad possibly a niche?

Furthermore. Your avatar as in fedora. Twice is recurring, it's not so much discussing the topic as it's referencing for the sake of explanation and yes, you're the victim here :/

[Gwazi Magnum]

Kestrel said Feminism as activism in an RP would be a niche, but activism in general would be as much as fantasy is. Unless non-violence is a niche, then sure, but simply removing violence from a lot of RP's would make them viable playgrounds for activism because it is a method to bring change. How is something this broad possibly a niche?

It is entirely possible that Third-wave feminism just put a bad enough taste in my mouth for the term 'activism' that I can't really get past the whole "Men are scum", "Games are sexist", "Let's prove our point by pulling a fire alarm", "I was asked out for coffee in an elevator! Harassment!" or "Peta hates animal abuse... Except when it's our animals, and our medication!" issues.

Essentially, I think there may have been a misunderstanding and it should be clarified.

If you're talking honest/sincere activists, those who actually care for the cause they're speaking about and taking honest and sincere means to accomplish it. That can be a great RP, I wouldn't argue that at all. As long as you remember about stuff like character development and don't solely focus on the activism in question.

If you're talking about the double standard activism that usually reduces to "I'm a victim! Look at me! Here's my paypal account", then I only see it attracting a niche audience.

But in both cases, if activism is in the RP make it related to the story. Don't have it only be a way to drag players/characters away from the RP Plot.

Kestrel said Furthermore. Your avatar as in fedora trilby.

It ain't a Fedora :P

Kestrel said Twice is recurring, it's not so much discussing the topic as it's referencing for the sake of explanation

So this can be interpreted one of two ways, either me disagreeing with you is being narrow minded. If so, I point you to my earlier post. Me disagreeing with you is not grounds for being narrow minded. In fact, I'd say it's narrow minded to assume others are narrow minded simply for not sharing your opinion.

If it's the Trilby? It's a hat... Should I go visit you in person and then judge you and your personality based on your wardrobe?

Kestrel said and yes, you're the victim here :/

I never said I was? :/

[Thought Manifest]

twelveobin said
How do you bring feminism, or anti-racism or other anti-oppressive thinking, into your characters or your GMing?

I, personally, feel that when it comes to taking egalitarian thinking and placing that into my characters, it's important to address the issues. I don't even mean they need to be addressed directly. Describing internal monologue or some kind of narration about what oppressed people are going through can be a really good way to get the message across that some actions, situations, and dialogue are just not okay. One doesn't need to be preachy about it by directly saying things like, "This is harmful to oppressed-group-X, and privileged-group-A needs to stop." It can be as subtle as simply addressing the underlying mood of how something is written.

For an example... there's a published book series that features a heterosexual couple that is incredibly co-dependent and obsessive with each other. The guy stalks the girl, makes decisions for her, and essentially blames her for the fact that he has a hard time controlling his desire to harm her. They become so co-dependent that when he eventually abandons her at one point, she can't even function without him. Now, if I was writing this, I would describe it in such a way that this would be portrayed as an abusive, unhealthy relationship. However, the actual author presented all of this as a relationship filled with passion and true love.

The tone the writers set for the portrayal of their characters can make a huge difference, and that is something I try to utilize to push forward my personal, egalitarian ideals. Even if the author is trying to write someone who is sexist/racist/homophobic, and even if that person is maybe the protagonist, the negative things that character does can still be shown as not necessarily being good things even if the character believes the things they're doing are justified. It requires subtlety to not only get the message through, but one also has to make sure it's not so well hidden in the subtext that it's missed altogether. It can be a delicate balance, and even while I understand it, I sometimes don't get the message through properly.

Another thing I do to promote egalitarian views is to make sure that if my character believes in equality for all or even for one group of people, I don't allow them to utilize harmful stereotypes that are damaging to the cause. A character who has egalitarian values wouldn't say things like, "You fight like a girl!" or "You're so gay." as insults because it implies there's something negative about being a girl or being homosexual.

As a GM, it's important to allow freedom of creativity. There should absolutely be characters who are egalitarian and those who aren't because it's a more realistic reflection of our society. However, if someone joins your game whose character claims to be a feminist but is written as viewing traditionally female roles as weak without the added description of how that character tries but sometimes fails to always understand or uphold their values, it's important to gently PM them about it to remind them that their character is getting off track. Sometimes, because of how we're raised in our respective societies, it can be incredibly difficult to maintain true egalitarian values in the characters we created to have them. That's why gentle reminders or gently bringing it up in private serve GM's a lot better than publicly posting about how such-and-such person was completely out of character.

Furthermore, if a person writes a post in which the tone romanticizes or praises the sexism/racism/etc. of a character they write, it's up to the GM to write using the tones they want for their game. If the GM and another player are interacting, the GM's response post could reinforce the idea that the racist/sexist/etc. things the other character might be doing aren't as great as the character might believe, and it can all be conveyed, again, through the tone.

I don't know if that helps at all. I just know it's how I like to do things, and I figured this thread was kind of getting off track, so I thought I'd pop in and place it on its proper trajectory.

[Bosch]

I GM a lot which means I often play the antagonist so I guess I exhibit a lot of, what I believe to be, negative traits in my characters. By this I mean I will have them express beliefs and take actions that I think are bad or worng because it gives the RPers something to defeat that I want to see defeated. That’s just for storytelling reasons though as having a villain that isn’t villainous is kind silly really. I don't really think anyone reads that deeply into RPs and I find the thought that someone could form opinions of society based on RPs terrifying.

[Dinh AaronMk]

How does one include elements of racism and sexism in an RP? In however it defines a character. Not to say to force it in for the sake of having it, but if it matches with a character's life-style and personality. Or if it might even be a part of a conflict within the group of protagonists themselves.

Story-telling - even Roleplaying - shouldn't be two dimensional in that there's an absolute "evil" and an absolute "good" with one side representing all the factors that make an ideal society - sexual equality, gender equality, race equality, economic equality, etc. - and the other everything that's not. There can be defining factions within even the "good" or the "evil" that drives numerous or infinite subplots tied in some way into the central story you're trying to tell. Ideological ambiguity and moral relativity in story-telling is as valid as clear absolutes when pursuing a moral conflict.

So what a "protagonist" is racist towards elves? Or has a hate of women or fear of women of certain types that feeds into his hate? It's part of a character and perhaps even a element in a side-story within the greater plot to be resolved as the story progresses. This in turn sort of opens an alternate avenue to explore more in-depth the setting by having third-party critics of both sides.

Hell, perhaps someone can take the whole moral polarization to allow these third-parties to take a critical standpoint that The Jackal tapes assume as a self-commentary of Far Cry 2.

The Witcher makes a pretty interesting philosophical observation on the practical functionality of evil in the world, having evolved - or been revealed to Geralt - as not being so clearly defined as chaos vs order. And within the entire story you basically have two relative evils fighting and another relative evil that's the main antagonist, and the entire world is relatively evil. Ultimately I'm a fan of the idea that any character should have his or her motivations to be a part of a larger plot, whether they know it or not. Forcing someone on two defined paths isn't organic, allowing people to have characters who assume one of infinite paths and interpretations of evil to ultimately meet at some major point is a more organic - and noir - solution.