Armageddon General Discussion Board

I want to preface this by saying that while I don't agree every direction the game has taken this season, I believe everything has been done with the best intentions and I am having a lot of fun playing the game. The below is something I had lingering in my mind since I last played a few years ago.

The word racism is a very highly-charged topic in real life today and I think its use in the game is both inaccurate and has had historically negatively impacts roleplaying decisions from members of this community. There is actually no racism in Armageddon mud.  I think the game would benefit from shifting its from using 'race' and 'racism' to species and speciesism.

Elves, dwarves, Thryzn are not human, they are different species all together. I myself highly enjoy RPing the different species and how they interact, compete and struggle with others sentient species of the world. I believe that by clarify this in the documentation and modifying our verbiage in the documentation slightly, it will help people feel comfortable roleplaying some of the complex relationship and social structures regardless of any shifts in game direction.

Unfortunately, racism is something that has impacted many of us very negatively in real life and it would only benefit the game and the roleplaying to make a few small changes to ensure there less similarities in game to any real life struggles. 

QuoteSpeciesism: the practice of treating members of one's own species as morally
more important than members of other species, including non-human animals and
potentially extraterrestrial life forms.

Racism: A belief that race is a fundamental determinant of HUMAN traits and capacities, and
that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race, accompanied
by behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief (Source, Merriam-Webster).

I think this is a good thing to consider. However there is a strong counter point here https://www.dndbeyond.com/races

In D&D parlance, what you call species are called races. And in all the D&D settings I know, there is no racism among differently colored humans, but there is frequently racism among the different D&D races.

Changing references to speciesism would be very confusing for everyone who comes to Arm from a D&D background. That said, it is probably good to clarify the distinction somewhere so that people without a D&D background can read it and understand.

Totally agree. I've been arguing this point for years, even in other games that use the term "race" to define various subspecies.  In Armageddon, your human character shouldn't dislike an elf just because the elf is black or white. You should dislike them because they're an elf.  Now, if that elf was periwinkle blue, or fuchsia, then sure - but that'd be due to them being a mutant, since periwinkle and fuchsia don't fall within the "normal range" of skin colors in this game.

In real life, it'd be considered an abomination for a human to have a romantic interest in a chimpanzee. Both are humanoids, but each is a completely different subspecies.

Quote from: Agent_137 on July 22, 2024, 10:28:27 PM....

Look I know. You aren't wrong and I expected people to say race and species are used interchangeably in a number of literatures and games.

However, D&D is old, and set some standard which does not help some of its IPs in today environment. It also tends to focus these days on worlds that lack the themes we find and enjoy within this game. 

Unfortunately, the world has changed, and it would really only benefit the community to avoid many of issues associated with some terms. People aren't stupid,  and this can be easily made clear early in the documentation without any impact to new users.

Very nice point to consider indeed. From RL biological perspective most scientists consider human racism as simply a social-constract, i.e. there isn't enough difference between human beings to divide them into different races in biological sense.

Just to keep, fantasy world in which characters can fly with saying a word, out of political world I'd like to see it to be called species. On the other hand, D&D runs the RP genre show and they surf with the waves.

Quote from: Lizzie on July 22, 2024, 10:34:30 PMIn real life, it'd be considered an abomination for a human to have a romantic interest in a chimpanzee. Both are humanoids, but each is a completely different subspecies.

Unless you're playing in one of the many D&D settings where that's untrue and many species can cross without any derision, particularly elves and humans.

This is a dark sun thing, but even dark sun refers to the subspecies as races.

We're the only ones calling them subspecies. It makes sense to us, steeped in Arm, where they're treated like subspecies. But it's not the terminology most people are going to be using given the source material. Even Tolkien refers to elves, dwarves, humans, etc as different races.

But yeah, to Dresan's point, it's worth making clear that it's different here, and why.


P.S.

Fun Arm fact of the day - this rapey part of the half-elf help file did not come from Dark Sun:

Quotethe vast majority of half-elves are not the product of loving relationships.

This is what Dark Sun's Rulebook says:

QuoteElves and humans travel many of the same roads
on Athas—elven tribes have at times encountered
human mercenaries, just as elven warriors have
found gainful employment in the armies of the city
states. The merchant class, too, is overrun with
traders of both races, so it is not at all unusual for
children of mixed parentage to be born into the
world—the half-elves.

QuoteElves are especially intolerant, at times driving
mothers of half-elven infants from their camps into
the desert. Humans are more apt to accept halfelves
as allies or partners, but seldom accept them
into their homes, clans, or families.

Quote from: Lizzie on July 22, 2024, 10:34:30 PMTotally agree. I've been arguing this point for years, even in other games that use the term "race" to define various subspecies.  In Armageddon, your human character shouldn't dislike an elf just because the elf is black or white. You should dislike them because they're an elf.  Now, if that elf was periwinkle blue, or fuchsia, then sure - but that'd be due to them being a mutant, since periwinkle and fuchsia don't fall within the "normal range" of skin colors in this game.

In real life, it'd be considered an abomination for a human to have a romantic interest in a chimpanzee. Both are humanoids, but each is a completely different subspecies.

Important distinction here. You're only a different species if you create offspring who are not reproductively viable. So elves and humans are the same species. Humans and dwarves are a different species. In fact by that token the only racism that exists in arms is between humans and elves. Everything else is speciesism.

I am 100% fine with never giving this any thought.

Quote from: Agent_137 on July 22, 2024, 10:56:42 PM-snup-

Honestly the more I personally read about dark sun on the side, the less I understood why Armageddon cranked it's dark themes in particular up to 11. It's a shame because thri-kreen are potentially friendly and sometimes even ally with other races for big threats. Sad that I'll never play a mantis man.

Quote from: dumbstruck on July 22, 2024, 11:13:26 PMYou're only a different species if you create offspring who are not reproductively viable.

I am not sure you are correct. But also I feel the technicalities are missing an important point.

Quotethe consensus among scientists and experts is that wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris) are different species. While they share a common ancestor and can interbreed to produce viable offspring, they have distinct genetic, physical, and behavioral differences.

Quote from: Dresan on July 23, 2024, 12:19:21 AM

Quote from: dumbstruck on July 22, 2024, 11:13:26 PMYou're only a different species if you create offspring who are not reproductively viable.

I am not sure you are correct. But even if you were, I feel the technicalities are missing an important point.

Quotethe consensus among scientists and experts is that wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris) are different species. While they share a common ancestor and can interbreed to produce viable offspring, they have distinct genetic, physical, and behavioral differences.

That's actually Canis lupus (wolves) and Canis Familiaris Lupus now specifically because they are the same species and that wolves and dogs are subspecies within it. (Source: https://wolf.org/wolf-info/basic-wolf-info/wolves-and-humans/wolf-dog-hybrids/) I mean, since you want to correct me I would prefer if you were correct.

Quote from: dumbstruck on July 23, 2024, 12:29:25 AM....

I think you are missing the point in regard to demerits of using 'racism' or 'racist' terminologies in the game.

Even within your argument human and elves would still be different subspecies. I think this is enough to allow the change in the terminology, especially with what the terms mean within our purely human society. I don't think its necessary to make half-elves infertile in order to make a shift but quite frankly i also dont think doing so would be huge impact to the game either.

Quote from: Agent_137 on July 22, 2024, 10:28:27 PMI think this is a good thing to consider. However there is a strong counter point here https://www.dndbeyond.com/races

In D&D parlance, what you call species are called races. And in all the D&D settings I know, there is no racism among differently colored humans, but there is frequently racism among the different D&D races.

Changing references to speciesism would be very confusing for everyone who comes to Arm from a D&D background. That said, it is probably good to clarify the distinction somewhere so that people without a D&D background can read it and understand.

D&D are already changing have already changed from race to species for the same reason.

https://www.polygon.com/23488097/dungeons-dragons-race-species-rule-change-announcement-wotc-unearthed-arcana

Looks at the code in a billion places where it says things like "if (RACE_ELF)"  .... cries

Quote from: Inky on July 22, 2024, 11:58:22 PMI am 100% fine with never giving this any thought.

Ohh yes. Absolutely.

Quote from: Inky on July 22, 2024, 11:58:22 PMI am 100% fine with never giving this any thought.

I'd say that in arm, we deal with tribalism and othering, not so much racism.
If that elf is also a Bynner? Better than the not-bynner elf. Still bad for not being also a human like you...

That being said, as long as we realize we're being racist on fantasy-definition of race, not modern sociological definiton...

Does changing the word change what we do?

To those of you who have posted that you will not think about this, and then just quoted each other:  you bring nothing to this discussion (which I realize is your intent).  You're just being low-key trolls by posting that you won't give this any thought (which, by the way, you obviously did because you responded).

With that said, if you have no intention of posting actual opinions and actively contributing to the discussion, refrain from posting.

    I understand the feelings behind where this comes from.  I also understand that this is a fictional game in a fictional world.  It is also a game that is 18+ with often strong adult themes (brutality, murder, betrayal, sex, torture,etc... Sometimes all in the same scene.) and as such requires a certain level of maturity and detachment in order to maintain our own mental health.

    'Race' in the contact of fantasy races is much more accurate than how English-speakers over the last few centuries have used the word.  Humans are one species with an almost identical genome. Ever human on earth shares about 99.9% of our genetic code with one another. 1) We didn't know that three centuries ago. 2) The word 'race' is a relatively new addition to the English language, starting around 300 years ago, often to force difference between humans that were non-existent because of both ignorance (a lack of the science we have now) and malice (justification for conquest, and social injustices).

    All that to say, I am fine with the term 'race' to describe different races in science fiction and fantasy setting, as it is accurate.  Our historical context of using 'race' and its original definitions is where the error lies.

Isn't it problematic that the only way we draw on to 'RP Fantastical Racism' is from RL Racism though?

Meaning -- when people are being 'racist' in game, they are using what they know from RL as tropes of racist behavior to exemplify in the game world.

Even though we might be acting within a fantastical context, we are portraying based on what we know and understand racism to be.

Racism / Fantastical Racism is present in Dark Sun, but not nearly as emphasized as it is on ArmageddonMUD.

Also, in hopes of lightening the discussion to something more productive and less charged:
All the races (except gith) are decedent from halflings anyway (at least according to DarkSun). Gith are...

Aliens.

Quote from: Down Under on July 23, 2024, 10:50:22 AMIsn't it problematic that the only way we draw on to 'RP Fantastical Racism' is from RL Racism though?

Nope. Never seen an elf, fantasy dwarf, mantis, gith...etc etc etc in real life and can only go on previous interactions and documentation on how I am to view these creatures.

These prejudices only exist in this fantasy world and bear, or shouldn't bear any likeness to real world issues. 

Quote from: Down Under on July 23, 2024, 10:50:22 AMIsn't it problematic that the only way we draw on to 'RP Fantastical Racism' is from RL Racism though?

Meaning -- when people are being 'racist' in game, they are using what they know from RL as tropes of racist behavior to exemplify in the game world.

Even though we might be acting within a fantastical context, we are portraying based on what we know and understand racism to be.

Racism / Fantastical Racism is present in Dark Sun, but not nearly as emphasized as it is on ArmageddonMUD.

I don't. I know many players who don't. We use the term AS IF we were referring to species"ism." I draw on my observations of nature. Jakhals and wolves are both canines but you don't see them hanging out together, and if you tossed them in the same enclosed environment, one would likely eventually attempt to rip the other to shreds.  Similarly, red-tailed hawks and budgies are both birds - but budgies are more likely to be a hawk's mid-day snack, than a pal or life-mate.

My characters tend to view half-elves as a less-severe, but equally abominable, result of two subspecies mingling. My human characters tend to view elves as - inferior humanoids, but not necessarily enemy humanoids. My half-giant character viewed anyone who wasn't a half-giant as "stupid," though she wasn't entirely sure what that meant - only that she should have disdain for them. My elven characters thought humans were useful tools, and possible allies, but would never consider bedding one of them because gross - they're not elves.

Quote from: Tailong on July 23, 2024, 10:56:24 AM

Quote from: Down Under on July 23, 2024, 10:50:22 AMIsn't it problematic that the only way we draw on to 'RP Fantastical Racism' is from RL Racism though?

Nope. Never seen an elf, fantasy dwarf, mantis, gith...etc etc etc in real life and can only go on previous interactions and documentation on how I am to view these creatures.

These prejudices only exist in this fantasy world and bear, or shouldn't bear any likeness to real world issues. 

Right, but if i'm playing make believe (RP) about 'How would my PC be racist towards <An Elf / A Half-Elf / A Gith / A Dwarf / A Mul / A Half-Giant', am I drawing from a mythical Athasian/Zalanthan lexicon on how to be Racist like an Athasian/Zalanthan? Or am I going to think 'How are people racist/discriminatory to each other IRL?' and apply those methods to my RP?

I'm not judging people for doing it. Exploring fantastical racism and why major companies like WotC and Pathfinder are making decisions to remove or change language surrounding race and racism from their material is very recent and still a topic being explored and discussed.

I don't /expect/ ArmageddonMUD to make drastic changes in this area, but in reading the room, many other people are in fact discussing these topics and making drastic changes to their IP to accommodate a shifting attitude towards fantastical racism.

Quote from: Down Under on July 23, 2024, 10:50:22 AMIsn't it problematic that the only way we draw on to 'RP Fantastical Racism' is from RL Racism though?

Meaning -- when people are being 'racist' in game, they are using what they know from RL as tropes of racist behavior to exemplify in the game world.

Even though we might be acting within a fantastical context, we are portraying based on what we know and understand racism to be.

Racism / Fantastical Racism is present in Dark Sun, but not nearly as emphasized as it is on ArmageddonMUD.

Yes. It is 'problematic.' Nearly all conflict in Armageddon is 'problematic.'

There is literally no where else to draw on conflict tropes from than RL themes.  That is and will always be true until creatures from another dimension or aliens decide to invade Earth. 

What is being discussed here is word creep.  There are problematic issues around a word.  You change the word without actually changing the root cause issue, so the new word becomes problematic, so you change the word again... rinse and repeat.  The only way to actually solve the root cause here would be to make an OOC rule against racism/speciesism.  I am not sure that is something this game needs.  It's not a cuddle-puddle universe.

Quote from: FantasyWriter on July 23, 2024, 11:05:17 AM

Quote from: Down Under on July 23, 2024, 10:50:22 AMIsn't it problematic that the only way we draw on to 'RP Fantastical Racism' is from RL Racism though?

Meaning -- when people are being 'racist' in game, they are using what they know from RL as tropes of racist behavior to exemplify in the game world.

Even though we might be acting within a fantastical context, we are portraying based on what we know and understand racism to be.

Racism / Fantastical Racism is present in Dark Sun, but not nearly as emphasized as it is on ArmageddonMUD.

Yes. It is 'problematic.' Nearly all conflict in Armageddon is 'problematic.'

There is literally no where else to draw on conflict tropes from than RL themes.  That is and will always be true until creatures from another dimension or aliens decide to invade Earth. 

What is being discussed here is word creep.  There are problematic issues around a word.  You change the word without actually changing the root cause issue, so the new word becomes problematic, so you change the word again... rinse and repeat.  The only way to actually solve the root cause here would be to make an OOC rule against racism/speciesism.  I am not sure that is something this game needs.  It's not a cuddle-puddle universe.

You're not wrong -- I don't think changing the word from 'race' to 'species' without a whole lot of documentation/attitude shift and matching expectations would do anything besides what you mention, word creep.

For reference, some links to articles on Wizards of the Coast's reticence to return to Dark Sun as IP for 5E:
https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/dark-sun-problematic

Tying ability scores to background rather than race:
https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/one-dnd-races-backgrounds-unearthed-arcana


I don't think racism / race-politics (or slavery, not to open that can of worms) are essential to the theme of the game. I think we are used to them being parts of the game and theme, so it's difficult for us to imagine the game without them as core themes.

Looking at the recent changes to city elves for example, and providing cultural context as to why elves are treated the way they are, is definitely a positive step. The Magefall incident and all of the context provided there also gives greater depth to Gemmed RP and why commoners might hate Gemmed Magickers, or why they might support them.

Honestly, not really sure what the answer is -- ArmageddonMUD is a 30 year old game with a lot of baggage and inertia. Maybe it's just something to be mindful of in RP? I dunno.

Quote from: zealus on July 23, 2024, 10:12:33 AMDoes changing the word change what we do?

To quote smarter people than me, words are important.

I love the themes of the game, and I want to continue playing them for years to come. And I believe this clarification within the documentation will allow us to preserve the RP we enjoy. There is already a history of staff having to step in to deal with people misinterpreting the themes in one way or another.

I get some people don't feel the need to change after 30+ years of the game's history, and are likely annoyed at the suggestion.  However, that is just really another indicator that the game should complete remove itself from these politically charged topics in today's real life culture as soon as possible. After all, this is not even a battle that needs fighting, as there is abolutely no need or benefit to use this inaccurate terminology within the game.

I agree words are INSANELY important.
AND words are how we communicate ideas that, in truth, go so far beyond what we can communicate with each other (the Greek concept we get the word 'idea' from) and that people view differently but have to share a common language to communicate. Changing the lable, does not change what is inside the box, and it feels like there are two different themes is this converstaion that may be getting confounded.  Changing the word, vs changing in-game culture and documentation.

I think staff's decision to take the OOC policing of game docs (within reason) and keeping the pushback IC was and is a great move toward solving a lot of the issues we have around racism in the game. You can play a strictly document-following human templar, a leader who will hire anyone who you think will make you more coin or bring you more prestige, or an elf that longs for human society [shiver]... scratch it, kill that last one with fire!

I think this is an important and justified discussion for us to all have even if I disagree with the direction the OP would like to take it.  Thank you, Dresan, for bringing up and letting us all have our say.

Call me an old school AD&D'er but I always saw it as alignment over race (you could have a party of any mixture of playable races as long as their alignments didn't conflict). That's the way it has been in all the single player AD&D games I've played over the years. Can't you play a half-demon in Baldur's gate 3?

Removing the forced racial conflict in Arm's docs would not be a loss.

Just change the docs. Keep the tribalism, remove the rape stuff about half-elves. A lot of work but just assign a help-file or doc to each high karma player and have them do the rewrite...earn that karma!

If staff changed city elves to give mul strength the longer you hanged around them the hatred for celves would magically disappear tomorrow.

Similar levels of hatred should exist for mages but i am sure staff have to continuously remind people they shouldn't be best friends with them just to gain access to those kick ass buffs.

If the staff ever happens to make celf OP as dwarves or delves, this clarification will also be beneficial to help players understand why open intimate relationships with celves is bad.

Quote from: burble on July 23, 2024, 11:56:12 AMKeep the tribalism, remove the rape stuff about half-elves.

This was softened a while back:
"If you are new to Armageddon MUD, you should be aware that the vast majority of half-elves are not the product of loving relationships."

Quote from: Usiku on July 23, 2024, 03:00:40 AM

Quote from: Agent_137 on July 22, 2024, 10:28:27 PMI think this is a good thing to consider. However there is a strong counter point here https://www.dndbeyond.com/races

In D&D parlance, what you call species are called races. And in all the D&D settings I know, there is no racism among differently colored humans, but there is frequently racism among the different D&D races.

Changing references to speciesism would be very confusing for everyone who comes to Arm from a D&D background. That said, it is probably good to clarify the distinction somewhere so that people without a D&D background can read it and understand.

D&D are already changing have already changed from race to species for the same reason.

https://www.polygon.com/23488097/dungeons-dragons-race-species-rule-change-announcement-wotc-unearthed-arcana

2 years ago they said that, but they're still calling it race on dndbeyond that they own and expect players to use every game?

If they're serious about the change they're sitting on it hard.

Let's just make it clear that it's a species thing and not a IRL race thing without changing all the terms... which dnd isn't even doing evidently. 

Quote from: Markku on July 23, 2024, 12:07:26 PM

Quote from: burble on July 23, 2024, 11:56:12 AMKeep the tribalism, remove the rape stuff about half-elves.

This was softened a while back:
"If you are new to Armageddon MUD, you should be aware that the vast majority of half-elves are not the product of loving relationships."

A very weak softening. It's still a bunch of rape that some staffer injected into Arm that isn't in the source material.  But that's a side topic.

This is such a strange discussion on both sides of the equation.

Being able to roleplay racism in Armageddon does not make you a racist just because you need to draw on real world prejudice and experience, since after all, Elves, Dwarves (don't quote me about Dwarfism I do not care), Muls, Half-giants and Half-Elves do not exist in our reality. The only way we know how to do anything is from exposure and experience, and if you're concerned that roleplaying to the game's established lore and documentation is going to make you racist in real life, maybe you should work on that.

I can roleplay a straight man. I can roleplay a homosexual woman. I am neither of those, but that does not make me incapable of doing it, nor does it MAKE me a straight man or homosexual woman just because I CAN.

If the documentation of the game says that you should hate an elf as a human, because elves are untrustworthy (even though that's changed recently), then you should not trust the elf because they're an ELF, not because of the color of their skin. The same goes for literally any mix and match scenario from any of the handful of Zalanthan races.

This isn't an issue. I agree that the game is starting to feel more... "we're all happy friends lets hold hands" and honestly I'm not a fan of the sudden wave of en masse inclusion, the raw, nitty gritty and harsh world is what really hooked me to the game, but we as players are given the OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE whether or not we want to be racist (and please, can we stop arguing word choice, it's.. really not important, and some of you are doing so to completely detract from the topic just for the sake of being contrarian) in-game. If you want to hate all elves, kill all mages and break the bones of every half-elf you see, then you are free to do so. If you want to smooch on gemmed, mack on elves and pop out half-elves all week long, you are free to do so.

In all honesty, I believe these changes to foster and even more volatile in-game society, and that's a GOOD thing. It will promote so many different stories and plots between PCs.

I tend to agree, the only really easily detectable hostility in the game is based on who you work for or who you work with.

The magefall stuff has been building up very slowly, and I feel like it'll just take all the race tension energy when it finally kicks off.

On topic, yep.. It's an argument about word choices. Also references are being made to references, not actual usable rules or facts I think.

Quote from: Usiku on July 23, 2024, 03:00:40 AMD&D are already changing have already changed from race to species for the same reason.

https://www.polygon.com/23488097/dungeons-dragons-race-species-rule-change-announcement-wotc-unearthed-arcana (https://www.polygon.com/23488097/dungeons-dragons-race-species-rule-change-announcement-wotc-unearthed-arcana)

It's a weird thing because their website still says race. Honestly I don't really get it, this really is semantics. Even if DnD in particular decides that it's going to start using 'species', so many other games, TTRPG systems and stuff still say 'race'. I think the average RPG player see's race as 'different intelligent humanoids', where 'species' is usually more monstrous stuff. Because humans are the only intelligent race on earth when it comes to being on the same level, I've never personally attributed race to any irl counterpart, I also think trying to draw parallels is a little weird because of it.

I'd like to say any sane human being will not equate irl racism to fantasy racism, we're all adults here at the end of the day and I think it's expected to be mature about these sorts of things. Fantasy races are actually supposed to have completely different ways of thinking, physiology and other massive differences, comparing that to humans that have slightly different bone structure, tones of skin and stuff like that is a hard sell.

Also sorry Usiku, this wasn't entirely supposed to be a reply to you, just my general opinion, I just wanted to address the dnd thing:
(https://i.imgur.com/jK2wutU.png)

Pathfinder, which is run by a very diverse crew, uses 'ancestry' instead of 'race' and talks about prejudices instead of any -isms. I like that one.

Quote from: val on July 23, 2024, 04:51:02 PMPathfinder, which is run by a very diverse crew, uses 'ancestry' instead of 'race' and talks about prejudices instead of any -isms. I like that one.

It is my hope that we can modernize ArmageddonMUD in the coming years to appeal to a new audience while keeping our core harsh themes. I do not believe the game needs "racism" to be interesting or fun. We've seen a lot of great roleplay between the different social classes based on the adjustments to elves by the wonderful @Hulrouk and I strongly believe we should adjust the rest of our problematic material in the future to move in the same direction.

I'm generally in favor of replacing the word "race" in game with something better in order to move farther away from RL biases. I think "speciesism" would work fine even though as explained above, elves and humans are technically the same species. Zalanthas doesn't have that scientific understanding though so species is acceptable as a descriptor.

Quote from: val on July 23, 2024, 04:51:02 PMPathfinder, which is run by a very diverse crew, uses 'ancestry' instead of 'race' and talks about prejudices instead of any -isms. I like that one.

I really like this as a terminology.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 23, 2024, 05:18:37 PMI think "speciesism" would work fine even though as explained above, elves and humans are technically the same species. Zalanthas doesn't have that scientific understanding though so species is acceptable as a descriptor.

I thought so too. They are still different subspecies after all.

But given of the strong sentiments, which unfortunately will likely get worse over months and years, I am starting to wonder if its best to just change halfelves to being infertile now and be done with this entire topic in one go, rather than letting it linger and fester.

That said, even a tiny retcon seems like a tall mountain to climb at this point.  :-\

I long for a time when people leave their real world 'prejudices' and generalizations at the door when they come play. Zalanthias isn't Earth, and we shouldn't be bringing earthy 'morals and ethics' to it.  Let it be its own thing.

Using Pathfinder terminology is fine, but where does this end? What is the endgame, a completely altered game that so watered down and 'safe' it won't be worth playing? I'm personally a-okay with how things are, and think it's too damn watered down now.

Quote from: Tailong on July 23, 2024, 06:06:30 PMUsing Pathfinder terminology is fine, but where does this end? What is the endgame, a completely altered game that so watered down and 'safe' it won't be worth playing? I'm personally a-okay with how things are, and think it's too damn watered down now.

What do you mean by "watered down"? What is watered down about Season 1's Arm?

Pathfinder 2e is probably my favorite tabletop RPG system. It is probably the first one I've seen that uses a different word for races, and it does make a lot of sense based on the massive variety that they have. I also do love that on the pathfinder 2e website (nethys), they have a 'you might' and 'others might think you' section for reach race/class, both giving info on how different races and classes are seen and may see the world without hard-lining it into forced racism.

For reference, this is the Grippli one, probably my favorite race of funny frog people.
(https://i.imgur.com/0NRxmz8.png)
(you might need to right click, open image to read)

I do find it utterly astonishing that some people equate this suggestion to trying to promote less IC hate and conflict. :)

Some people are. That was what I was saying about there seem to be two different themes running through the thread. The solely technical argument about what is the best language to use, which I think was your original intent and another that looks something like: if we don't make this change, we are furthering real-life racism and bringing it into the game/community with a subset of: there is too much IG prejudice in the game and that needs to be changed.

Quote from: Dresan on July 23, 2024, 05:58:20 PM

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 23, 2024, 05:18:37 PMI think "speciesism" would work fine even though as explained above, elves and humans are technically the same species. Zalanthas doesn't have that scientific understanding though so species is acceptable as a descriptor.

I thought so too. They are still different subspecies after all.

But given of the strong sentiments, which unfortunately will likely get worse over months and years, I am starting to wonder if its best to just change halfelves to being infertile now and be done with this entire topic in one go, rather than letting it linger and fester.

That said, even a tiny retcon seems like a tall mountain to climb at this point.  :-\

This is exactly what concerns me about the original proposed change. Retconning the half-elves to accommodate a change of one word seems like a bit too much. Likewise, if we were going to use 'species' it really only makes sense to use it correctly (or else why even use that word and not something else).

In my opinion, 'species' and especially 'speciesism' seem out of place for a fantasy game. The Pathfinder language seems like a decent alternative though.

Quote from: flurry on July 23, 2024, 07:27:04 PMIn my opinion, 'species' and especially 'speciesism' seem out of place for a fantasy game. The Pathfinder language seems like a decent alternative though.

I don't completely dislike the words ancestry and prejudice but I feel they don't quite get the point across as strongly. The word ancestry in particular would not be a huge improvement to the word race.

Maybe we could mix them up a bit, use species/subspecies and prejudice to avoid the -ism but still stress the appropriate biological divisions?

Or - we could put our real-world (and totally justified) sensitivities aside, and accept that the word "racism" in the context of fantasy RPGs doesn't mean the same thing as it means in the real world.

No one uses the word IN the game - you don't hear dwarves complaining that they're targets of racism. No elf to my knowledge has ever accused a human of committing acts of racism against him. No half-giant has commiserated with his fellow half-giant about the racism imposed on him by half-elves.

Elves know that humans consider them to be inferior. Humans know that elves consider them to be inferior. Dwarves know that they are superior to both humans and elves. Half-elves know that everyone thinks of themselves as superior to them. Half-giants are more interested in your pretty tourmaline bracelet than what you think about their race. And nobles KNOW that they are superior to everyone else, no matter what DNA runs through their veins.

Call it racism, or speciesism, it doesn't matter because those are OOC constructs, used OOCly, and not discussed within the game itself anyway.

Quote from: flurry on July 23, 2024, 07:27:04 PM

Quote from: Dresan on July 23, 2024, 05:58:20 PM

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 23, 2024, 05:18:37 PMI think "speciesism" would work fine even though as explained above, elves and humans are technically the same species. Zalanthas doesn't have that scientific understanding though so species is acceptable as a descriptor.

I thought so too. They are still different subspecies after all.

But given of the strong sentiments, which unfortunately will likely get worse over months and years, I am starting to wonder if its best to just change halfelves to being infertile now and be done with this entire topic in one go, rather than letting it linger and fester.

That said, even a tiny retcon seems like a tall mountain to climb at this point.  :-\

This is exactly what concerns me about the original proposed change. Retconning the half-elves to accommodate a change of one word seems like a bit too much. Likewise, if we were going to use 'species' it really only makes sense to use it correctly (or else why even use that word and not something else).

In my opinion, 'species' and especially 'speciesism' seem out of place for a fantasy game. The Pathfinder language seems like a decent alternative though.

Honestly all of this sums up my position perfectly. By all means keep all the IC tensions between dwarves, humans, elves, and so forth, but there's only one other 'coded' race that is lorewise the same species (in the sense that the same species can typically breed and produce fertile hybrids and those outside of species produce sterile offspring, hence muls, literally why they're sterile). That said, I don't like even considering to myself that my past time is fantasy racism. Racism sucks. And in a very real sense in all cases but humans/elves it's literally untrue. Because dwarves, as a different species, produce sterile offspring when reproducing with humans. I like the terminologies of ancestry and prejudice. I don't think you need edgy wording to try and convey force in a dynamic personally.

Quote from: Halaster on July 23, 2024, 10:19:47 AMTo those of you who have posted that you will not think about this, and then just quoted each other:  you bring nothing to this discussion (which I realize is your intent).  You're just being low-key trolls by posting that you won't give this any thought (which, by the way, you obviously did because you responded).

With that said, if you have no intention of posting actual opinions and actively contributing to the discussion, refrain from posting.

If you want to ascribe the worst possible intention to a three second post, you're free to.

But since you asked so nicely I'm going to give you an actual opinion that I know everyone is going to hate: Nobody here is equipped to untangle the thorny issues of racism that churn out from this game. Sure, there have been positive changes. But we're STILL playing in a game where elves are depicted as living in a real world adjacent ghetto where poverty seems to equal nothing more than trash, hooded cloaks and brutality. Or are alternatively depicted as bloodthirsty feather-dressed aboriginals (they even got the verbing-noun names haha wtf).

But furthermore the proposed change completely misses the point. Changing 'race' to 'species' not only misses every forest for every tree, it smacks of real world 'race realism' to the point where it actually makes me cringe. And then the conversation moves to biological speciation and... I just can't.

Quote from: Lizzie on July 23, 2024, 08:51:19 PMOr - we could put our real-world (and totally justified) sensitivities aside, and accept that the word "racism" in the context of fantasy RPGs doesn't mean the same thing as it means in the real world.

Or - we can clarify it more accurately, avoiding drawing any similarities to the these politically charged topics and needlessly provoking any of those (totally justified) sensitivities, while at the same time we continuing playing with as much IC prejudice and conflict as the game deems appropriate.

Quote from: Inky on July 23, 2024, 09:07:21 PM....

I disagree with your points. I think you already mentioned in another thread you haven't played this season so maybe you've missed some of the changes in the game. But even then in the past both humans and elves live in the Rinth. As for the rest, again it seems like more of an indicator we should indeed be more carefully and clear in our wording to further try to avoid some of the sentiments you've expressed.

jackiechan.jpeg

I don't understand the objection. No one says 'racism' in game, or at least they shouldn't. The closest anyone is going to get to using that nomenclature is saying something like 'the elven race' which...is that really upsetting people?

Quote from: Markku on July 23, 2024, 12:07:26 PM

Quote from: burble on July 23, 2024, 11:56:12 AMThis was softened a while back:
"If you are new to Armageddon MUD, you should be aware that the vast majority of half-elves are not the product of loving relationships."

100% this is correct full stop.

in Armageddon half-elves are NOT considered to be products of rape. there is no reference to sexual assault in the help file and there is no allusion to non-consensual sex there either.

the full line from the help file is:

Quote"If you are new to Armageddon MUD, you should be aware that the vast majority of half-elves are not the product of loving relationships. Elves and humans tolerate each other but relationships between the two are considered disgusting by most cultures in the game."

the reason most of these relationships are not loving is because if a half-elf and elf are in love then one of them or both of them will probably get stoned to death in the street. a lot of breeds are going to be unwanted children, orphans, grow up in squalor, be secret breeds, not know a parent or both parents, etc: the children born from relationships that most people consider to be absolutely abhorrent.

there is no allusion to sexual violence. there is no reference to and there is no thematic expectation of behavior that is against the rules of the game.

i know this because i wrote the help file after complaining about it on discord until mansa told me to write the help file and i wrote the new help file.

i originally removed the OOC note entirely and staff wrote a new line, explained the context, and also that it was for the purpose it stated which was to help new players understand their background would likely be tumultuous.

i think it reads fine without putting it in the context of a deleted help file but tbh if anyone thinks it's unclear or something maybe put in a request with a fix?

thanks for coming to my ted talk.

edit: i don't know why it's so easy to quote instead of quick edit

My personal opinion on the subject is that while I understand the intent behind the original point, I don't personally see it as necessary.  I think most people can see the game and understand that elf vs human vs dwarf is just a game, and not really the same as real life racism.  Since this is specifically about the word being used, I'm actually kind of curious now, do we have documentation that uses the word racism?  A real quick grep of our helpfiles does not turn up the word even once.  So does our documentation say racism or is it just an understood concept?  Can anyone find the word in our documentation?  If we were to change, where would we even do that?

I think this discussion is a great one to have, and I appreciate people having and being mostly civil and respectful of each others opinions.  I personally haven't read anything here that makes me think this change is worth it, or even required (if it's not in our docs?).

Help files say racism 3 times. This is the first and imo most important:

Quotehttps://www.armageddon.org/help/view/What%20You%20Know

Zalanthans tend to be very xenophobic, both with respect to other species, and with respect to those outside their city and/or tribe. Humans, for instance, distrust elves, and elves, in return, view humans as inferior. However, racism, in the modern sense, is non-existent in Zalanthas.

To halaster's point it seems already explicitly separating arm  from the word and from its modern usage.

But new docs slip and use racism instead of xenophobia. Maybe this is what OP was looking at?

Quotehttps://www.armageddon.org/help/view/City%20Elves

Please note that player characters of city elves should expect to be at least mildly inhibited by social stigmas and racism. It is well known in elven circles that the systems of oppression in the city-states exist to uplift the dominance of humans over all other races and has been this way for many, many generations. Elves are subject to social exclusion, heavy handed and unfair punishments by humans in power, and a social glass ceiling.


https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Allanak%20Elven%20Market
While people from the city proper are not disallowed from the market, it is considered common sense that undermining the order and profitability of the market will generally result in a unified front of elves.. This combined with social stigmas and racism make such ventures by more established powers of the city extremely rare.

This is the extent of the word racism in help files. 

... it sounds like the two instances of 'racism' being used were a mistake and should just be corrected to keep the separation from modern-day terminology.

Quote from: Halaster on July 23, 2024, 11:23:55 PM....

After a quick search function result on the website those are some of the results (see below, they also exist in-game) but to be fair the documentation does have a small blurb that 'racism' in game isn't the same as RL racism

After seeing some of the comments here, seeing some of the comments in other places, and having seen some of the behavior in game over the last few years, all of them seemingly swaying in one direction or the other, it does seems to me some people in the community do tend to views races , mostly elves not as a different species but as humans who look different.

I won't comment on whether any change is necessary or not, or even if any changes will make any difference,  its not my decision and I can't see the future. I will only say  that with exception to a heartfelt post or two on the forum, the game has put zero effort to correct or differentiate from these sort of views over the years. And I do personally feel it has made playing a 'racist' or being on the receiving end of 'racism' sometimes not feel like that great of RP experience in this game.

But I'm okay to admit that perhaps that is just me, c'est la vie.  :-\

QuotePlease note that player characters of city elves should expect to be at least mildly inhibited by social stigmas and racism. It is well known in elven circles that the systems of oppression in the city-states exist to uplift the dominance of humans over all other races and has been this way for many, many generations. Elves are subject to social exclusion, heavy handed and unfair punishments by humans in power, and a social glass ceiling. Migrating to places without this racist hierarchy, such as Luir's Outpost or Red Storm Village, is a hard choice some city elves make in order to achieve their goals or escape implicit harm simply based on who they are.

QuoteThe requirements of engaging with the market are few. It's mildly frowned upon to expect elves to speak in any other tongue than Allundean, and that makes interpreters a more common sight even if the elves here are known to speak sirihish. Violence is frowned upon within the market and in the main avenue from the city proper to it; the occasional group of vagabonds or lonefeet gangs that see profit in mugging those traveling the path are dealt with swiftly, if they are caught.. While people from the city proper are not disallowed from the market, it is considered common sense that undermining the order and profitability of the market will generally result in a unified front of elves.. This combined with social stigmas and racism make such ventures by more established powers of the city extremely rare.

I cannot speak much of these matters, but the inner racial conflict and overall abuse to half-elves, isn't that a torture caused by race at highest level. If there is somewhere to fix, half-elves need a touch, imo.

The only problematic use of the word 'racism', should be out of the mouths of the people of regular, common people of Zalanthas. Even 'Speciesism' is a little iffy. See, I'm coming at this from a strange angle possibly, because there have been good arguments made that people without literacy can have excellent vocabularies, and there have been a lot of strides over the years towards making the prejudices in the cultures of the Known World be clearly delineated from any kind of topside, OOC endorsement of prejudices or discrimination.

In many places in Armageddon's make believe world, the fantasy race (used colloquially, not scientifically ((because 'race' has a fuzzy definition across differing environments))) 'Half-elf' is a threat to the status quo, because purity of blood is a function of the ruling classes strangehold on the minds of the lowest class. These terrible, post-apocalyptic authorities wielding dread magicks and hoarding natural resources own slaves. They don't let anyone read.

Nobody that a player can play has a dedicated, hard copy book to reference the truth of the matter, or the origin of species, or any of our clever debates we like to inject into the game. Everyone one of is a philosopher and just innately knows some things that we carry over from the real world, but the level of discourse between the man who thinks holding up a match in a cave will guide him out of a cave and the man who thinks the flame could lie to him despite whira's previous favor, she's fickle after all, it could lead them to the greatest danger etc, the level of discourse between them would be astronomically equivalent. No one would have a single source to back anything up, and 'convincing' people of anything but their current beliefs is kind of ... kind of a distant notion, right?

We have a Merchant House that sells razor sharp obsidian bladed knives, and people literally willing to commit genocide for a taste of that good magick, anyone debating the fundamental difference between species and race /In Game/ are most certainly anomalies and are never going to be anything more than very very very different from NPCs and VNPCs.

I hope my point is clear.

tl;dr look at those weirdos talking about race and species. What kinda words are those? We should probably kill them and take their stuff, because the powers that be crush them for being different.

Quote from: Agent_137 on July 23, 2024, 11:37:33 PMHelp files say racism 3 times. This is the first and imo most important:

Quotehttps://www.armageddon.org/help/view/What%20You%20Know

Zalanthans tend to be very xenophobic, both with respect to other species, and with respect to those outside their city and/or tribe. Humans, for instance, distrust elves, and elves, in return, view humans as inferior. However, racism, in the modern sense, is non-existent in Zalanthas.

To halaster's point it seems already explicitly separating arm  from the word and from its modern usage.

But new docs slip and use racism instead of xenophobia. Maybe this is what OP was looking at?

Quotehttps://www.armageddon.org/help/view/City%20Elves

Please note that player characters of city elves should expect to be at least mildly inhibited by social stigmas and racism. It is well known in elven circles that the systems of oppression in the city-states exist to uplift the dominance of humans over all other races and has been this way for many, many generations. Elves are subject to social exclusion, heavy handed and unfair punishments by humans in power, and a social glass ceiling.


https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Allanak%20Elven%20Market
While people from the city proper are not disallowed from the market, it is considered common sense that undermining the order and profitability of the market will generally result in a unified front of elves.. This combined with social stigmas and racism make such ventures by more established powers of the city extremely rare.

This is the extent of the word racism in help files. 

Thanks for pointing those second two selections out. I'll bring them up on the staff DB today if someone hasn't already by the I am able.

It sounds like there is some discussion on whether the use of racism in document has just been a small oversight in a couple sections. Or whether or not the terms racism is even used or said in game.

Who knows. :P

Here is what I do know,  I will be curious to see the direction the in-game continues to take in regards to some aspects of gameplay. I have to admit, I originally did not liked some of what I've saw and would have preferred to see a different approach but I am feeling much more supportive and appreciative now. Kudos for that.  :)

Quote from: Agent_137 on July 23, 2024, 11:37:33 PM...

Agent here showing everyone how I have no clue how to search, lol.

Thanks for finding these.  It's not as much as I expected.

Why exactly do we need this discussion, this thread?

Can we just stop trying to interpret something vile and sinister into every little thing that one might find? What's next, strike slavery from the game? Remove combat because muh feehlingz?

There's a line where it turns from acceptable changes to hyper-woke SJW bulldung.

The term "racism" was most likely simply employed as a broad descriptor at a time when societal sensitivities were different. A more precise term might be "speciesism" or simply "prejudice."

However, isn't prejudice based on skin color also significant? People who spend extended periods under harsh sunlight tend to have darker skin compared to those who remain indoors. This concept mirrors the preference in certain cultures, such as Allanak, where style is valued over practicality. In these societies, wearing restrictive fashion is seen as more prestigious than loose, functional clothing. The more skin you expose and the looser your attire, the lower your social standing.

The underlying idea is similar to that of skin tone (perhaps shade is a better term, encompassing a variety); it implies a privileged life where others perform the laborious tasks, allowing one to lead a more pampered existence.

Quote from: mirk_o_loio on July 24, 2024, 11:18:19 AMWhy exactly do we need this discussion, this thread?

Can we just stop trying to interpret something vile and sinister into every little thing that one might find? What's next, strike slavery from the game? Remove combat because muh feehlingz?

There's a line where it turns from acceptable changes to hyper-woke SJW bulldung.

I'd definitely prefer to not have slavery as a central theme of the game, yep.

It's a discussion board, where a civil discussion is taking place -- There's no need to sling names (SJW Bulldung) or otherwise detract from the conversation. No one is really name calling or attacking anyone else, we're just having a discourse about these topics.

Some interesting videos/articles to peruse that explore fantastical racism, with some arguing for reasons to change settings/game IP, others arguing for how it is integral to telling stories within those IP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuyZsyUnaCc

https://www.wired.com/story/dandd-must-grapple-with-the-racism-in-fantasy/

https://www.theguardian.com/games/2020/nov/03/racism-fantasy-fiction-role-playing-games

https://www.garfieldmessenger.org/8094/articles/ae/fantastical-racism/

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a41296431/lotr-game-of-thrones-race-amazon-hbo-lord-of-the-rings/

https://electricliterature.com/elaine-castillo-how-to-read-now-essays/

https://www.thegamer.com/fantasy-racism-baldurs-gate-3-affected-me-tiefling-slur/

Quote from: mirk_o_loio on July 24, 2024, 11:18:19 AMWhy exactly do we need this discussion, this thread?

Because it involves several huge themes of the game, communicates expectations, and we get to share our feelings about that. Perhaps there should be a trigger warning, seems it seems a sensitive topic?

There are multiple cultures clashing IG right now, perhaps more than usual, who can say, but it's definitely affecting people's roleplay during this current, active season. So, it's relevant perhaps to point out that IC racisim/speciesm/racial bias/prejudice/othering is in no way condoning it. To keep it fun, as it currently is for me, someone brought up concerns.



One of the reasons I joined this game, in the very beginning, was because bad things existed ICly, and were discouraged heavily ooc. It is a chance, for me personally, to fight bad things without getting oocly murdered, with people who also get that it's pretty human in general to fight bad things.

Also, there's no way I'm reading all of those links. Sorry.

Quote from: The Lonely Hunter on July 24, 2024, 11:21:39 AMThe term "racism" was most likely simply employed as a broad descriptor at a time when societal sensitivities were different. A more precise term might be "speciesism" or simply "prejudice."

However, isn't prejudice based on skin color also significant? People who spend extended periods under harsh sunlight tend to have darker skin compared to those who remain indoors. This concept mirrors the preference in certain cultures, such as Allanak, where style is valued over practicality. In these societies, wearing restrictive fashion is seen as more prestigious than loose, functional clothing. The more skin you expose and the looser your attire, the lower your social standing.

The underlying idea is similar to that of skin tone (perhaps shade is a better term, encompassing a variety); it implies a privileged life where others perform the laborious tasks, allowing one to lead a more pampered existence.

Do not nobles from Houses Rennik and Tor have darker skin, typically?

Quote from: mirk_o_loio on July 25, 2024, 05:01:25 AM

Quote from: Down Under on July 24, 2024, 05:52:25 PMI'd definitely prefer to not have slavery as a central theme of the game, yep.

If a game's themes offend you, why are you playing that game? 

We can murder eachother, codedly dismember one another and do a whole lot of other despicable things trough coded features. Yet people get upset because slavery exists. Like, what's the point? What exactly are you trying to achieve by forcing needless 'change' onto a game that has been quite fine and dandy for so long?

The Evil Staffmembers Shaloonsh and co are defeated, so you must find a new enemy. This time, it's 'racism' and 'slavery' ingame.

 This is how it's starting to look. Intentional searching and making of issues.

The themes of the game don't offend me. We are just the racism / slavery RPI. I think it narrows our audience.

At the very least, these "central themes" could be relegated to the background similar to how half elves being the product of rape has been diffused.

We don't need racism or slavery to tell good stories.

Similar arguments were used by players for keeping rape in the game. I'm glad that was removed, and I hope consideration is given to modernizing the MUD away from themes created/emphasized by teenagers in the 90s who likely didn't have any idea the game would last this long or be played by so many different people.

Slavery has been diffused to the background.

Racism has been diffused to the background.

There's currently Elves owning successful businesses in human cities. With next to no public judgement against them.

There's no real player slaves. And no in spite of arguments to the contrary Gemmed do not count.

Beyond that, and the following is just my interpretation of the arguments roots, and should not be viewed as fact.

I think a lot of the issue people are making in this thread, come from people not understanding stratified caste based societies. Because it's really not racism, speciesism, or prejudice they seem to be complaining about. It's the very nature of caste based society, which in Arm includes all of those things, along with classism. And yes, there's a lot of fuckery with these types of society. Yes it wards certain types of people away, especially those who can't grok with the regimented nature of them. Or the judgmental nature of them.

But removing that caste based nature from the game will remove a center fork of conflict from the game. And would need to be heavily considered as to if that fork of conflict is a good thing to remove. And what would go into replacing it. Right now, I can tell you as an example, that as a commoner of allanak, I likely respect nobles and fear templars, hate rinthi's, am ambivalent or suspicious of elves, and fear the outdoors. And can align myself upon that based on upbringing. Or even deviate from that based on my interest in defying the caste based system. It opens up conflict alleys for me to work though.

Were we to get rid of the racism, the slavery, the caste based system at the root of the problems people are finding. It would be much harder to root ourselves in the society we're dealing with as characters. It would require extensive rewrites of nearly every facet of society.

Just my two cents.

Quote from: RheaGhe on July 25, 2024, 08:22:28 AMAnd no in spite of arguments to the contrary Gemmed do not count.

This is the only thing I don't really agree with. They basically wear a bomb collar around their neck and have to do everything the templarate asks under the threat of torture or death. I don't really know how you get closer to slavery than that.

Quote from: Kavrick on July 25, 2024, 08:58:18 AMThis is the only thing I don't really agree with. They basically wear a bomb collar around their neck and have to do everything the templarate asks under the threat of torture or death. I don't really know how you get closer to slavery than that.

This interests me but we are going off topic a bit so sorrrry...

So yeah it's pretty close, but they can just freely leave the city and live in a cave or luirs or red storm or mul outpost without the Templarate hunting them down. And ICly many chose the gem willingly both virtually and in player backgrounds.

It's close but it's not. I don't know any real life parallel.

This is not an argument, but a sincere question to anyone who feels this way:

How do you feel slavery is "central" to the game?
The only playable salves are those who have escaped slavery.
(exception: Gladiators who are an occasionally available short-term roles that people apply into "specially" while being able to maintain a non-slave character.)
One of the main play areas is very anti-slavery and slavery is illegal there.
One of the playable clans at the end of season Zero was a devoutly anti-slavery antagonist group that preyed on slavers.
No one is interacting with slaves (except perhaps virtually) on a regular basis, not even the social classes that own them.


P.S. - The reason I am asking and following this mini-derail is that I am working on an updated document/helpfile about prejudice, and had not thought to include slavery in it.  I would like for the update to address as many concerns as possibly, particularly for new players.

Quote from: Agent_137 on July 25, 2024, 09:28:34 AM

Quote from: Kavrick on July 25, 2024, 08:58:18 AMThis is the only thing I don't really agree with. They basically wear a bomb collar around their neck and have to do everything the templarate asks under the threat of torture or death. I don't really know how you get closer to slavery than that.

This interests me but we are going off topic a bit so sorrrry...

So yeah it's pretty close, but they can just freely leave the city and live in a cave or luirs or red storm or mul outpost without the Templarate hunting them down. And ICly many chose the gem willingly both virtually and in player backgrounds.

It's close but it's not. I don't know any real life parallel.

You can also choose to store your character if you are forced to take the Gem and it feels too much like slavery to you.

Quote from: Markku on July 25, 2024, 09:29:30 AMOne of the main play areas is very anti-slavery and slavery is illegal there.
One of the playable clans at the end of season Zero was a devoutly anti-slavery antagonist group that preyed on slavers.

Two if you count Crimson Wind and Masterless.

It's central though in that it's accepted part of daily life. Most PCs aren't allowed to be against it. And the two clans against it are literal outlaws.  Even in Dark Sun the central city for play is the free city of Tyr.  You are expected to disapprove of it. But in Arm it's just accepted background coloring.  That's maybe not central per se, but it is a problem most PCs and every new PC aren't allowed to hate it if they want. 

At least hating elves because they're elves is no longer required RP. We don't need to remove all awful things from the setting, but we shouldn't forcibly normalize them.

Quote from: Markku on July 25, 2024, 09:29:30 AMHow do you feel slavery is "central" to the game?

Mostly in theme for me. Dwarves basically had their entire culture and history destroyed by becoming a slave race. Half-giants are also largely slaves, Mul's entire thing factors on them being escaped slaves seeing as no mul can create more muls.

I don't think you have to directly interact with slavery but I think it's central to a lot of the things in the theme at least.

Quote from: Agent_137 on July 25, 2024, 09:35:27 AMMost PCs aren't allowed to be against it.

I'd say mostly city PCs can't be against it. As far as I can tell from docs, playing them and just being around the game world, tribes have a pretty heavy theme on freedom, at least human tribes do. I don't think I've ever played a pro-slavery tribal but that might just be bias.

Also masterless are cool, probably my favorite clan outside of the stuff I actually play. Mul outpost is a cool place.

I made a long post and it got lost somehow. Probably for the best as it was very tl;dr but I will say this:

If these concepts that are incongruent with our values -- and they should be incongruent with our values -- are gotten rid of, and the game is still good and conflict-driven without them, you won't catch me crying about the loss of VNPC slaves or being mean to elves or something. A good game is a good game and at the end of the day we are here to have fun.

But as a general rule, I don't think sanitizing these kinds of settings solves anything. It may be done in the name of empathy and compassion, but I think it actually diminishes these concepts.

I have played a Borsail slaver as well as escaped Borsail slaves. I have played tribal 'savages', bumpkins, magickers, magick-haters, a Tuluki, Allanakis, elves, half-elves, dwarves, a mul, a prostitute, a bastard, a gladiator, a  templar, a traitor, two rogue literates...etc. etc. All of these people had different values. And I would venture that if you asked most of these people, they would think that they were a 'good person.'

Now, many of them would balk at the strangeness of the phrase itself if you put it that way, but if you found a way to ask them in a manner that makes sense to them and their culture, they'd probably say yes. This game is about embodying the humanity (even if you're playing another race or species or whatever you want to call it) of what it does to a person to be raised in a society with very different values and very different blind spots than what we're used to. Those of us who have played here for years have played victims and victimizers alike, with all sorts of attitudes about it, and I think that's a wonderful exercise in empathy, actually, and to smooth out the jagged edges would be a loss.

I have learned a lot about how a person can turn a blind eye to one kind of injustice while being shocked and mortified at another, and sense no dissonance between these things.

I've learned how a person can endure the worst of the worst treatment and then have to go on with their lives and swallow their pain and sadness and anger, because no one cares or even has time to hear about it.

(Okay, this is turning into a long post again.)

I've embodied it all and I've endured it all and I think even though we all like chopping motherfuckers up with bone swords and the game would probably still be fun if that was mostly it, the game with its harsh and cruel societies has the potential to have truly profound moments where I actually learn something. Because the exercise of putting yourself in the shoes of someone with different values than yourself, to whom your own morals would be alien, is an exercise in empathy, not some kind of sick racism fantasy where we can all live out our inner Nazi without consequence. (Not saying anyone here is going so far as to say that, but I'm trying to make a point.)

A lot of people these days seem to believe that if they had happened to be born in another era, they would have ended up embodying the same values as they do now, simply because they are self-evident if you are a good person with compassion. I think this is a dangerous notion that ironically leads to the very same 'othering' that is so reprehensible. And I think it's amazing that Arm represents an outlet to put yourself in the shoes of someone who grew up differently, who sees things differently. Maybe they rightfully judge someone else for having horrendous prejudices, while having other prejudices that they don't even consider or think twice about in themselves. They don't even consider it the same thing. And maybe, over time, they learn better. And maybe they don't.

This may seem dramatic, but to me this is the raw, aching humanity of ArmageddonMUD. Please don't strip it away.

Quote from: Markku on July 25, 2024, 09:29:30 AMHow do you feel slavery is "central" to the game?

I really think this deserves its own thread. Slavery is also a sensitive issue to some, but the way the game handles it is techically a non-issue, like 'racism'.

But just like racism the game has refused put enough effort to clarify or differentiate over the years, and just like a stubborn old insensitive mule, it will likely get beaten down over time along with its themes if it doesn't change. Perhaps rightfully so given the seriousness of these topics in today's culture.

Hey there!

Just a note from moderation:
Please refrain from making this topic too heated, and certainly refrain from making things personal.
I think we're doing okay so far, but I've had to moderate some here. :)

Pleasant day in His Light.

Quote from: LidlessEye on July 25, 2024, 06:00:33 AMDo not nobles from Houses Rennik and Tor have darker skin, typically?

Yep! And others, I imagine. Like some Templars.

I believe those would be the exception though, and not the rule. Exception fallacies are pretty easy to fall into!

Quote from: The Lonely Hunter on July 25, 2024, 10:10:09 AM

Quote from: LidlessEye on July 25, 2024, 06:00:33 AMDo not nobles from Houses Rennik and Tor have darker skin, typically?

Yep! And others, I imagine. Like some Templars.

I believe those would be the exception though, and not the rule. Exception fallacies are pretty easy to fall into!

I thought that I had read in the docs that people from the Vrun are, generally speaking, darker in complexion, though there are plenty who are not due to frequent intermixing. This never made sense to me because I presume the nobles are not supposed to be 'intermixing' with those outside the Vrun, but all the same, no one bats an eyelash if you play a fair noble. So maybe this part of the docs got nixed later on, but I distinctly do remember it.

Quote from: Markku on July 25, 2024, 09:29:30 AMThis is not an argument, but a sincere question to anyone who feels this way:

How do you feel slavery is "central" to the game?

Slave labor in particular is a cornerstone to any/all building projects. Slave NPCs are visible throughout both Tuluk (when open) and Allanak. Concubine Slaves were available for purchase for Templars and Nobles for many RL years (regardless of whether or not we allow that now, it was never made an official position to allow or not allow, it's been anecdotal YMMV depending who is Admin/Producer/Storyteller). The city structures (caste based) surround a large slave caste that allows further oppression of the common class while relying on forced labor from slaves.

As Agent137 adroitly points out, even in Dark Sun, City States have varying opinions and edicts surrounding slavery. Some have slavery, some have slavery akin to Aztecs/Incans where they are Prisoners of War and their freedom can be traded with other City States as ransom, some have no slavery, some have freed slaves/slavery has been dismantled.

Here is the current helpfile for Slavery, from the website, which makes no mention of Slaves not being playable by PCs, though it does mention if your PC is 'enslaved' they will be stored:

QuoteSlavery
(Culture)
The use of sentient creatures as property exists at every level of society across Zalanthas. From the nomadic or semi-settled tribes that inhabit the wastes to the highest orders of nobility in either of the Known's city states, slaves are exploited in every conceivable manner and are kept in bondage by a variety of systems.

In Tuluk and Allanak, slaves handily outnumber 'free' citizens. Slavery is commonplace and considered necessary and often just, if remarked upon at all. Only those hailing from Red Storm or from the wastes might see the practice as inherently wrong - wrong but ubiquitous and deeply entrenched.

As default, player characters in ArmageddonMUD are considered to be 'free' commoners. Their lives and labour are their own outside of coercion or forced action.

Notes:
Slave roles are advertised on the GDB and are not granted without the submission of a role application request. Your character may not be enslaved through play - if your character is captured and forced into slavery they will be stored, becoming a virtual slave.

QuoteThe only playable salves (sp) are those who have escaped slavery.

That is true (currently). However, historically, we have absolutely allowed and had slave PCs, ranging from Gladiators, to Byn Muls, to Kadian Muls, to Kuraci Muls, to concubine PCs, to aide/captured Slaves (A Tuluki Bard enslaved to a Southern Templar, for example). While we might not allow playable slaves currently, again, as above, it's been anecdotal and based on who's on Staff. There isn't any official position that I can see that's part of the helpfiles/documentation.

Quote(exception: Gladiators who are an occasionally available short-term roles that people apply into "specially" while being able to maintain a non-slave character.)

Being able to play a Gladiator as a secondary character is also anecdotal; it's been the case in the most current role call it seems, but previously, if you were playing a "Reigning Gladiator" it was your only PC.

QuoteOne of the main play areas is very anti-slavery and slavery is illegal there.

If you're talking about Red STorm, I suppose we could consider that a 'main' area of play, but it is pretty secondary IMHO. It isn't a city state, it's a village. Even Luirs has slaves (GMH).

QuoteOne of the playable clans at the end of season Zero was a devoutly anti-slavery antagonist group that preyed on slavers.

Sure...There's also been playable clans that are pro slavery (Amber Wyverns). I'm not sure this has any bearing on whether slavery is or is not central to the game -- In fact, if "Slavery" is the focus of a clan, whether it's reinforcement or dismantling, it's central to their existence and a narrative focus. After all, they aren't freeing PC Slaves, they would be attacking NPC Slavers/supporters of Slavery/freeing NPC and vNPC slaves.

QuoteNo one is interacting with slaves (except perhaps virtually) on a regular basis, not even the social classes that own them.

I suppose? Again, if a Noble or Templar wants to build a building, they are employing slave labor, so that is interacting with them and relying on the concept of slavery as a central theme to the game.

---

Yes, Slavery is a central pillar to the theme of the game. No, it isn't as present as it has been in the past (particularly when there were many Slave PCs being played). It could likely be addressed with some treatments of the documentation and more official stances from Staff regarding the inability for PCs to play slaves, and deemphasizing Slavery/Slaves as a narrative focus.

Quote from: Kavrick on July 25, 2024, 09:43:18 AM

Quote from: Agent_137 on July 25, 2024, 09:35:27 AMMost PCs aren't allowed to be against it.

I'd say mostly city PCs can't be against it. As far as I can tell from docs, playing them and just being around the game world, tribes have a pretty heavy theme on freedom, at least human tribes do. I don't think I've ever played a pro-slavery tribal but that might just be bias.

Also masterless are cool, probably my favorite clan outside of the stuff I actually play. Mul outpost is a cool place.

I am not staff and never have been, but I would venture to say that city PC's can be against slavery. The crux of it is that if you grew up in a place where slavery is normal, expected, and dismissed as any kind of moral issue, you should have a good reason/justification that you are against slavery, and 'because it is obviously wrong' is not good enough, as in fact, a lot of uneducated commoners (redundant, I know) might argue that being a slave is pretty good deal, as you get free food and water and never have to worry about all that.

But justifying having a different perspective isn't hard. All you'd have to do is consider the kind of experience that your character had in their past, or even during gameplay, to make them reconsider. Here are some options that I suspect that staff would find perfectly acceptable if played well and not just as an excuse to be 'ahead of your time' in every way:

1. Your character watched a beloved friend or family member be sold or pressed into slavery, and it affected them deeply.
2. Your character had formative interactions with a slave and developed an understanding of their plight.
3. Your character was raised by a family with different values that they made sure to instill in you, perhaps because the family has a tribal or Stormer roots, and they have kept some of their views alive through the generations despite relocating to the city.
4. Your character had formative interactions with an anti-slavery individual and came around to agreeing with them.
5. Your character naturally relates to slaves because they were treated like one by their family growing up.

Any of these is probably fine, and they are just examples. There are many more reasons why a city person could have a legitimate anti-slavery bent.

The other main consideration is to make sure you don't go around acting shocked and incensed that other people don't see it your way, because your character would be aware that his or her views are incongruent with the majority, and more importantly, with the views of those in power. So your character should be aware if he or she goes around complaining loudly about the injustice of the institution of slavery, this is neither going to end well nor change minds in the process. As suicidal actions are broadly discouraged in this game (though again, it's another example of something that's perfectly fine if you have a very good justification), this means that most anti-slavery characters in the city are not going to essentially throw themselves into the Nursery by boldly attempting to spread anti-slavery views. That doesn't mean an anti-slavery city character can't take action, but walking around acting outraged all the time is not going to be the action he or she is likely to take.

But, I digress. My point is that I don't think there is anything wrong at all with having an anti-slavery character in the city. Just like sorcerers often develop followings and form cults even though 'everyone hates sorcerers' according to the docs. You just have to have a good, realistic reason, and then also be realistic about how you integrate that view into your character's thought process, decisions, and social life.

I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say that I think staff would agree with me here. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote from: sleepyhead on July 25, 2024, 11:12:45 AMI don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say that I think staff would agree with me here. But correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct.  Someone can absolutely play a character who is anti-slavery.  The statement "Most PCs aren't allowed to be against it" is incorrect.  As several of you have mentioned, it might be an oddball thing to think considering your environment, but it is totally feasible.  Entire groups have formed around this idea. They were outlaws, yes, but that's because they did outlawed things (freed slaves, killed slavers).

It could be debated either way whether or not in the past you were "not allowed" to play that way, and I would contend it was never against the rules with a few exceptions (templars, Borsail, etc).  But if there's one theme that we've been pushing with Seasons is that it's OK to play a character who doesn't conform to documentation as long as it's realistic within the boundaries of our game setting, and there's a reasonable story to back it up.  There maybe IC consequences to your actions, as always.  If you go proudly tell a templar you're against it you may have an adverse reaction, or indifference, or who knows.  But it's fine to have a character who is against it.

Quote from: Halaster on July 25, 2024, 11:21:54 AM

Quote from: sleepyhead on July 25, 2024, 11:12:45 AMI don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say that I think staff would agree with me here. But correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct.  Someone can absolutely play a character who is anti-slavery.  The statement "Most PCs aren't allowed to be against it" is incorrect.  As several of you have mentioned, it might be an oddball thing to think considering your environment, but it is totally feasible.  Entire groups have formed around this idea. They were outlaws, yes, but that's because they did outlawed things (freed slaves, killed slavers).

It could be debated either way whether or not in the past you were "not allowed" to play that way, and I would contend it was never against the rules with a few exceptions (templars, Borsail, etc).  But if there's one theme that we've been pushing with Seasons is that it's OK to play a character who doesn't conform to documentation as long as it's realistic within the boundaries of our game setting, and there's a reasonable story to back it up.  There maybe IC consequences to your actions, as always.  If you go proudly tell a templar you're against it you may have an adverse reaction, or indifference, or who knows.

Thank you, Halaster.

My admittedly limited understanding is that in many ways it's always been like this, what with the wiggle room allowed when it comes to the docs. Of course, some opinionated staffers in the past have taken a more hardline approach, or worse, enforced these guidelines more harshly on players they didn't like for other reasons, so people have gotten confused and a contingent of the playerbase has gotten the unfortunate impression that if you are from X area you MUST have a certain set of views, and any deviation from that is 'breaking the docs,' or softening/diluting them.

But I think in reality, the intention was always to allow people to have individual views that may not align entirely with cultural/social norms at all times. The best stories coming from Armageddon, long before Seasons was a twinkle in Halaster's (or whoever's) eye, often had to do with people going against the values around them for whatever reason. The only requirement, I think, is that it is done well and with consideration for the setting.

I know this isn't exactly the topic of the thread, but I wanted to touch on one more thing. Something that gets brought up a lot when 'exceptions' are mentioned is that sometimes, due to coincidence or the zeitgeist or whatever, multiple people end up 'playing the exception' at the same time, and then it's the people who follow social and cultural norms who get punished and treated like weird outliers. In this case, I think the problem is not that any of these individuals are 'playing the exception', because justified exceptions are okay, and you obviously can't control or predict what other people will play.

The issue is that the onus is on those playing the exception to acknowledge that NPC's and VNPC's exist, and just because there are -- coming up with a ridiculous example here -- three elf/human couples in a tavern and one lone guy who doesn't care for it doesn't mean that the six PC's then have the right to taunt and gang up on the one PC who is following the actual documented majority position. If they are in an abandoned building or something, sure, gang up, but in a public setting, those six 'exception' PC's should be doing their best to take into account the setting, the world, and its virtual population, even if staff are not around to animate a live reaction.

Because the lone guy is not allowed to emote for VNPC's to come to his rescue or agree with him, the burden is therefore on the six exceptions to make sure they do not act like they are the actual majority, even if they are currently the PC majority. So I think in these cases the criticism is often leveled at players for playing PC's who bend norms, when really these people should be criticized for ignoring/disrespecting norms as PLAYERS rather than as characters. We are all obligated to consider the world and bring it to life as we can, ESPECIALLY when we are playing people whose values (or very presence!) do not align with their surroundings.

Quote from: Down Under on July 25, 2024, 10:27:14 AMOld slavery docs.

Thank you for pointing this out.  Updating it has been added to my to-do list along side the more general discrimination stuff.

Regarding the specific issue of the word 'racism' versus 'speciesism'—speciesism is an awkward, silly-looking word. If mentions of 'racism' in docs are bothering people by not being technically correct enough, then ok, write that out of the documentation, but say 'bigotry' or 'prejudice' instead. Speciesism is linguistically weird, when I read it I feel like I'm reading someone say 'females' instead of 'women.' Even 'anthropocentrism' is less awkward than 'speciesism.'

I'd say just use xenophobia instead of racism it's the word we've had in the docs for decades and it's apt.

Okay fine you are allowed to play someone who is anti-slavery, but look at all your examples: slavery is still explicitly normalized and everywhere you look in both major cities. And that is over and above the actual dark sun setting.

Nowhere are we like "slavery, xenophobia, murders and other themes here are categorically bad. By RPing around them we are reminded why. If you don't want to RP near them, there are ways to avoid them (or fight against them). Discuss with staff for guidance if you're unsure how."

Maybe we should say that formally.  It's true isn't it?

Quote from: Big Red on July 25, 2024, 04:22:04 PMRegarding the specific issue of the word 'racism' versus 'speciesism'—speciesism is an awkward, silly-looking word. If mentions of 'racism' in docs are bothering people by not being technically correct enough, then ok, write that out of the documentation, but say 'bigotry' or 'prejudice' instead. Speciesism is linguistically weird, when I read it I feel like I'm reading someone say 'females' instead of 'women.' Even 'anthropocentrism' is less awkward than 'speciesism.'

Agreed. It doesn't really roll off the tongue. Then again, neither does 'Sirihish', lol.


Anyway, I think the word 'racism' is perfectly fitting, as long as you think of 'race' as in 'the human race'. Darwin used the term in his scientific writings to refer to species (something that I've had to explain more than once to young earth creationists who think his use of the phrase 'favoured races' is a gotcha!) It's a pretty broad word. There's nothing wrong with 'race' being used this way from a technical standpoint and I'd say it follows that 'racism' is also accurate.

The debate as I see it is really much more about the real-world baggage and connotations of the term 'racism' and not about the objective accuracy of the term.

Quote from: Agent_137 on July 25, 2024, 05:31:36 PMI'd say just use xenophobia instead of racism it's the word we've had in the docs for decades and it's apt.

Okay fine you are allowed to play someone who is anti-slavery, but look at all your examples: slavery is still explicitly normalized and everywhere you look in both major cities. And that is over and above the actual dark sun setting.

Nowhere are we like "slavery, xenophobia, murders and other themes here are categorically bad. By RPing around them we are reminded why. If you don't want to RP near them, there are ways to avoid them (or fight against them). Discuss with staff for guidance if you're unsure how."

Maybe we should say that formally.  It's true isn't it?

I hope not. I mean, I'm fine with it being made more clear that we don't like bad things and it's also okay to play a PC who doesn't like bad things either, but I don't think you should be able to get some kind of a promise that you'll be able to 'avoid' these themes in your play. What does that mean, to 'avoid' them? Hopefully it doesn't mean that no one talks about them in your presence, because I'm pretty sure that's impossible (especially in places like Red Storm where every third guy is an escaped slave), but taking your words more generously, I would think they might mean that people should have the option to avoid playing in an area where the aforementioned bad things are thematic realities.

Certainly, you can avoid playing in an area where slavery is the norm by living in Red Storm, and we can let people know that Red Storm is a thing if they don't like living in a society with and around currently kept slaves, but you aren't necessarily going to avoid xenophobia or murder there, so I'm not really sure what staff can do to help you avoid those other two badnesses unless there is a new area created where they are not allowed to exist. And I think most of us would dislike an OOCly enforced murder-free zone. ICly enforced, sure; that's any zone with crimcode! But if we are talking OOCly, I think that just sounds like a different game.

I would not think that staff should promise anyone that they will not have to interact with systems and beliefs that are morally wrong. I just don't think that's our game. I hate to be one of those people that says things like 'if you don't like it, GIT OUT' and I'm not trying to be that person, but genuinely, I do not think this is the kind of game where you can or should be able to shield players from things that make them uncomfortable (not graphic RP you already have to consent to, but just distasteful things in general.) And again, I'm really going to sound like that guy to some people, but if people don't want to be exposed to the core themes of oppression in this game, maybe it really is time to create a fresh one and let those who prefer that vibe filter into it. And it's totally okay if they do like another concept more! No shade to them whatsoever, except in the good way where we say 'shade' instead of goodbye.

Heck, maybe I'll join them over there some day, in the game without slavery or whatever you want to call our brand of racism. After all, I used to argue against banning the word 'necker' and I've since changed my view on that. I now see it as crass and unnecessary and can't believe I tried to die on that hill, though I'm not going to try to lie about the fact that it was my opinion at the time. So maybe I will see the light on this as well, but even then, I'd probably still rather play a different game than an Armageddon that has had its core themes sanitized.

With regards to slavery I think that it is important to remember that many slaves are guaranteed some things that normal citizens aren't - like food, water, and some protection. In a world that is described as being harsh, unforgiving, and where you don't know where your next drink of water might come from that certainty has its perks.

Consider House slaves instead of labor slaves - most of them live a rather pampered life, atypical to the average citizen.



Around three quarters of Zalanthan slaves were born slaves.

Life for slaves on Zalanthas varies greatly depending on the slave's role, the owner or owning organization, and several other factors. For most slaves, life is characterized by hard work, but also predictability, safety, and the satisfaction of basic needs such as food and water. Kind owners are rare, and cruel owners are somewhat common, but most owners are neutral. If the slave does well, then the slave is rewarded; if the slave does poorly, then the slave is punished.

While some slaves may wish to escape bondage, many will not. The life of a slave is, in many ways, actually better than that of a starving beggar or scavenger. Slaves are effectively guaranteed food, water, and lodgings in return for loyalty, obedience, and hard work.

I prefer prejudice over any of the -isms.  It is broad enough to cover a wide variety of things.  No matter what word you choose to use for a "bad" thing, the thing is still bad, and using a nicer word doesn't actually change anything.

.....separate issue.....

The following argument is made in good faith, because there are a lot of people really trying here:

I am curious why no one here is advocating that we ban murder? It is a very bad thing. The cities are rife with it and there are parts of the city where it is a daily part of life !even for PCs! Hell, in Allanak, things are so bad, they even have an object that is a giant pile of bodies that you throw the corpses on that just sit there and rot and stink. We also have starving children NPCs, and that is insanely problematic as there are entire communities of people in the world who's young people don't have enough to eat and die of starvation. We shouldn't have anything like that in our game. Why should the Sorcerer Kings and their templars be so oppressive when they have the power to call water and food out of thin air? That's just not right.

That in mind, why should we remove slavery from the game but not murder, corruption and poverty?

Quote from: Markku on July 25, 2024, 06:28:26 PMThat in mind, why should we remove slavery from the game but not murder, corruption and poverty?

This is also what I want to know. Like, I don't think anyone here is advocating for Arm to turn into some kind of sparkling progressive utopia where everything is perfect and I'm glad no one's accused anyone of that kind of thinking because sometimes those kinds of strawman accusations get thrown around when someone wants to change something they find distasteful. And I'm glad those on my 'side' such as it is are not leaning too heavily into the slippery slope arguments either. But really, I do not understand why the line needs to be drawn in this specific place because a lot of what we do and play around in Armageddon is bad and troubling and to me there is not much of a difference.

There is (was? Haven't checked since Seasons) a filthy, starving little rag-clad girl in Allanak desperately and tearfully selling rotten fruits on the street, as echoes fire in the room that her stomach growls and passersby don't even glance at her -- or sometimes worse, even shove her (if I recall correctly, not totally sure about that one.) She may not be anyone's official property, but is her presence really much more palatable than that of a dwarven work crew NPC being headed by a templar? It is bad. It is all bad. And I think it is okay for it to be bad.

Weird turn. But I do find it funny that every time the argument comes up the same thing 'they get hots and a cot and that's better than a commoner because they're guaranteed it'. Someone else here has to have read Margret Mitchell's flanderizing and excusing of real world slavery using literally /those exact arguments/. People aren't guaranteed food. The idea of free scraps doesn't really balance 'able to live my own life' vs 'literally cannot hold property or wealth and if I move wrong I'm killed maybe'. That said I don't believe we should take slavery out of the setting, but hearing the same actual arguments as actual RL slaveowners used about slaves IC really does make me hate it being there when before that I was neutral to it.

Just. Weird turn for the whole thread. I thought this thread was about racism not slavery. But funny enough...

Zalanthas isn't the real world or western society. You have to stop viewing it through that lense.

As I said, I never had a problem with slavery (this thread isn't even about that it's about racism) but it changes minds and hearts when you see someone defend IC slavery using the /exact same arguments/ RL slavers used for keeping RL slaves. For it to be 'so different', I wonder why the arguments aren't.

That said this is about racism not slavery. As others have said xenophobia covers it well enough without throwing isms around as divisive as such can be.

I'm having a really hard time understanding why people have such a problem with a word. When I suggest different words, I'm "accused" of arguing semantics.

So maybe I should toss it back at y'all: racism in the context of Armageddon doesn't mean the same thing as real-world racism. No one cares if your white human is boinking a black human, or if your black dwarf is getting jiggy with a brown dwarf.

It's just arguing semantics.

We identified, what, three or so uses of the word racism in our documentation?  We can easily change it to say "prejudice against", or something similar, which is fine in my mind.

That said, in my view it basically changes nothing.  The concept still exists in the game, different races are still going to be mistrustful of each other because of no other reason than their race.  Sure, we've toned that down with city elves a bit, but it still can and does exist.  So the way I look at it is:  Changing 3 or so instances of one word to another and it makes a couple of people happier, but nothing in the game changes?  Easy win.  Move on.

I think the slavery thread should have been a different thread as it dilute the original conversation of 'racism'.

Back to the original topic:

1. Racism in game is not like racism in RL(no one should disagree)
2. Some people are still confusing races, particularly elves, as human that just look different making 'being racist or racism' feel awkard to RP for some. (Some agree, some don't, or are unsure how much of a 'problem' it would be in todays much more 'equal' game. :-\ )
3. What to do about it? Should we clarify? Differentiate? Some other idea to get the message across? Or nothing at all because who gives a damn about any feelz. (This is where most people disagree for a variety of reasons including whether changing semantics even makes a difference)

It seems that game has decided to make some changes to the documents. Hope it brings it more success and longevity. The other topics particularly on slavery are completely different and i believe its diluting the message of this one.

Quote from: Halaster on July 25, 2024, 11:14:50 PMThat said, in my view it basically changes nothing.

 ...we've toned that down with city elves a bit...

 Easy Win. Move on.

At best you are misinterpreting the original problem, at worst the changes to documentation are probably also meant for you. 

To be perfectly clear, if everyone understands point number one clearly, that racism is not like RL, that we are talking about different subspecies, why does toning it down with elves even matter in this conversation?

It did not feel like easy win to me, either way happy to move on.

1. @lonely  I disagree with any position that makes being born into slavery okay because they get fed. Jfc.


2. @sleepyhead I didn't mean you could avoid all bad things if you asked staff. I meant if you're triggered by slavery then there might be ways to largely avoid it like being a tribal


3. @Markku  This started out talking about racism which a lot of people deal with IRL and may not enjoy RPing around it.  That makes sense.  Slavery less people deal with IRL but in many places it's closely linked to racism so I can still see it being unfun for some people to RP around. Murder on its own isn't tied to racism so imo it's obvious why nobody would even suggest banning it. 

4. @ all Xenophobia is the term we should be using.  we have already used that word for years and years. Racism is newly added to the elf docs and should be fixed to Xenophobia. It's more accurate than speciesism or racism or prejudice.

The important question is - does it keep people from wanting to try out the game?

I am the ghost of Armageddon past not the future. I'm old enough to have seen the world change. Maybe race is not a good word for this day and age.

Words matter - ask someone who is in advertising. Look around your room at all the useless shit you've been talked into buying over the years or the harmful garbage you eat.

Word meanings change - try watching a 1930's/40's movie. Most of the sexual innuendo/insults will pass right over you, gunsel. Especially highly charged words. Maybe race has become one of those words?

But, I'll make a case why xenophobia is illogical and not well thought out for Arm the fantasy world.

Consider:
An elf is loyal to their tribe - why would an elf care more for another elf over a human? You are either a tribe member (most favored status) or not (indifferent, hostile, beneficial). If anything an elf would understand another elf is looking out for THEIR tribe's best interest. In that sense, a human might be a better friend/business partner. Ahem, like those 2 in Red Storm.

A dwarf is loyal to their focus - over anyone or anything..unless that focus IS someone or something. So why would a dwarf care more for another dwarf? You are: beneficial to the dwarf's focus, hindering it, or neutral. Brings up the question, would a dwarf kill his family for/over his focus? Is a "dwarf hating" focused dwarf a badly played dwarf (focus: last dwarf standing)?

You can sneer at the half-elf stablehand all you want but it's not fair that he can't slip a rock underneath your beetle's shell so it reverts back to the wild on you when you get far enough from the city.

What about a human raider who rides up on an elf grebber: "An elf killed my pa. You die."
Does that even make sense given that elves are known by their tribe NOT by their biological makeup? That's more like RL racism and is probably the scenario that is most disagreeable.

That's how I see things.

Quote from: Agent_137 on July 26, 2024, 12:30:28 AM1. @lonely  I disagree with any position that makes being born into slavery okay because they get fed. Jfc.


2. @sleepyhead I didn't mean you could avoid all bad things if you asked staff. I meant if you're triggered by slavery then there might be ways to largely avoid it like being a tribal


3. @Markku  This started out talking about racism which a lot of people deal with IRL and may not enjoy RPing around it.  That makes sense.  Slavery less people deal with IRL but in many places it's closely linked to racism so I can still see it being unfun for some people to RP around. Murder on its own isn't tied to racism so imo it's obvious why nobody would even suggest banning it. 

4. @ all Xenophobia is the term we should be using.  we have already used that word for years and years. Racism is newly added to the elf docs and should be fixed to Xenophobia. It's more accurate than speciesism or racism or prejudice.

Very well put. I think it's easy to overlook implicit bias if you are not a person of color, or overlook how it may be uncomfortable to engage with a game that has a murky stance on racism and slavery. Is our target audience only people who have no experience with racism or slavery, either personally or generationally, or no hard feelings about it either way?

I think it's a bit callous at best and short sighted at worst to suggest people who are uncomfortable with these themes perhaps due to their generational trauma or personal experiences should play another game, when it is pretty straightforward to deemphasize those themes (they exist, but are in the background setting of the game) or to more clearly present them as dilemmas to overcome (which was the argument for including them in Dark Sun originally).

In Dark Sun, you had the Veiled Alliance as the grey "protagonist group" that PCs often worked with or joined. They were anti-slavery, anti-sorcerer king, anti-city state. They represented the moral thrust of the game and its setting; assisting the sorcerer kings in their oppression was the closest one could find in the setting for "evil" alignments, though alignments were purposefully absent, while assisting the Veiled Alliance was probably the closest you could come to being part of the "good guys".

In our game, there is no such group as the VA. Instead, we have the oppressors and their oppression as the norm with little recourse or even consideration for opposing points of view; while it is possible to play someone who is anti establishment or anti slavery, it would be a major exception to the documentation and seen as aberrant by most. Which then positions most people to be either pro slavery, or at the very minimum, neutral.

Quote from: Dresan on July 26, 2024, 12:10:10 AMAt best you are misinterpreting the original problem, at worst the changes to documentation are probably also meant for you. 

The problem as I understand it from this thread is that you, and others, have an issue with the word "racism" in our documentation, yes?  That's my take away from the pages of people discussing the semantics of word use.

I said it's an easy change to fix that.  We're not removing the -concept- of it from the game:  characters can and will be prejudiced against based on their race.

Not sure what else you might want?

Quote from: Halaster on July 26, 2024, 09:35:29 AMNot sure what else you might want?

We are aligned with the documentation changes.

It was not part of my argument to remove the -concept- of prejudice between species/race from the game.

I am moving on.

So...if you are triggered by something or anything in an online, fantasy game, why exactly do you play that game?  If a game is having a negative impact on your real life, you need to stop playing.  This game could never remove, ban or change every facet of Armageddon that might trigger something in someone.  Individual responses need to be made by the individual.  Over the years many things have been removed, changed or banned and I have felt that most all of it was for the good.  I keep playing because the game brings me entertainment not grief.  If this game brings more bad things to your life, then good, please stop playing for your own mental health.  If there are a few things that piss you off? Welcome to Armageddon.
It is the future as long as you play here and thanks for hanging around.

Quote from: burble on July 26, 2024, 07:52:57 AMThe important question is - does it keep people from wanting to try out the game?

I am the ghost of Armageddon past not the future. I'm old enough to have seen the world change. Maybe race is not a good word for this day and age.

Words matter - ask someone who is in advertising. Look around your room at all the useless shit you've been talked into buying over the years or the harmful garbage you eat.

Word meanings change - try watching a 1930's/40's movie. Most of the sexual innuendo/insults will pass right over you, gunsel. Especially highly charged words. Maybe race has become one of those words?

well put

QuoteBut, I'll make a case why xenophobia is illogical and not well thought out for Arm the fantasy world.

Going to go point by point

QuoteAn elf is loyal to their tribe - why would an elf care more for another elf over a human? You are either a tribe member (most favored status) or not (indifferent, hostile, beneficial). If anything an elf would understand another elf is looking out for THEIR tribe's best interest. In that sense, a human might be a better friend/business partner. Ahem, like those 2 in Red Storm.

You can disagree with it all you want, I can see your point.  But there is in the docs the concept of elven nation pride and concern.  Elan pah for desert elves and now elven market for city elves.  Elves realize humans and gith and every hostile force will take everything elves have if they don't unite when needed because everyone else is united.  Source - me, former tribal staff, the elven market docs, and the elven nation post in every delf tribe gdb.

QuoteA dwarf is loyal to their focus - over anyone or anything..unless that focus IS someone or something. So why would a dwarf care more for another dwarf? You are: beneficial to the dwarf's focus, hindering it, or neutral. Brings up the question, would a dwarf kill his family for/over his focus? Is a "dwarf hating" focused dwarf a badly played dwarf (focus: last dwarf standing)?

I mean this is true I don't know why you think it's a counterpoint to xenophobia.  Dwarves don't experience xenophobia.  Humans and elves  else certainly do around dwarves because "focus" isn't a concept people know. Dwarves are just weird. Muls understand the dwarves drive (in the docs) and half giants either don't notice or notice and mimic. Not every race or pc is xenophobic. It's mostly humans to others. Honestly speciesism is a good term for what elves experience around others with their superiority complex.

QuoteYou can sneer at the half-elf stablehand all you want but it's not fair that he can't slip a rock underneath your beetle's shell so it reverts back to the wild on you when you get far enough from the city.

What do you mean? Are you not blaming the half elf stable hand when your mount bucks you off in a fight? Perfect opportunity to blame the other. 

QuoteWhat about a human raider who rides up on an elf grebber: "An elf killed my pa. You die."
Does that even make sense given that elves are known by their tribe NOT by their biological makeup? That's more like RL racism and is probably the scenario that is most disagreeable.

That'd be pretty dumb to anyone who understands elf culture sure, but the average human commoner living in the city likely wouldn't due in part to xenophobia: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign.

Good examples but I wanted to go point by point because we're clearly not on the same page with what's being talked about.  Not every PC nor race fears and hates. But most humans do, especially the generationally poor and uneducated along with those born too rich to care. That's what this conversation is about imo.  And the question is what do we call that? We haven't called it racism until season 1!

Edit: Xenophobia might also be new to the what you know page, but imo it's apt. We should keep this line, it's perfect:

QuoteZalanthans tend to be very xenophobic, both with respect to other species, and with respect to those outside their city and/or tribe. Humans, for instance, distrust elves, and elves, in return, view humans as inferior. However, racism, in the modern sense, is non-existent in Zalanthas.

Most importantly, have a look, racism is not here https://web.archive.org/web/20180831025906/https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/City%20Elves

Literally just got added. That's what should be fixed. 

These two helpfiles have been changed to say 'prejudice' instead of 'racisim' or 'racist':

https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/City%20Elves
https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Allanak%20Elven%20Market

I have left this one alone, because it says "However, racism, in the modern sense, is non-existent in Zalanthas."
https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/What%20You%20Know

Hey there!

Locked this, as the issue has been addressed.

Thanks for keeping it civil folks!