Did political correctness creep into your 1E AD&D games?

[francisca]

Political Correctness?

FUCK. NO.

[Juju EyeBall]

Kill the women, rape the horses.

[geneweigel]

I'd say early on it was a lot more lame than later. Too many adults were playing in the first year of when I started (1981-1982) and it wasn't until we broke away and got serious that we thought we were free of "nanniness" but TSR broke, etc Privately things were getting better but whenever I opened the doors to public it went right back to "nannyville" certainly everywhere that I went elsewhere. However, after the ordeal of getting into the new edition just to have it go right back to PC cheeseland in its wonkiness I think I had enough. When I opened the doors to the public in 2006 I had a new aggression for those types of people that "get upset" over things and frankly, they did come back once I established that I wasn't taking any crap and that intelligent appreciation of the quasihistorical is more important than niceties.

[TRP]

I'd say early on it was a lot more lame than later. Too many adults were playing in the first year of when I started (1981-1982) and it wasn't until we broke away and got serious that we thought we were free of "nanniness" but TSR broke, etc Privately things were getting better but whenever I opened the doors to public it went right back to "nannyville" certainly everywhere that I went elsewhere. However, after the ordeal of getting into the new edition just to have it go right back to PC cheeseland in its wonkiness I think I had enough. When I opened the doors to the public in 2006 I had a new aggression for those types of people that "get upset" over things and frankly, they did come back once I established that I wasn't taking any crap and that intelligent appreciation of the quasihistorical is more important than niceties.

You needed better adults.

[geneweigel]

I'd say early on it was a lot more lame than later. Too many adults were playing in the first year of when I started (1981-1982) and it wasn't until we broke away and got serious that we thought we were free of "nanniness" but TSR broke, etc Privately things were getting better but whenever I opened the doors to public it went right back to "nannyville" certainly everywhere that I went elsewhere. However, after the ordeal of getting into the new edition just to have it go right back to PC cheeseland in its wonkiness I think I had enough. When I opened the doors to the public in 2006 I had a new aggression for those types of people that "get upset" over things and frankly, they did come back once I established that I wasn't taking any crap and that intelligent appreciation of the quasihistorical is more important than niceties.

You needed better adults.

Well, it was mostly ladies back when I started not an average road at all.

[Matthew]

Star Trek? Oh. You must mean that ST imposter TNG.

Definitely. I saw most of the original series in the late eighties to early nineties, then they started replacing slot 6pm Kirk and Spock slot with Next Generation before it was all pretty much migrated onto Sky]. I was just glad when they started showing Babylon Five on Channel Four, but they soon moved that to a late night slot. Luckily for my late teenage years they started showing the original series again on both Sky and BBC on weekend late morning slots (about 11am), which made for good wake-up fodder after a night on the town.

[ScottyG]

A good example of the point I made before about the changing audience is the cover of the 81 set. It states 'ages 10 and up'. And then there's the opening of E.T. from '82 that shows the 'kids' playing what should be D&D. Was 81 Basic a bad thing? Would it have sold as well if the cover looked more like Eldritch Wizardry? Not likely. A lot of the 'PC' elements that are associated with later products were part of this set, which was supposedly the direct descendant of OD&D, as well. A lot of players were introduced to the game with this set, so the PC did not creep into their game, it was always there. I think it was a fine line to introduce new/younger gamers to the system. I never saw it as an issue with 1E AD&D. It may have been part of late era 1E, but I missed it. It was definitely part of 2E, but I never got on that wagon.

[Matthew]

That is an interesting point, and probably related to the "comic book" look of the some of the art, and of course the AD&D hardbacks were reissued with a similar blurb on the front about being for ages 10+. I guess this perceived change in direction is also where B/X and the like got the moniker "kiddy D&D", in that it was not the complexity of the content but the marketing emphasis.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Well, it's complicated; my son started playing with us at quite a young age, and when you're a responsible adult, the presence of a child does lead to some unwritten limits. Nowadays he's 16 and quite capable of dealing with a grownup fantasy world.

Equally, a game that's basically about killing intelligent beings and taking their stuff is pretty far from politically correct.

Today's campaign is roughly:-

Sexual themes yes, female nudity yes, prostitution yes, but in the context of a generally non-sexist culture. Homosexuality isn't really a theme even though one of my players is an out-of-the-closet lesbian--she says being gay is real life and she roleplays to get away from it.

There are two groups of druids:- lone hermits, and an organised cult that pretends it would never have anything to do with human sacrifice.

Drug use is generally confined to tea, tobacco and alcohol, but there was a longish campaign section about a group who'd discovered a drug that affects reptiles like heroin affects humans. (The party got to fight junky dragons, which was fun.)

Slavery yes, mainly in evil societies where orcs and half-orcs might be welcome; relatively few humans practice it. Enslavement, mutilation and the death penalty as a punishment for criminals are occasionally found in neutral societies as well as evil ones.

[ScottyG]

That is an interesting point, and probably related to the "comic book" look of the some of the art, and of course the AD&D hardbacks were reissued with a similar blurb on the front about being for ages 10+. I guess this perceived change in direction is also where B/X and the like got the moniker "kiddy D&D", in that it was not the complexity of the content but the marketing emphasis.

That brings back a memory. I can remember one of my friend's older brother calling Holmes D&D "kiddy D&D". Perspective perspective, perspective.

[Falconer]

Let’s talk specifics about classes and female characters. To my mind, the classes as written presume male characters, so if you are going to make a female character (NPC or PC), you have to adapt it. There was an early TD article where they came up with new level titles for females of the various classes. That’s a good start, but I would take it further.

Magic-users. Of course there are sorceresses/witches just as there are wizards. But surely they don’t associate with each other, i.e. share a guild and take each other for apprentice, etc. There would be different social stigmata involved. (And with Elves of both sexes it’s yet another story entirely.) You could gloss over that for the sake of “equality,” but why would you want to sacrifice the flavor and genuine historical/literary feel?

Female warriors. Yes, there are female knights in the Ariosto and Spencer. There is Eowyn in Tolkien, and Valeria and Bêlit in Howard. I would definitely allow a warrior maiden/woman PC. BUT, in all those stories, no-one takes their existence nonchalantly as if it’s completely not unusual. It’s always a big deal, because never in history has a female warrior been common.

Druids. Ahh, the nature priestess. No thanks. I have got to keep this as a bunch of half-savage keepers of ancient lore and strange magic, like Beorn with a scythe and a penchant for sacrificing virgins.

Clerics. This ties in with the greater problem of how you treat clerics. For example, if you are going to have a chapel of St. Cuthbert, where the senior cleric is a Priestess and the lesser cleric is a Priest, that’s just weird, because what was the point of having a St. Cuthbert in the first place if not to create a medieval Anglo-Catholic feel? Now, if you called her an Abbess (Mother Superior) and had her as head of a Convent, that would make sense (she would still need a Priest to serve Mass, but she would still rule the order). If you’re going for an ancient pagan feel, that’s fine too. There were Priestesses of Isis, etc. But there were also Temple Prostitutes and Vestal Virgins. Why gloss over all the particularities?

Assassins. Absolutely, there were women assassins. But did they wear pants and go climb into the target’s window with a knife, or did they use seduction and poison?

And so on. I hope I am not crossing any line. It’s not about equality. All I’m saying is it has to be given a little thought and not just approached as a chart where you plug in your race, class, alignment, and gender, and you’re all set.

[geneweigel]

Crass versus content.

You could have rude "man humor" throughout but is that politically incorrect? It is if there is someone offended by it!

I could say something to "tersely drive a description HOME" and cut through the BS but if there is somebody who would take that offensively then its time to "close the gym" and "stop spanking each other's asses" and "eat your goddamn vegetables"! What was I talking about...? Seriously, I could say:

"The most beautiful woman on earth lies enticingly upon the stair rising to the dais."

or I could crudely say

"The most @%$#^ &*))* on earth lie enticingly upon the stair rising to the dais."

Now imagine this is a succubus. Whereas before it was just a description to which the response could be:

"Yeah, lovely. Send the fighter up there."

But the crude suggestion of action is almost like its worth trying or something:

"Hell, yeah! Let me go first!"

[ThirstyStirge]

re: political correctness. I have always been vehemently opposed to the vocal Thought Police and their self-righteous sabre-rattling.

re: hot chicks in RPGs. The more the better! They can take the form of the damsel in distress, the sultry femme-fatale (Tascela?), the haughty--yet vulnerable--noblewoman (Dejah Thoris in ERB's A Princess of Mars) or the warrior woman (e.g. Valeria in REH's "Red Nails", or Belit in "Queen of the Black Coast").

re: Druidry. As a current student in Celtic Studies, I am very uncomfortable with the way they are portrayed in D&D. I don't allow Druids and a few other things that get under my skin, but these gripes are minor and do not detract from the overall appeal of the game.

re: devils and demons. These items were systematically purged out of 2E, as I understand it. I keep them in the game, since Good Guys need Bad Guys to fight, right? Otherwise there would be no need for them to ever leave the comfort of Ye Olde Drinking-Hole.

[austinjimm]

I've intentionally gone against the "P-C" trend. Had a particularly "sensitive" player at one time express disgust that the barkeep owned a slave. Oh, well...

Wouldn't the proper response be to kill the barkeep and take his stuff, then ? If you see something you don't like, you make it dead!

The player (not his character) objected to such a thing being present in the game.

[AxeMental]

Political Correctness?

FUCK. NO.

Francisca, a man of few words.