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

[crub90706]

Slaves and human sacrifice were always assits in my games. And not everyone who owned a slave or killed a human in the name of some god was necessarily evil.

Asfar as the depiction of women went, most met in taverns were prostitutes or serving wenches (and the occasional dancing girls). Good and gentlewomen had protecters and stayed out of such places. We rarly had female players in our group,but when we did, they often played male characters. On the occasion that someone did run a female PC, it was based on Red Sonja or Morgan Le Fey archtypes. I remember someone even attempted to play a "Houri" character introduced in an issue of White Dwarf. Even though she was more suited as an NPC and acity adventure, I allowed it. Needless she didn't last long. Not that she died, the player just grew bored with the concept, but just the idea of a prostitute as PC, now that was old school.

Druids were never seen as hippy tree huggers in our group, but we did notice a trend towards this in the late 80's. The few players in our group that even played druids played them more like wildmen of nature, animalistic, just as likely to rip your face off as to help you. Weither this is a proper way to play a druid or not we didn't care.

If our games started to get too sappy or "politically correct" I would just re-read some REH and get everyone back on track.

[T. Foster]

You guys would probably consider my games "politically correct," because while they definitely include all the things that have been mentioned -- sexism, racism, slavery, torture, addictive drugs, prostitution, rape, human sacrifice, etc. -- they're all considered unambiguously bad/evil and any non-evil character participating in any of them is itching for a punitive alignment change. I'm also of the opinion that good-aligned characters don't kill prisoners or non-combatants and don't deliberately swear false oaths. Yeah, the world is an ugly, nasty, and brutish place full or horrible people doing horrible things (see also this post), but as a capital-g Good capital-h Hero it's your job to be better than all of that, even though it's inconvenient and occasionally puts you at a disadvantage, and even though it's "anachronistic" -- yes, I am imposing my contemporary moral viewpoint on this fictional world of "long ago" and "far away."

Of course if the characters aren't good-aligned then they have a whole lot more leeway, and I don't have any objection to that -- I'd much rather a player who wants his character to do things that I consider "evil" (like wantonly torture and kill prisoners, break oaths, keep slaves, etc.) just play a neutral or evil character than play a good one and argue about morality with me -- but then again karma has a way of catching up with such characters sooner or later and characters that live dishonorable lives tend to have dishonorable deaths.

[crub90706]

You guys would probably consider my games "politically correct," because while they definitely include all the things that have been mentioned -- sexism, racism, slavery, torture, addictive drugs, prostitution, rape, human sacrifice, etc. -- they're all considered unambiguously bad/evil and any non-evil character participating in any of them is itching for a punitive alignment change. I'm also of the opinion that good-aligned characters don't kill prisoners or non-combatants and don't deliberately swear false oaths. Yeah, the world is an ugly, nasty, and brutish place full or horrible people doing horrible things (see also this post), but as a capital-g Good capital-h Hero it's your job to be better than all of that, even though it's inconvenient and occasionally puts you at a disadvantage, and even though it's "anachronistic" -- yes, I am imposing my contemporary moral viewpoint on this fictional world of "long ago" and "far away."

Of course if the characters aren't good-aligned then they have a whole lot more leeway, and I don't have any objection to that -- I'd much rather a player who wants his character to do things that I consider "evil" just play a neutral or evil character than play a good one and argue about morality with me -- but then again karma has a way of catching up with such characters sooner or later -- characters that live dishonorable lives tend to have dishonorable deaths.

I agree, in my above post when I mentioned that not all human sacrifice or slaves were taken by evil NPCs (or PCs), that dosn't mean that a lawfull good, neutral good and especially a chaotic good (who value freedom more then most other things) PC would participete or even allow such things to occur. But remember slaves might be such as payment for some crime they commeted or perhaps to pay some debt. Even in colonoal America a some colonist would serve a period of servitude to in order to pay passage to the New World. Even this is a form of slavery, but not necessarily considered an evil act according to the laws of the land. Of course once the debt has been paid, the person is released from bondage. And the good alinged PCs always protested tokilling of prisoners.(not even Conan did this).

As for sacrifice it is never commited by good aligned characters. Or allowed to happen. Wait... I already covered this. Sorry.

[AxeMental]

You guys would probably consider my games "politically correct," because while they definitely include all the things that have been mentioned -- sexism, racism, slavery, torture, addictive drugs, prostitution, rape, human sacrifice, etc. -- they're all considered unambiguously bad/evil and any non-evil character participating in any of them is itching for a punitive alignment change. I'm also of the opinion that good-aligned characters don't kill prisoners or non-combatants and don't deliberately swear false oaths. Yeah, the world is an ugly, nasty, and brutish place full or horrible people doing horrible things (see also this post), but as a capital-g Good capital-h Hero it's your job to be better than all of that, even though it's inconvenient and occasionally puts you at a disadvantage, and even though it's "anachronistic" -- yes, I am imposing my contemporary moral viewpoint on this fictional world of "long ago" and "far away."

Of course if the characters aren't good-aligned then they have a whole lot more leeway, and I don't have any objection to that -- I'd much rather a player who wants his character to do things that I consider "evil" (like wantonly torture and kill prisoners, break oaths, keep slaves, etc.) just play a neutral or evil character than play a good one and argue about morality with me -- but then again karma has a way of catching up with such characters sooner or later and characters that live dishonorable lives tend to have dishonorable deaths.

Trent I think your right in line with everyone else in how you treat good PCs. Thats btb as I see it. If a player picks an alignment like good they should stick to it or change alignment.

One thing of interest, I've gone totally insane (changing alignment to evil) when on some pregen dungeon module I'm supposed to complete some PC ultra gay mission. I'd just kill the good guys and treat the place like a standard dungeon. I don't think anyone could play good alignment and not want to butcher everyone in some of these lame ass PC modules that shoved tooty fruity down your throat. Its more difficult to be good then evil if your stuck in some fembot world.

[crub90706]

"Fembot World"

[ThirstyStirge]

"Fembot World"

That had better be a real module you're referring to, Mister, otherwise I'ma gonna be pretty pissed. *Runs off to look on ebay...*

[AxeMental]

No such luck I'm afraid.

[Vlospiress]

As a female who usually plays females, I enjoy the fantasy of the D&D worlds because they are free of sexism and stereotyping usually, ok, sometimes there is a damsel in distress but there could just as easily be a young man in need of rescuing i.e prince Herbert at Swamp castle in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Also, the history of the D&D worlds is so much different and women have always had power because of the equality of the pantheon, I could go on about male dominated monotheism but I wont.
So I see no conflict between having a female warrior rescuing a male person in distress and no conflict of having a female Cleric who has male acolytes, it's just the way society evolved in that place.
Sometimes I play male characters but they have a tendency to flounce and pout.

[AxeMental]

As a female who usually plays females, I enjoy the fantasy of the D&D worlds because they are free of sexism and stereotyping usually, ok, sometimes there is a damsel in distress but there could just as easily be a young man in need of rescuing i.e prince Herbert at Swamp castle in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Also, the history of the D&D worlds is so much different and women have always had power because of the equality of the pantheon, I could go on about male dominated monotheism but I wont.
So I see no conflict between having a female warrior rescuing a male person in distress and no conflict of having a female Cleric who has male acolytes, it's just the way society evolved in that place.
Sometimes I play male characters but they have a tendency to flounce and pout.

The very first time we played D&D (around 79' or so) my older sister was one of the players. She chose a Fighter Cleric Half Elf (and happened to load up on Charisma). She agreed to play as long as there was no sexism on the part of the DM, of course the DM agreed. The second my sisters PC entered the bar she was hit on by scum and garnished alot of attention from the locals (not because she was female, but because she was a good looking female). This added a sense of realism to the game, because in general, unfortunately, that is how women have been treated threw out time in scummy seedy places (like the tavern we were going in to). That is something that has alway stuck with me (the DM keeping it real). It is the difference of PC/feminism and realism where a girl is still capable of being a bad ass but still has to consider social norms in a realistic world (where most woman are not trained adventurers or warriors or what have you). Despite my sisters protests, she did continue playing. This sort of thing was easily avoided next time by pulling up her hood and keeping a low profile, and the entire group providing protection. What bugs me about PC (when it comes to females) is the DM being discouraged from presenting a realistic world (as ugly as it may be) and thus hurting the realism of his setting. Of course this sort of thing probably wouldn't happen in an upper class tavern, or in a good section of town. In the end, it shouldn't be much different then it is in RL.

[Benoist]

I'm both FUCK NO and on Trent's side on this. I do use violence, show tortured victims (with gruesome detail, yes), portray prostitutes and whatnot, but there is an axis of morality in my worlds too. It is NOT JUST in shades of grey. It's just that I'm not afraid to go all the way to the black, or all the way to the white too, for that matter.

[Vlospiress]

As a female who usually plays females, I enjoy the fantasy of the D&D worlds because they are free of sexism and stereotyping usually, ok, sometimes there is a damsel in distress but there could just as easily be a young man in need of rescuing i.e prince Herbert at Swamp castle in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Also, the history of the D&D worlds is so much different and women have always had power because of the equality of the pantheon, I could go on about male dominated monotheism but I wont.
So I see no conflict between having a female warrior rescuing a male person in distress and no conflict of having a female Cleric who has male acolytes, it's just the way society evolved in that place.
Sometimes I play male characters but they have a tendency to flounce and pout.

The very first time we played D&D (around 79' or so) my older sister was one of the players. She chose a Fighter Cleric Half Elf (and happened to load up on Charisma). She agreed to play as long as there was no sexism on the part of the DM, of course the DM agreed. The second my sisters PC entered the bar she was hit on by scum and garnished alot of attention from the locals (not because she was female, but because she was a good looking female). This added a sense of realism to the game, because in general, unfortunately, that is how women have been treated threw out time in scummy seedy places (like the tavern we were going in to). That is something that has alway stuck with me (the DM keeping it real). It is the difference of PC/feminism and realism where a girl is still capable of being a bad ass but still has to consider social norms in a realistic world (where most woman are not trained adventurers or warriors or what have you). Despite my sisters protests, she did continue playing. This sort of thing was easily avoided next time by pulling up her hood and keeping a low profile, and the entire group providing protection. What bugs me about PC (when it comes to females) is the DM being discouraged from presenting a realistic world (as ugly as it may be) and thus hurting the realism of his setting. Of course this sort of thing probably wouldn't happen in an upper class tavern, or in a good section of town. In the end, it shouldn't be much different then it is in RL.

I hope your sister's character being a Fighter/Cleric gave those hoodlums a punch on the nose for being so impolite to her, and then charged them for healing afterwards, that's what I would have done

[AxeMental]

Actually, the worst of the scum ended up following us out of the tavern and were, we discovered, a press gang. That is where our group got its first set of plate male as I recall. My monk was pretty useless in that battle (throwing daggers from the top of a near by barn). Having no idea what the game was about (but being an avid Kung Fu watcher) I thought I'd be kicking all sorts of ass.

[TRP]

[quote="Vlospiress"]
I hope your sister's character being a Fighter/Cleric gave those hoodlums a punch on the nose for being so impolite to her, and then charged them for healing afterwards, that's what I would have done [/quote]
What? Ugly guys can' t hit on a pretty goil? Damn, if that were true, then I'd still be single.

Really, from Axe's depiction of the scene, all the yokels did was pay the lady a lot of attention. Now, if it were crude behavior, then he should have mentioned that. It's rather sexist to assume the louts were being crude and not just ... attentive.

[Vlospiress]

I hope your sister's character being a Fighter/Cleric gave those hoodlums a punch on the nose for being so impolite to her, and then charged them for healing afterwards, that's what I would have done

What? Ugly guys can' t hit on a pretty goil? Damn, if that were true, then I'd still be single.

Really, from Axe's depiction of the scene, all the yokels did was pay the lady a lot of attention. Now, if it were crude behavior, then he should have mentioned that. It's rather sexist to assume the louts were being crude and not just ... attentive.

I think a lot of these issues can be dealt with 'in game' if you have imaginative players and a GM who will let a good idea work and not bash it down because he doesn't like it.
Maybe as a woman playing a woman i instinctively know what to do in those situations, a fact that leaves my males counterparts at a distinct disadvantage.

[geneweigel]

These days, I think I encourage "real acting" over "taboo acting" (in general, acting as in emulation of what someone from a realistic adventure would do; not "funny voices"). For one I don't play with kids and I don't want to play with immature people. I am as much as a lover of quasi-historical authenticity as I am a classic era S&S fantasy lover. As you can guess I thrive off of shock and sensation so you can imagine all the historical goodies I have waiting for my players...

For instance, I never realized the Third Reich meant Germany... Just kidding! (Sorry, I said "historical goodies" and it immediately thought of Roger Debris the director of Springtime for Hitler in the 1968 original THE PRODUCERS.)

Seriously, how many times have I said I hate "big plain-collared, wide-eyed innocent defense of the farms from the kobolds" dreck? Well I feel the same way about anything anachronistically "VANILLA".

On the other hand, some of the more vulgar things that we believe are recent modern problems are blurred by PC thinking in many "edifices" and "cornerstones" of society. I'm not saying they're doing "wrong" I'm saying they might want to do the right thing to protect (or whatever) but sometimes they don't have all the facts and will spread "common thinking" to fill in gaps.

What is important for a vulgar game?

A) No kids, you can say whatever you want or whatever realism is necessary for the fun of it.

B) No blurring of the fantasy with reality. If you're going to pour "real sexual interaction" into the game then I'm going to whack your nose with a rolled up adventure module! Man or woman!

C) No weekenders. Glib players can't embrace realistic style content at all. Make sure they sound like reasonable adults before drafting them.

D) No patience for dullards. If they want to drag it down to their level. EJECT!!!