The Moral Limit

Sure you could role play a tea party using FATAL, but the only time you would actually refer to the rules would be if your character's maximum sphincter diameter somehow came up in play during the tea party.

Here in Georgia, if you even mention sphincter diameter at a tea party, then that ends the party, and I always assumed tea parties were even more genteel across the pond.

And if Ra Ho Wa weren't RAcist HOrrible and WArped it would still be unplayable crap.

I know that you, as a genteel Englishman, and me as a civilized southern gentleman, we can sometimes forget that many RPGs don't have rules for the consuption of tea at parties, and they leave such important matters up to the GMs whim.

I reiterate, Reprehensible!

I must admit I have never been to high tea with a proctologist, but I doubt they would talk shop. And I doubt I would ever want to refer to the rules of FATAL for anything - much less RaHoWa (which is totally unreadable). However, I am sure that SORD does have rules for drinking tea. It seems to have rules for everything else ... The point is, with many games it is not the mechanics that deserve censure (with certain exceptions), it is what the players do in them.

What I find reprehensible about FATAL, RaHoWa and Dragonraid is the mindset behind the games. The games reflect the mindset of the authors. However, the most reprehensible game I have ever come across is not a rpg, it is a boardgame: Juden Raus. The game itself is fairly innocuous until you read up on its background.

That is reprehensible.

Now one RPG is is purpose built for simulating tea parties is Legend of the Five Rings. Which brings me to a story about a friend who ran a game of it where the player's came across a samurai picking fights he couldn't win. Apparently, this NPC had the "coughing disease" (cancer/TB or something similar) and wanted to check out with honor. The players didn't particularly understand the concept, and kept trying to save his life and delay such measures - rather than assist as would be the honorable case for the pseudo-14th century.

Would you be able to pull off such a story, or would this be over the line? I for one could not.

Oh, and I'd argue that a title "Jewish Rat" is not all that innocuous. Even in the 1930s.

There is a fine line between hobby and obsession. I seem to have lost sight of it some time ago.

The idea of Juden Raus was that players had to be the first to move the Jews out of the city to the Promised Land. On the surface, that is fairly innocuous and could even be constued as pro-zionist. However, given the climate it was published in and its intended audience, it was a deliberate act of propaganda aimed at children. Simple as that. And reprehensible.

As for the L5R story, I don't think it would be over the line. If anything, it would bring home to the players the concept of honour that is (or should be) prevalent in L5R. I recall that the old RQIII Vikings supplement had a similar plot hook in it, with an old Viking trying to avoid eternity in Niflheim by fighting and dying in one last battle.

All you have to do is make the character old. A real Don Quixote type character would really work. The trick is make him funny and likable. You have to make it so that even if the PC think they should help him, they are unwilling to do it themselves, and unwilling to let just any scumbag do it.

Don't let him manufacture a duel with anyone and then accidentally win, or win because he couldn't throw the fight, had to fight with honor. Once he starts killing people for no reason he looses his old clown status and becomes a full on serial murderer.

And finally, let him die accidentally. Something like, on his way to a duel, he meets bandits harrassing a young girl trying to come home from the market, and he dies giving her time to escape. Then the players, waiting at the site of the duel get a message that he's fallen in battle on the road. If you were really able to make it a fun evening, get your PCs to like him, then give them a chance to say goodbye, and...

End.

And doesn't Raus mean Out? It's still a crap title. As a marketer, I saw that game and I wanted to fix it. It should be called Maus Raus, and its a game about getting mice out of a barn where the farmer let in a cat.

If anyone's in a particluarly foul mood, they could make a RPG about being a game designer in nazi Germany. Spielkraften, a game about fear, frustration, scary prejudices, and laughably bad marketing decisions. Actually, if you add occult, weird science, and evil editors turning your work to nefarious purposes, it might play fairly well.

A year and a half ago, I could have written that game. It would be my own personal Kill Puppies for Satan. But now my business is going too well for me to dwell on those times. (Although I do still get the occassional client who's a bad enough business person to pay for expert opinion and then ignore it.)

Incidentally, Vincent Baker took a lot of grief for publishing that game. I personally, liked it, but a lot of people evidently thought it was too horrible to contemplate. Is there a certain amount of offensiveness that genius will excuse? I mean, I bet Dragonraid wishes it was Dogs in the Vinyard.

Kill Puppies for Satanis one of the funniest games I have ever played. I don't know why Mr Baker would have got any grief over it. To me, it points out the urbanity of pure evil. Most of the complainants seem to have become hung up on something that the game is not. However, it could have been the referee who was running it at the time who was responsible for my view on that game.

Does genius excuse offensiveness? Not offensiveness for its own sake. It does excuse offensiveness to make a point, but you had better mae sure people get your point.

I really must pick KPfS up sometime and add it to my library.

As for Dragonraid and DitV, at least DitV manages to disconnect itself from the obvious trappings of Christianity. If Mr Baker is trying to put any message across with DitV, it is that we impose our own morality on the world, and while we are here it is up to us. Fragonraid, otoh, is rife with heavyhanded missionary zeal, and even goes so far as to show players what happens to "Unbelievers".

Mind you, I wish that both those games had been around when my grammar school was targeted by an evangelical Presbyterian who wanted us to burn our games. As a 13-yo, it is a lot of pressure to resist; and a couple of good examples would have made life easier that year.

I can see I have a very different opinion of reprehensible than the majority. I'll agree with the statement: it comes down to what the players feel, which is why I'm still a fan of the disclaimer. To explain (in a less Rory worthy way): I feel if the players are aware of what is coming before it's actually game time, good; even better if they know before they arrive. With that said, the world is reprehensible place and the game is a mock up of that. So, I don't really have problems including any aspect of a plausible reality. My concern, is what will pass for acceptable posting here.

And if you are wondering, here's my opinion on puppies (I'm not a total psycho): a game about killing puppies (funny), actually killing puppies (wrong). I often find I laugh at the "wrong" times in horror movies.

As far as I'm concerned, put up what you want. I'm sure the rest of us will let you know when you have overstepped the bounds of common decency.

Not that I'm unshockable. All I can say on that point is, I edited the original draft for a recently released game supplement (check here and guess as I cannot name it or the author responsible and remain professional) and damn near burned the ms in protest.

At least we can hit the "edit" function here.

Ah, common decency...is there such a thing? I've noticed throughout my life, that there is an eluded to norm, but really the norm is just the halfway point of two extremes. You have FATAL on one end and right-wing religious groups on the other. Even with that, how do you decide what is good and what is evil or wrong. A real life example(in the US): deer season. Deer are hunted primarily for fun. Shooting an innocent animal for fun would be wrong, for food that's different. However, it also benefits the deer by limiting populations. But populations only need to be limited due to over hunting of predator species. So is deer hunting right or wrong? I know that is a simplification of the issue, but something reprehensible is just something someone believes is unjustifibly wrong. In some Asian counties dogs are eaten. To the Western world this is reprehensible. I don't think anyone would argue genocide is acceptable. But until recently most "Americans" would say religious persecution is wrong, but it's becoming alarmingly more acceptable. 100 years ago, living together out of wedlock was not acceptable behavior, but today, it's fine.

So, how does one make the decision what is or is not taboo? Or better yet, might it be good at times to anger people and make them question their morality?

ps. I'm not trying to start a ethical battle with anyone or offend anyone. I feel what is being discussed is a cultural element as opposed to an objective standard.

You are indeed right, Decreased. This is a cultural matter.

I believe that an amendment to the Comstock Act in the USA allows an individual community to decide what is obscene. Indeed, pretty much the same thing applies here in the UK. Thus, the applied standard of "common decency", which is pretty much the same as "common law". RPGLab, I believe, counts as a community with its own culture. If we feel any one of us has stepped over the line (which will be an individual thing, I admit), I am sure we will have the grace to let the offender know and retract their statement.

How do you decide what is taboo? Well, either you have abook that tells you, or you work it out for yourself with the aid of others in your community. Unfortunately, there is no "Big Book of Laws" for this site, so you're in the same boat as the rest of us. In the meantime, we are as polite and considerate of each other as we have to be.

Rahter than try and list all those things I find offensive (and I doubt I could do that for myself) put your ideas up. If we don't like 'em, we'll tell you, and tell you why. I hope that you will do the same for the rest of us when the boot is on your foot. Then we can work out the "norm" for our group here.

And more importantly, may ensure that you are nominated for a Rory.

I'm fairly sure I'd have a good chance. I must have been a sailor in a previous life.