Forums of the Megaverse®

We all know that the assassination of the ██████ is a no-no. However where do you draw the line, more "morally" than "legally" so.

So lets do this on a simple scale of 1 - 10, how distasteful the following assassination stories are

1: Your nation's highest executive, by name

2: Your nation's highest executive, but not named, but implied to be the current person

3: Your nation's highest executive, explicitly a fictitious entity.



4: Another nation's highest executive, by name

5: Another nation's highest executive, but not named, but implied to be the current person

6: Another nation's highest executive, explicitly a fictitious entity.

--- Sub Question ---
Would it matter if your nation was currently in conflict with the other nation?


7: Other Government Official [Regardless of nationality], by name

8: Other Government Official [Regardless of nationality], but not named, only given a title.

9: Other Government Official [Regardless of nationality], explicitly a fictitious entity.


10: A celebrity by name

Who cares it is a game?

Zer0 Kay wrote:Who cares it is a game?

Ditto

If Trudeau dies, we riot!

I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

Has there ever been a line? I remember the TV show Time Trax having an assassin try to kill a lookalike of Bill Clinton in the same month he was inaugurated. That was TV, in a game I have never seen a problem. Ultimate X-Men comics had GW Bush licking Magneto's boots.

Now, I think it's more fun to create fictional President, like what 24 does, but that is just preference.

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

I disagree. I think that if you do this right it lends a lot of realism in the game. I think the problem becomes not when there is a plot to kill or harm a person from real world but when you have that person doing something horrible that they haven't done in real life.

A plot to kill the current President that your heroes need to thwart, OK. The current President conducting a program of mass genocide that your heroes must stop, very bad.

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

That line or moral boundry can only be determined by the group. If they get offended by a real name being used as the intended victim, then make a name up. But no, if a real person's name is used and the group is not offended, who cares? I promise that the RPG police will not come knocking on anyone's door, especially if the players are trying to SAVE the i tended target, not eliminate the intended target. Heck, the RPG police may even award the players a medal for saving said victim!

Jack Burton wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

That line or moral boundry can only be determined by the group. If they get offended by a real name being used as the intended victim, then make a name up. But no, if a real person's name is used and the group is not offended, who cares? I promise that the RPG police will not come knocking on anyone's door, especially if the players are trying to SAVE the i tended target, not eliminate the intended target. Heck, the RPG police may even award the players a medal for saving said victim!

I heard that if you say bomb three times in a row while playing an RPG the RPG Secret Service comes and investigates you.

Hey RPG police... wait dont they wear Fez?

I heard if you steal a car in a video game it makes you a criminal or if you go around assassinating historical figures because their part of some giant conspiracy about templars and free will, that your a horrible person AND the video FBI will use a digital battering ram on your door.

Seriously the flow is determined by the GM and players. I would refuse however if my players were super PC to act as such. I haven't had anyone quit for that reason yet. One quit because I wasnt being realistic ("a spec ops group doesnt fly themselves in leave the aircraft and perform the mission, they have someone else fly them in." I dont care it's a game and in most heroic stories the group will have a means of transport that they manage themselves), another quit because he found a religion and said he started seeing demons (more likely his drug use). Most, faded due to PCSing or moving (same thing different lives).

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

That line or moral boundry can only be determined by the group. If they get offended by a real name being used as the intended victim, then make a name up. But no, if a real person's name is used and the group is not offended, who cares? I promise that the RPG police will not come knocking on anyone's door, especially if the players are trying to SAVE the i tended target, not eliminate the intended target. Heck, the RPG police may even award the players a medal for saving said victim!

I heard that if you say bomb three times in a row while playing an RPG the RPG Secret Service comes and investigates you.

Hey RPG police... wait dont they wear Fez?

Why yes, the RPG police do wear fezes! You must only know that because you've been stopped by them before. Hmmm... why am I not surprised... Hahahahaha

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

I tend to agree.
My reasoning is that very few game worlds have the same set up as our world anyway. Thus its easier to just say that I have President Jones instead of Obama or Trump. That way even if they do stuff similar to Obama or Trump I dont have to try and assume how those people would act about super powers, or their views on magic or anything.
It also helps to not 'dehumanitize' the real people. I have had experiances with people in games who were eager to take out agressions on 'proxies' of real people... that doesnt seem healthy and I left those games rather quickly.

To me its an area where things can get really touchy quickly, and the biggest issue is that since its a group activity even if one person is offended they are often unwilling to say anything because they dont want to be 'that guy' who is ruining the fun for everyone else. Thus, I think the simplest solution is to simply not engage in needlessly touchy situations like assasinating real world figures, on the theory that since I am not a telepath I can't know what my players really think, just what they are willing to say as part of the groupthink.

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

Agreed.

Jack Burton wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

That line or moral boundry can only be determined by the group. If they get offended by a real name being used as the intended victim, then make a name up. But no, if a real person's name is used and the group is not offended, who cares? I promise that the RPG police will not come knocking on anyone's door, especially if the players are trying to SAVE the i tended target, not eliminate the intended target. Heck, the RPG police may even award the players a medal for saving said victim!

I heard that if you say bomb three times in a row while playing an RPG the RPG Secret Service comes and investigates you.

Hey RPG police... wait dont they wear Fez?

Why yes, the RPG police do wear fezes! You must only know that because you've been stopped by them before. Hmmm... why am I not surprised... Hahahahaha

Lol
Yeah I was J reading across the street

Jack Burton wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

That line or moral boundry can only be determined by the group. If they get offended by a real name being used as the intended victim, then make a name up. But no, if a real person's name is used and the group is not offended, who cares? I promise that the RPG police will not come knocking on anyone's door, especially if the players are trying to SAVE the i tended target, not eliminate the intended target. Heck, the RPG police may even award the players a medal for saving said victim!

In my country the real police responded to reports of a group of individuals plotting to commit a crime.

It turns out they were playing Rifts.

True story.

Jefffar wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

That line or moral boundry can only be determined by the group. If they get offended by a real name being used as the intended victim, then make a name up. But no, if a real person's name is used and the group is not offended, who cares? I promise that the RPG police will not come knocking on anyone's door, especially if the players are trying to SAVE the i tended target, not eliminate the intended target. Heck, the RPG police may even award the players a medal for saving said victim!

In my country the real police responded to reports of a group of individuals plotting to commit a crime.

It turns out they were playing Rifts.

True story.

Super crazy. What country?

Jefffar wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

That line or moral boundry can only be determined by the group. If they get offended by a real name being used as the intended victim, then make a name up. But no, if a real person's name is used and the group is not offended, who cares? I promise that the RPG police will not come knocking on anyone's door, especially if the players are trying to SAVE the i tended target, not eliminate the intended target. Heck, the RPG police may even award the players a medal for saving said victim!

In my country the real police responded to reports of a group of individuals plotting to commit a crime.

It turns out they were playing Rifts.

True story.

There's also the time that GURPS had their computers seized by the US Secret Service because they thought it had something to do with cyber-terrorism.

The Beast wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

Agreed.

So no Hitler
Mao
Stalin

You time travel back to 1930 so you can kill Mitler and stop WWII before...

Jack Burton wrote:

Jefffar wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

That line or moral boundry can only be determined by the group. If they get offended by a real name being used as the intended victim, then make a name up. But no, if a real person's name is used and the group is not offended, who cares? I promise that the RPG police will not come knocking on anyone's door, especially if the players are trying to SAVE the i tended target, not eliminate the intended target. Heck, the RPG police may even award the players a medal for saving said victim!

In my country the real police responded to reports of a group of individuals plotting to commit a crime.

It turns out they were playing Rifts.

True story.

Super crazy. What country?

Canada.

Jefffar wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:

Jefffar wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

That line or moral boundry can only be determined by the group. If they get offended by a real name being used as the intended victim, then make a name up. But no, if a real person's name is used and the group is not offended, who cares? I promise that the RPG police will not come knocking on anyone's door, especially if the players are trying to SAVE the i tended target, not eliminate the intended target. Heck, the RPG police may even award the players a medal for saving said victim!

In my country the real police responded to reports of a group of individuals plotting to commit a crime.

It turns out they were playing Rifts.

True story.

Super crazy. What country?

Canada.

Gee and they say our police are bad

Zer0 Kay wrote:

The Beast wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

Agreed.

So no Hitler
Mao
Stalin

You time travel back to 1930 so you can kill Mitler and stop WWII before...

If they were still alive? Yes
Thus Lincoln is fine, Obama is not, Reagan would be questionable.
But if you are talking at your game about playing out the killing of the current president? Yeah, that is totally unacceptable.

eliakon wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

The Beast wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

Agreed.

So no Hitler
Mao
Stalin

You time travel back to 1930 so you can kill Mitler and stop WWII before...

If they were still alive? Yes
Thus Lincoln is fine, Obama is not, Reagan would be questionable.
But if you are talking at your game about playing out the killing of the current president? Yeah, that is totally unacceptable.

Unacceptable to whom? You or your group?

Jack Burton wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

The Beast wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

Agreed.

So no Hitler
Mao
Stalin

You time travel back to 1930 so you can kill Mitler and stop WWII before...

If they were still alive? Yes
Thus Lincoln is fine, Obama is not, Reagan would be questionable.
But if you are talking at your game about playing out the killing of the current president? Yeah, that is totally unacceptable.

Unacceptable to whom? You or your group?

I stand by the statement that it is, by its nature, over the line.
The question was asked and I provided what I believe is the appropriate answer.

eliakon wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:Unacceptable to whom? You or your group?

I stand by the statement that it is, by its nature, over the line.
The question was asked and I provided what I believe is the appropriate answer.

I think this is what it comes down to. If any person in the group finds it uncomfortable or unacceptable then you don't do it.

I guess I am also misunderstanding the OP. I thought that it was an assassination story. NPCs have or are trying to kill Person X. I don't see a problem with that. Now if you are talking about the PC's killing Person X, that is more than a little strange.

I still think what is worse then a plot to kill is when you take a real person and have them doing some evil deed that they don't do in real life. I have never done this but I have been playing in convention games when the GM had a real life politician doing something horrible that went along with her politics and the table seemed to really split with the rest of the game being very uncomfortable.

Warshield73 wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:Unacceptable to whom? You or your group?

I stand by the statement that it is, by its nature, over the line.
The question was asked and I provided what I believe is the appropriate answer.

I think this is what it comes down to. If any person in the group finds it uncomfortable or unacceptable then you don't do it.

I guess I am also misunderstanding the OP. I thought that it was an assassination story. NPCs have or are trying to kill Person X. I don't see a problem with that. Now if you are talking about the PC's killing Person X, that is more than a little strange.

I still think what is worse then a plot to kill is when you take a real person and have them doing some evil deed that they don't do in real life. I have never done this but I have been playing in convention games when the GM had a real life politician doing something horrible that went along with her politics and the table seemed to really split with the rest of the game being very uncomfortable.

Ya, I agree that it's not a good idea to make a real politician the bad guy. That will only serve to upset half of the table, like you said. If an actual politician is the victim who must be saved from imminent peril, that's completely different, I believe. Anyone can be a victim through no fault of their own. I personally would not have a problem playing in a Heroes Unlimited game and being tasked with saving Trump, Obama, a Clinton, a Bush, etc. Attaching a real name of to the NPC my group is trying to save adds to the realism and excitement of the mission. Like the person or not, you KNOW them, or at least their public persona. That adds to the sense of urgency one has when trying to save a Pres. Trump or Pres. Obama. The game would have a pretty generic and bland feel if you're trying to save Pres. Melendez or Senator Arbogast (made up people).

But like everything in the Megaverse, do what your group wants to do and have fun. This is just my opinion which quite frankly, doesn't mean diddly.

Warshield73 wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:Unacceptable to whom? You or your group?

I stand by the statement that it is, by its nature, over the line.
The question was asked and I provided what I believe is the appropriate answer.

I think this is what it comes down to. If any person in the group finds it uncomfortable or unacceptable then you don't do it.

I guess I am also misunderstanding the OP. I thought that it was an assassination story. NPCs have or are trying to kill Person X. I don't see a problem with that. Now if you are talking about the PC's killing Person X, that is more than a little strange.

I still think what is worse then a plot to kill is when you take a real person and have them doing some evil deed that they don't do in real life. I have never done this but I have been playing in convention games when the GM had a real life politician doing something horrible that went along with her politics and the table seemed to really split with the rest of the game being very uncomfortable.

Agree on all points

Jack Burton wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:Unacceptable to whom? You or your group?

I stand by the statement that it is, by its nature, over the line.
The question was asked and I provided what I believe is the appropriate answer.

I think this is what it comes down to. If any person in the group finds it uncomfortable or unacceptable then you don't do it.

I guess I am also misunderstanding the OP. I thought that it was an assassination story. NPCs have or are trying to kill Person X. I don't see a problem with that. Now if you are talking about the PC's killing Person X, that is more than a little strange.

I still think what is worse then a plot to kill is when you take a real person and have them doing some evil deed that they don't do in real life. I have never done this but I have been playing in convention games when the GM had a real life politician doing something horrible that went along with her politics and the table seemed to really split with the rest of the game being very uncomfortable.

Ya, I agree that it's not a good idea to make a real politician the bad guy. That will only serve to upset half of the table, like you said. If an actual politician is the victim who must be saved from imminent peril, that's completely different, I believe. Anyone can be a victim through no fault of their own. I personally would not have a problem playing in a Heroes Unlimited game and being tasked with saving Trump, Obama, a Clinton, a Bush, etc. Attaching a real name of to the NPC my group is trying to save adds to the realism and excitement of the mission. Like the person or not, you KNOW them, or at least their public persona. That adds to the sense of urgency one has when trying to save a Pres. Trump or Pres. Obama. The game would have a pretty generic and bland feel if you're trying to save Pres. Melendez or Senator Arbogast (made up people).

But like everything in the Megaverse, do what your group wants to do and have fun. This is just my opinion which quite frankly, doesn't mean diddly.

This is likely the main reason most modern games seem as if there is no government. Besides even IRL they're pretty much ghost figures for the most part. Far away from most of us and we just see them in pictures and are told second hand stories about what they do.

What about a HU game where little rocket man is getting ready to nuke Japan? Maybe Putin has decided to invade Europe. Things they're likely to do. Would those be acceptable villainizations of real world personalities?

I'd demonize those guys in a heartbeat. I was talking about American or allied politicians.

I'd still not prefer to use real world people in games, especially if the plot involves doing them harm or casting them as a villain.

I don't have profound spiritual beliefs as such, but I do think that somehow, someway, the universe keeps tabs on who wishes ill of who.

Jefffar wrote:I'd still not prefer to use real world people in games, especially if the plot involves doing them harm or casting them as a villain.

I don't have profound spiritual beliefs as such, but I do think that somehow, someway, the universe keeps tabs on who wishes ill of who.

Can't argue with that.

Jefffar wrote:I'd still not prefer to use real world people in games, especially if the plot involves doing them harm or casting them as a villain.

I don't have profound spiritual beliefs as such, but I do think that somehow, someway, the universe keeps tabs on who wishes ill of who.

I would just like to make a small aside here as an example.
The Rifts books are pretty good at avoiding discussing Christianity from a game stand point. We don't get divine stats for priests, or anything. All very well and good since Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions on Earth and the chances are pretty darn high that you will have an adherent of one of them at your table.
So far so good.
Now... Pantheons of the Megaverse though has no problem with the Hindu Pantheon. It distorts it, holds up the worst western stereotypes and tropes and basically turns it into a 2-D caricature...
...which made it rather awkward to explain to a couple of my players in one of my games why that was... see they were Hindu's, followers of the worlds third largest Religion and they were rather curious as to why the game we were playing was saying all these hateful and untrue things about their faith. Oops? The result is that when I game I simply have the gods be "beyond stats" and 'distant and uninvolved'. Priests and such are powered as much by faith as by the gods and I don't worry about issues like "is this god real? Or that one? nor do I have to do comparative theology to settle who is who or what influences what.

For the same reason my HU world always has different politicians. This is because that way I don't have to be putting words in someone's mouth. I can safely have my US government pass laws restricting the rights of metahumans in 1964 with out blaming Lyndon B Johnson or claiming that he was a bigot. I can have the current administration do something, again with out claiming that the actual real world president (or the people in his administration) are like that.

eliakon wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I'd still not prefer to use real world people in games, especially if the plot involves doing them harm or casting them as a villain.

I don't have profound spiritual beliefs as such, but I do think that somehow, someway, the universe keeps tabs on who wishes ill of who.

I would just like to make a small aside here as an example.
The Rifts books are pretty good at avoiding discussing Christianity from a game stand point. We don't get divine stats for priests, or anything. All very well and good since Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions on Earth and the chances are pretty darn high that you will have an adherent of one of them at your table.
So far so good.
Now... Pantheons of the Megaverse though has no problem with the Hindu Pantheon. It distorts it, holds up the worst western stereotypes and tropes and basically turns it into a 2-D caricature...
...which made it rather awkward to explain to a couple of my players in one of my games why that was... see they were Hindu's, followers of the worlds third largest Religion and they were rather curious as to why the game we were playing was saying all these hateful and untrue things about their faith. Oops? The result is that when I game I simply have the gods be "beyond stats" and 'distant and uninvolved'. Priests and such are powered as much by faith as by the gods and I don't worry about issues like "is this god real? Or that one? nor do I have to do comparative theology to settle who is who or what influences what.

For the same reason my HU world always has different politicians. This is because that way I don't have to be putting words in someone's mouth. I can safely have my US government pass laws restricting the rights of metahumans in 1964 with out blaming Lyndon B Johnson or claiming that he was a bigot. I can have the current administration do something, again with out claiming that the actual real world president (or the people in his administration) are like that.

And that is safe and good and respectful. Just saying that playing it the other way isn't crossing some "they're a horrible person" line. If people want to be accepting then freaking be fully accepting of everyone including especially those of opposing views as those who claim to be accepting but dont accept the views of bigots then they are also biggots.

Zer0 Kay wrote:And that is safe and good and respectful. Just saying that playing it the other way isn't crossing some "they're a horrible person" line. If people want to be accepting then freaking be fully accepting of everyone including especially those of opposing views as those who claim to be accepting but dont accept the views of bigots then they are also biggots.

I agree with you to a point.
But only a point.
The claim that "we must accept all view points equally" is wrong. I'm sorry, but it is just wrong. Some view points are just wrong.
You mistake what it is to be bigoted, it is a common mistake and lots of modern Americans make the same mistake that 'every idea is equally valid and you must accept my ideas as valid or your a bigot". That's not true. A bigot is when you dismiss ideas with out consideration for the idea itself. Some ideas, when considered are only fit to be dismissed. I do not accept the view point that I must accept that the view "it is alright to murder all the Jews in the world" as a valid point of view. Nor do I accept "it is alright to murder all non-Muslims" or "women only exist to serve men" or "blacks exist to be the chattel slaves of white men"
Those views, and many other equally abhorrent and repulsive viewpoints, have no validity and rejecting them is not bigoted.


And the reason I say that its a bad idea to do things like this in games is 1) it is rather disrespectful to the people involved, especially if it involves putting actions at their feet that are not actions that they themselves have taken. and 2) due to group think it is hard to know when you are doing something that will offend one of your players. It is easy to be the offended player but not want to speak up because you don't want to be labeled as a 'fun wrecker' or as you did above 'a bigot'.

eliakon wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:And that is safe and good and respectful. Just saying that playing it the other way isn't crossing some "they're a horrible person" line. If people want to be accepting then freaking be fully accepting of everyone including especially those of opposing views as those who claim to be accepting but dont accept the views of bigots then they are also biggots.

I agree with you to a point.
But only a point.
The claim that "we must accept all view points equally" is wrong. I'm sorry, but it is just wrong. Some view points are just wrong.
You mistake what it is to be bigoted, it is a common mistake and lots of modern Americans make the same mistake that 'every idea is equally valid and you must accept my ideas as valid or your a bigot". That's not true. A bigot is when you dismiss ideas with out consideration for the idea itself. Some ideas, when considered are only fit to be dismissed. I do not accept the view point that I must accept that the view "it is alright to murder all the Jews in the world" as a valid point of view. Nor do I accept "it is alright to murder all non-Muslims" or "women only exist to serve men" or "blacks exist to be the chattel slaves of white men"
Those views, and many other equally abhorrent and repulsive viewpoints, have no validity and rejecting them is not bigoted.


And the reason I say that its a bad idea to do things like this in games is 1) it is rather disrespectful to the people involved, especially if it involves putting actions at their feet that are not actions that they themselves have taken. and 2) due to group think it is hard to know when you are doing something that will offend one of your players. It is easy to be the offended player but not want to speak up because you don't want to be labeled as a 'fun wrecker' or as you did above 'a bigot'.

Ahhhhh... straw man struck down. Fine but there are many who consider themselves accepting but are bigoted. Claiming that all in favor of the 2nd amendment want children murdered is a bigoted statement no?

Zer0 Kay wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:And that is safe and good and respectful. Just saying that playing it the other way isn't crossing some "they're a horrible person" line. If people want to be accepting then freaking be fully accepting of everyone including especially those of opposing views as those who claim to be accepting but dont accept the views of bigots then they are also biggots.

I agree with you to a point.
But only a point.
The claim that "we must accept all view points equally" is wrong. I'm sorry, but it is just wrong. Some view points are just wrong.
You mistake what it is to be bigoted, it is a common mistake and lots of modern Americans make the same mistake that 'every idea is equally valid and you must accept my ideas as valid or your a bigot". That's not true. A bigot is when you dismiss ideas with out consideration for the idea itself. Some ideas, when considered are only fit to be dismissed. I do not accept the view point that I must accept that the view "it is alright to murder all the Jews in the world" as a valid point of view. Nor do I accept "it is alright to murder all non-Muslims" or "women only exist to serve men" or "blacks exist to be the chattel slaves of white men"
Those views, and many other equally abhorrent and repulsive viewpoints, have no validity and rejecting them is not bigoted.


And the reason I say that its a bad idea to do things like this in games is 1) it is rather disrespectful to the people involved, especially if it involves putting actions at their feet that are not actions that they themselves have taken. and 2) due to group think it is hard to know when you are doing something that will offend one of your players. It is easy to be the offended player but not want to speak up because you don't want to be labeled as a 'fun wrecker' or as you did above 'a bigot'.

Ahhhhh... straw man struck down. Fine but there are many who consider themselves accepting but are bigoted. Claiming that all in favor of the 2nd amendment want children murdered is a bigoted statement no?

Nope not a straw man at all. It was what you said.
You flat out said "If people want to be accepting then freaking be fully accepting of everyone including especially those of opposing views as those who claim to be accepting but dont accept the views of bigots then they are also biggots."
You quite litterally just said that if someone is not fully accepting of everyone, and any and all opposing views that they are then a bigot.
Flat out what you said. Your words not mine. No straw there.
And that is purely, 100%, utterly false.

So yes, claiming that all in favor of the 2nd amendment want children murdered is bigoted. Because it is not a considered or rational statement. This is easily understood simply by analyzing the statement and looking for extreme words such as "all" in reference to large groups of people, and then noticing that they are cross linking two different and unrelated statements "second amendment" and "murdering children"
What would NOT be bigoted to say is that "those whos support of the second amendment is such that they believe that there should be no restrictions or controls on firearms, by their advocacy of inaction in the face of a pattern of crimes against children are supporting that crime."
Note the difference in the two statements? One is a sweeping generalization that has two only tangentially related issues being made co-equal, where as the second has a specific statement identifying a group of people not by a broad external label but by a narrow one based on specific actions or specific, unique, identifiers and then linking them to a second action that is directly and causally linked to the identifier used to class them into the group.

But you did not say "we must accept all rational views that differ than ours" but that people must accept ALL views. Nor did you say anything about the fact that hypocrites exist who demand a level of analysis from others that they do not extend themselves. Again, that means that your statement before had nothing to do with your new dodge.
Thus under your initial test, it is bigotry to claim that White Nationalists, Nazis, and Slave Holders are wrong.
Your test, not mine.
That suggests that either your stance is flawed, or that you are indeed claiming that hard core Nazis and Slave Holders have perfectly valid views that need to be accepted. Pick one.

My take on how Zer0 Kay's statement can be applied (which I could be totally wrong about) is that it's absurd for people to claim to champion tolerance, such as some university students, then disrupt or even prevent a guest speaker they disagree with from appearing on campus because the students are intolerant of that speaker's alleged intolerant views. Or last week, Antifa criminals, who allegedly champion the cause of "anti-fascism" (hence their so-called group's name), commit robbery and battery aganst a Bernie Sanders supporter when they took the American flag he was carrying by force and then proceeded to literally stomp his head in while he's on the ground because they felt the American flag was a symbol of fascism.

Those two examples are my interpretation of what he said.

Jack Burton wrote:My take on how Zer0 Kay's statement can be applied (which I could be totally wrong about) is that it's absurd for people to claim to champion tolerance, such as some university students, then disrupt or even prevent a guest speaker they disagree with from appearing on campus because the students are intolerant of that speaker's alleged intolerant views. Or last week, Antifa criminals, who allegedly champion the cause of "anti-fascism" (hence their so-called group's name), commit robbery and battery aganst a Bernie Sanders supporter when they took the American flag he was carrying by force and then proceeded to literally stomp his head in while he's on the ground because they felt the American flag was a symbol of fascism.

Those two examples are my interpretation of what he said.

That might be a valid claim.
The second is definitely a valid example of bigotry in action. The first requires accepting that the speakers speech is not bigoted itself and/or not deliberately provocative which may or may not be true.
But that wasn't what was said.
What was said was that if you do not accept the views of everyone else as valid your a bigot. Which is false. Because that requires the oxymoronic stance that bigotry is a rationally valid viewpoint.

eliakon wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:And that is safe and good and respectful. Just saying that playing it the other way isn't crossing some "they're a horrible person" line. If people want to be accepting then freaking be fully accepting of everyone including especially those of opposing views as those who claim to be accepting but dont accept the views of bigots then they are also biggots.

I agree with you to a point.
But only a point.
The claim that "we must accept all view points equally" is wrong. I'm sorry, but it is just wrong. Some view points are just wrong.
You mistake what it is to be bigoted, it is a common mistake and lots of modern Americans make the same mistake that 'every idea is equally valid and you must accept my ideas as valid or your a bigot". That's not true. A bigot is when you dismiss ideas with out consideration for the idea itself. Some ideas, when considered are only fit to be dismissed. I do not accept the view point that I must accept that the view "it is alright to murder all the Jews in the world" as a valid point of view. Nor do I accept "it is alright to murder all non-Muslims" or "women only exist to serve men" or "blacks exist to be the chattel slaves of white men"
Those views, and many other equally abhorrent and repulsive viewpoints, have no validity and rejecting them is not bigoted.


And the reason I say that its a bad idea to do things like this in games is 1) it is rather disrespectful to the people involved, especially if it involves putting actions at their feet that are not actions that they themselves have taken. and 2) due to group think it is hard to know when you are doing something that will offend one of your players. It is easy to be the offended player but not want to speak up because you don't want to be labeled as a 'fun wrecker' or as you did above 'a bigot'.

Ahhhhh... straw man struck down. Fine but there are many who consider themselves accepting but are bigoted. Claiming that all in favor of the 2nd amendment want children murdered is a bigoted statement no?

Nope not a straw man at all. It was what you said.
You flat out said "If people want to be accepting then freaking be fully accepting of everyone including especially those of opposing views as those who claim to be accepting but dont accept the views of bigots then they are also biggots."
You quite litterally just said that if someone is not fully accepting of everyone, and any and all opposing views that they are then a bigot.
Flat out what you said. Your words not mine. No straw there.
And that is purely, 100%, utterly false.

So yes, claiming that all in favor of the 2nd amendment want children murdered is bigoted. Because it is not a considered or rational statement. This is easily understood simply by analyzing the statement and looking for extreme words such as "all" in reference to large groups of people, and then noticing that they are cross linking two different and unrelated statements "second amendment" and "murdering children"
What would NOT be bigoted to say is that "those whos support of the second amendment is such that they believe that there should be no restrictions or controls on firearms, by their advocacy of inaction in the face of a pattern of crimes against children are supporting that crime."
Note the difference in the two statements? One is a sweeping generalization that has two only tangentially related issues being made co-equal, where as the second has a specific statement identifying a group of people not by a broad external label but by a narrow one based on specific actions or specific, unique, identifiers and then linking them to a second action that is directly and causally linked to the identifier used to class them into the group.

But you did not say "we must accept all rational views that differ than ours" but that people must accept ALL views. Nor did you say anything about the fact that hypocrites exist who demand a level of analysis from others that they do not extend themselves. Again, that means that your statement before had nothing to do with your new dodge.
Thus under your initial test, it is bigotry to claim that White Nationalists, Nazis, and Slave Holders are wrong.
Your test, not mine.
That suggests that either your stance is flawed, or that you are indeed claiming that hard core Nazis and Slave Holders have perfectly valid views that need to be accepted. Pick one.

Wait for straw man there has to be an alternate doesn't there?

Okay I can deal with that definition of bigotry and I'll have to stop saying I'm bigoted against bigots because if someone is a proven bigot then opposing their point of view is not bigoted.

Also Jack is correct.

Now what was the OP again

filo_clarke wrote:If Trudeau dies, we riot!

In celebration, or in an effort to drive the guilty into the river where he can be caught easier?

I look at him as the lesser of evils of the 5(?) leaders in the last race.

The Beast wrote:

Jefffar wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

That line or moral boundry can only be determined by the group. If they get offended by a real name being used as the intended victim, then make a name up. But no, if a real person's name is used and the group is not offended, who cares? I promise that the RPG police will not come knocking on anyone's door, especially if the players are trying to SAVE the i tended target, not eliminate the intended target. Heck, the RPG police may even award the players a medal for saving said victim!

In my country the real police responded to reports of a group of individuals plotting to commit a crime.

It turns out they were playing Rifts.

True story.

There's also the time that GURPS had their computers seized by the US Secret Service because they thought it had something to do with cyber-terrorism.

I remember that one.
SJG managed to rebuild the book that the US Feebs refused to return, and published it anyway...only about a year or so late. If I pull out my GURPS box(es), I think I still have it!

In answer to Incriptus's OP,
I'd consider it stepping over the line to use a living ad currently serving world/national executive as the target.
Deceased/historical ones are fair game(thus allowing for campaigns to knock off Queen Victoria or Kaiser Wilhelm, for example).
No longer serving(but still living) individuals in the context of history( is less certain(like, for example, setting a campaign during President Carter's administration) is pushing the envelope of good taste if conducted online, but passable, depending on the general feeling of the gaming group.

Where it really gets complicated is in time travel campaigns, where, for example, a traveller from the future arrive with the warning 'don't let - real person x- become President/Chancellor/Pope!' and the preferred solution is to whack them.

taalismn wrote:In answer to Zero Kay's OP,
I'd consider it stepping over the line to use a living ad currently serving world/national executive as the target.
Deceased/historical ones are fair game(thus allowing for campaigns to knock off Queen Victoria or Kaiser Wilhelm, for example).
No longer serving(but still living) individuals in the context of history( is less certain(like, for example, setting a campaign during President Carter's administration) is pushing the envelope of good taste if conducted online, but passable, depending on the general feeling of the gaming group.

Where it really gets complicated is in time travel campaigns, where, for example, a traveller from the future arrive with the warning 'don't let - real person x- become President/Chancellor/Pope!' and the preferred solution is to whack them.

Um... I wasn't the OP.

Zer0 Kay wrote:[

Um... I wasn't the OP.

Whoops...
Corrected and proper accreditation made.

taalismn wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:[

Um... I wasn't the OP.

Whoops...
Corrected and proper accreditation made.

Thank you. ;D

Jefffar wrote:I would say the moment you use a specific person from the real world (not just an unamed individual with a title, or a fictious person to hold that title) you are stepping over a line.

Unless: they start doing weird stuff they never did IRL and after you off them you discover that it was a shapeshifted Infernal the whole time, and the real one was tied up in a closet.

It's a fictional world, so whatever.
If a group wants to take a contract on a "leader" who's a pedophile or the like, or a freebie, then I'd be perfectly fine with running it.
If your nation's so tyrannical and/ or devoid of reality that a role-playing game is cause for arrest, then it needs to be overthrown.

Fenris2020 wrote:It's a fictional world, so whatever.
If a group wants to take a contract on a "leader" who's a pedophile or the like, or a freebie, then I'd be perfectly fine with running it.
If your nation's so tyrannical and/ or devoid of reality that a role-playing game is cause for arrest, then it needs to be overthrown.

Agreed.

So if as Jefffar says as soon as you start using real names and try to kill that person you've crossed a line... then does that mean that if a GM has ever run a game where the players got to play themselves , especially games like Dead Reign that the GM has instantly crossed that line as Zombies are only out to kill everything alive, with some weird emphasis on your characters?
So if that is okay because as the players you've agreed to the chase? What about real people tied to you? If the GM says everyone you know except those at the table are dead has he already crossed the line? If the GM says anything other than your significant others, friends and family who are not at this table are safe and sound in an unlikely bunker with everyone else's friends and family from around the table and their just waiting for your return... has the GM automatically crossed the line?

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Fenris2020 wrote:It's a fictional world, so whatever.
If a group wants to take a contract on a "leader" who's a pedophile or the like, or a freebie, then I'd be perfectly fine with running it.
If your nation's so tyrannical and/ or devoid of reality that a role-playing game is cause for arrest, then it needs to be overthrown.

Agreed.

So if as Jefffar says as soon as you start using real names and try to kill that person you've crossed a line... then does that mean that if a GM has ever run a game where the players got to play themselves , especially games like Dead Reign that the GM has instantly crossed that line as Zombies are only out to kill everything alive, with some weird emphasis on your characters?
So if that is okay because as the players you've agreed to the chase? What about real people tied to you? If the GM says everyone you know except those at the table are dead has he already crossed the line? If the GM says anything other than your significant others, friends and family who are not at this table are safe and sound in an unlikely bunker with everyone else's friends and family from around the table and their just waiting for your return... has the GM automatically crossed the line?

What happens at someone else's table is their business; if they and their friends want to play the game a certain way, it's on them. As some have said, it's a team/ group process, and majority generally rules. Some people do need to stop being simpering wimps and grow up a bit. Other people may need to tone things down a little; role-playing is supposed to be fun, not group therapy.
At my table, politeness is a requirement among the PLAYERS (characters are a different matter, of course); political correctness, however, is not (most of the politically correct people I've met are some of the rudest hypocrites I've ever encountered).