Hydaelyn Role-Players
Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - Printable Version

+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Community (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: RP Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism (/showthread.php?tid=12791)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - LiadansWhisper - 08-03-2015

(08-03-2015, 03:51 PM)Verad Wrote:
(08-03-2015, 01:56 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: Actually, the stuff you outlined in Gridania probably does happen in more isolated, out-of-the-way villages where Conjurers and Wailers pass through more rarely. And we already know that the Ishgard nobles have been toying with Hyur women (and probably men, too) for hundreds of years now.  There are enough NPC comments as you wander around to make it clear that most of the servant staff are Hyur, and that the women are often "meddled with."  Hilda is another great example of that.

I don't doubt it, and in Gridania's case I am in fact kind of banking on it in future events! What I doubt is the desire of players who are interested in playing racism when it comes to portraying the real extremes of racism. If the evidence in-game suggests that racism can get that overt and brutal, then the expressions of racism desired by the OP and others in this thread seems sort of . . . soft, in comparison. 

I find it unlikely, for example, that Kale is going to have a moment where he gets some Blades together and strings up some Ala Mhigan unfortunates in an expression of nationalist sentiment. Such a thing would be a powerful scene, I think, if played effectively, in which he makes clear that he has cast aside ethnicity in favor of nationality, even though he is in a nation in which he himself would admit he can only be a second-class city given the dominance of lalafell in its ruling class. But it is more likely that Verad will shave off his beard before that happens.*

So what's being argued isn't the extremes of racism, but rather the right to rude remarks and mild bigotry, using the implied extremes of Eorzean racism to justify it. I'm not sure if the point is to show they could be RPing much worse than what is available or if the two are being conflated as identical expressions of racism, but really, it seems very mild. Make remarks, by all means! When somebody forms a PC lynch mob to hunt down undeserving Duskwights, then I'll take more interest.

*I bring up Kale as an example here only because I am at least passingly familar with his character and because this is a frequent concern of his, not out of any particular rancor.

Well, I think bigotry and oppression doesn't have to have outright lynchings to exist.  It can just be the systematic oppression of a group.  Refusing them jobs, passing them over for promotions within your organization, etc.

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - Verad - 08-03-2015

(08-03-2015, 03:54 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: Well, I think bigotry and oppression doesn't have to have outright lynchings to exist.  It can just be the systematic oppression of a group.  Refusing them jobs, passing them over for promotions within your organization, etc.

Absolutely. I make no judgments on whether or not systemic racism can exist independent of racism expressed as acts of individual violence.

But playing systemic racism is difficult when you're playing only one character. You can certainly make a character unthinkingly racist because of systemic influences, but this operates in the manner it does in real life, as a largely-invisible, easily-denied motivation. It sounds like many of the posters here would prefer to openly and overtly express in-character racism. And when it comes to that, this tends to get performed as rude remarks and minor inconveniences.

So is there only systemic racism in Eorzea, or are there also expressions of racial violence? If there are, why don't they get played, especially given the body of evidence suggesting that the setting can be that violent?

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - Cato - 08-04-2015

I've noticed that many role-players are prone to messaging someone with an apology in response to the slightest hint of potential conflict. It's a shame that people feel obligated to do that since I would have thought it obvious that what a character says and does is generally separate from what a role-player says and does.

Obviously there's exceptions to this - such as people using their character as a vehicle to harass people - but that is far from being the norm. Could people be shying away from controversial characters simply because of the expectation to explain themselves at every turn, I wonder?

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - Cailean Lockwood - 08-04-2015

(08-04-2015, 03:31 AM)Graeham Wrote: I've noticed that many role-players are prone to messaging someone with an apology in response to the slightest hint of potential conflict. It's a shame that people feel obligated to do that since I would have thought it obvious that what a character says and does is generally separate from what a role-player says and does.

Obviously there's exceptions to this - such as people using their character as a vehicle to harass people - but that is far from being the norm. Could people be shying away from controversial characters simply because of the expectation to explain themselves at every turn, I wonder?

I think it's awesome that people are willing to poke others and go "Hey, I hope my IC behaviour is alright with you, and I'm just letting you know that I don't mean any of this OOCly. <3", because it shows consideration and compassion. It helps making a bond of consent between the two parts which could mean any future RP between the two would go well as well.

After I've done some RP with someone, I usually send people a tell, saying "Hey, thanks for the RP. ^^" to show that I had an enjoyable time with them and that I might want to have more with those people in the future.

When RP'ing someone who is very aggressive in a negative way, such as being a racist douchebag, I find it important to have the consent of the people I RP with, because if they don't find it alright, then they're not the people I am going to RP with.

I am not in this to harrass people. I RP what I want to RP, but if I approach someone who doesn't like the way I RP, then I will just find someone else to RP with. Should I continue to approach that same person in the same way, then I am harrassing him... and that's not alright!

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - Kellach Woods - 08-04-2015

(08-03-2015, 08:28 AM)Kage Wrote: . However, it is also due the whole Hyuran vs Elezen warring that Koji Fox has been quoted about.

You mean that thing that is barely shown in-game? The only times I've seen it would be that part and the barring of one of Gridania's areas but mechanically it's off-limits to adventurers period (with the implications that only the high-ranked/padjal would have access).

Honestly y'all clinging to his words a bit too much - if it was that important they'd show it or use it as a backdrop to something significant. They haven't, yet.

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - Cato - 08-04-2015

(08-04-2015, 06:16 AM)Vachir Crimsonborn Wrote:
(08-04-2015, 03:31 AM)Graeham Wrote: I've noticed that many role-players are prone to messaging someone with an apology in response to the slightest hint of potential conflict. It's a shame that people feel obligated to do that since I would have thought it obvious that what a character says and does is generally separate from what a role-player says and does.

Obviously there's exceptions to this - such as people using their character as a vehicle to harass people - but that is far from being the norm. Could people be shying away from controversial characters simply because of the expectation to explain themselves at every turn, I wonder?

I think it's awesome that people are willing to poke others and go "Hey, I hope my IC behaviour is alright with you, and I'm just letting you know that I don't mean any of this OOCly. <3", because it shows consideration and compassion. It helps making a bond of consent between the two parts which could mean any future RP between the two would go well as well.

After I've done some RP with someone, I usually send people a tell, saying "Hey, thanks for the RP. ^^" to show that I had an enjoyable time with them and that I might want to have more with those people in the future.

When RP'ing someone who is very aggressive in a negative way, such as being a racist douchebag, I find it important to have the consent of the people I RP with, because if they don't find it alright, then they're not the people I am going to RP with.

I am not in this to harrass people. I RP what I want to RP, but if I approach someone who doesn't like the way I RP, then I will just find someone else to RP with. Should I continue to approach that same person in the same way, then I am harrassing him... and that's not alright!

I can understand it happening if people are exploring some pretty intense themes but it does come across as if people are 'babying' each other at times. I'll quite happily message someone to thank them for interacting with me if I've enjoyed my time with them but I've never really felt like it's been necessary for people to apologise just because their character is a bit of a jerk.

I mean, it's not like the game apologises (or needs to do so) each time someone comes across an NPC who happens to be a bit of a prick. I think more role-players need to avoid letting IC and OOC bleed into one another and assume that there's no harm meant if a character happens to be a bit nasty.

(08-04-2015, 06:21 AM)Kellach Woods Wrote:
(08-03-2015, 08:28 AM)Kage Wrote: . However, it is also due the whole Hyuran vs Elezen warring that Koji Fox has been quoted about.

You mean that thing that is barely shown in-game? The only times I've seen it would be that part and the barring of one of Gridania's areas but mechanically it's off-limits to adventurers period (with the implications that only the high-ranked/padjal would have access).

Honestly y'all clinging to his words a bit too much - if it was that important they'd show it.

There's a lot of things that aren't shown in-game. There's only so much that we get to see - and the bulk of the game's lore is uncovered through NPC dialogue and the flavour text of both regular quests and levequests.

Though when a prominent developer states that something is a particular way then that's how it is. It's their setting and even if people don't like it stuff doesn't suddenly cease being canon. Shy away from it by all means, but those who seek to embrace it aren't in the wrong for doing so. If anything, they should be applauded for going that much further to remain as true to the setting as possible.

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - Kellach Woods - 08-04-2015

(08-04-2015, 06:30 AM)Graeham Wrote: Though when a prominent developer states that something is a particular way then that's how it is. It's their setting and even if people don't like it stuff doesn't suddenly cease being canon. Shy away from it by all means, but those who seek to embrace it aren't in the wrong for doing so. If anything, they should be applauded for going that much further to remain as true to the setting as possible.

When a prominent developer states something like that and continuously refuses to do storylines that involve what he just says, that says more about the developer than the world he created.

And I'm contesting the frequency and intensity that this happens, not that it happens at all. If it was important, it would be shown and it would be prominent. We barely have mention of a very specific racial conflict (in this case I was citing Hyur/Elezen specifically).

We have more examples of Hyur/Elezen collaboration and tolerance than of outright hatred/racism. Gridania would be fucked without the Hyur and the Elezen who live there know it.

Ishgard is a whole other story.

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - LiadansWhisper - 08-04-2015

(08-04-2015, 09:10 PM)Kellach Woods Wrote:
(08-04-2015, 06:30 AM)Graeham Wrote: Though when a prominent developer states that something is a particular way then that's how it is. It's their setting and even if people don't like it stuff doesn't suddenly cease being canon. Shy away from it by all means, but those who seek to embrace it aren't in the wrong for doing so. If anything, they should be applauded for going that much further to remain as true to the setting as possible.

When a prominent developer states something like that and continuously refuses to do storylines that involve what he just says, that says more about the developer than the world he created.

And I'm contesting the frequency and intensity that this happens, not that it happens at all. If it was important, it would be shown and it would be prominent. We barely have mention of a very specific racial conflict (in this case I was citing Hyur/Elezen specifically).

We have more examples of Hyur/Elezen collaboration and tolerance than of outright hatred/racism. Gridania would be fucked without the Hyur and the Elezen who live there know it.

Ishgard is a whole other story.

I feel like you have missed the fact that the Hyur and the Elezen founded Gridania together.  In fact, there's a big deal made of this fact.  Interestingly, almost all Padjal come from Hyur families, not Elezen (we only have one known case of an Elezen-born Padjal).  So that they work together is not at all surprising, really, and they also have a third-party scapegoat they can focus frustration on.

But I think, too, that what you're also missing is that the developer specifically said that a cardinal example of this conflict is that you do not see regular intermarriage/breeding between the races, despite the fact that they are - for the most part - similar in looks (to the point that they look attractive to everyone involved).  And his reasoning, quite specifically, was that the races have this underlying dislike of each other and it prevents them from interbreeding on a regular basis, with their offspring being outright pariahs.

Sure, they're not hanging each other from trees.  No one's said they are.  But despite the fact that we know they are biologically compatible AND physically attractive to one another, they're not breeding with each other.  And, Kellach, you do realize that humans are so into getting it on that we have Neanderthal DNA in our genetic codes?  That's right - Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens made babies together.  Babies that survived to pass on their genes and give us quite a few genes in the immune system area that are directly inherited from Neanderthals.  And by every account, they wouldn't be considered all that attractive.  Yet apparently humans were still boinking them.  But an Elezen turns up his nose at a Hyur, and a Highlander turns up her nose at a Roe, etc, etc.  Even though, physically speaking, they share many, many more attractive traits than Neanderthal shared with Humans.

Just some food for thought.

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - Kage - 08-04-2015

I've been playing exactly to lore. So.

"Lalafell are welcoming of outsiders, and share prosperous relations with all of the other races of Eorzea."

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - Flickering Ember - 08-04-2015

(08-04-2015, 03:31 AM)Graeham Wrote: I've noticed that many role-players are prone to messaging someone with an apology in response to the slightest hint of potential conflict. It's a shame that people feel obligated to do that since I would have thought it obvious that what a character says and does is generally separate from what a role-player says and does.

Obviously there's exceptions to this - such as people using their character as a vehicle to harass people - but that is far from being the norm. Could people be shying away from controversial characters simply because of the expectation to explain themselves at every turn, I wonder?

(08-04-2015, 09:10 PM)Kellach Woods Wrote:
(08-04-2015, 06:30 AM)Graeham Wrote: Though when a prominent developer states that something is a particular way then that's how it is. It's their setting and even if people don't like it stuff doesn't suddenly cease being canon. Shy away from it by all means, but those who seek to embrace it aren't in the wrong for doing so. If anything, they should be applauded for going that much further to remain as true to the setting as possible.

When a prominent developer states something like that and continuously refuses to do storylines that involve what he just says, that says more about the developer than the world he created.

And I'm contesting the frequency and intensity that this happens, not that it happens at all. If it was important, it would be shown and it would be prominent. We barely have mention of a very specific racial conflict (in this case I was citing Hyur/Elezen specifically).

We have more examples of Hyur/Elezen collaboration and tolerance than of outright hatred/racism. Gridania would be fucked without the Hyur and the Elezen who live there know it.

Ishgard is a whole other story.


These two posts go hand in hand. 

First, I'd like to thank Kellach for clarifying on this subject. I don't know for sure who brought up disbelief in Eorzea's suffering but I am fairly certain it was me. Since then, my point seems to have played an important point of discussion in this thread. I thought I was done but these two posts create a great combination for me to explain further.

FFXIV is a story driven MMO. The developers have said this, the players know this, and it's even justified for barring HW content for players who have not completed the 2.0+ storylines. Regardless of this, when looking of the story of FFXIV, I look at it as a whole--just as I do a movie.

In a movie, it is not just writing that tells the story, like in a book. (Same with video games) We have actors or voice actors, the musical score, sets, costumes, etc. etc. Movies and video games are a team effort to create and every little aspect comes together to make something unique. (Not always good, but definitely unique) I believe fans do not give the these lesser known aspects of story-telling enough credit. They have huge impact. And one of those things is:

Mood. This is an element of storytelling that goes hand in hand with Tone. The emphasis of FFXIV is not on the suffering, at least not in ARR. The focus is on heroism and adventure, positivity and idealism. Note the contrast of ARR and HW. HW features darker colors and even defaults you to turning off character glow that had previously been enabled in ARR. Clearly, SE was trying to shift the mood of FFXIV from a positive, heroic adventure to a struggle of classism and war. 

I know there are plenty of darker aspects to narrow in on ARR. The point I am making is to piggyback off of what Kellach has said: They are out of focus. It's not convincing. (Convincing here from an emotional standpoint, mind you, not from a logical standpoint. It can logically be explained that children are dying of starvation but unless it's emphasized somewhere in the main story, we aren't feeling that emotional impact)

If these themes were important, they could include them. But they don't. Instead of making me gather a banquet feast to prove myself able to fight Titan, which we all know is ridiculous, focus on us overcoming the Costa's citizens crappy lives. Instead of giving us quests about delivering love notes or dispersing meals: show us in extreme, horrifying detail romance falling apart or show us NPCs fighting over the meals we disperse. Instead of having us cull a wild population of animals, FF's fall back story for side quests it seems, give an actual story to the side quests. Give them backstory other than "whoa! This animal population is way out of control! Kill them!" How about something like: "Some big bad evil people kidnapped my friend because she's a Duskwight! They're those three in the back of the alley. Go beat them up!" 

So...why don't we see more side quests like that? Instead we have side quests that focus on the mundane. If XIV is so story heavy, why not add more essential world-building elements to active parts of the gameplay the same way the main story is an active part of the gameplay? How about some side side quests like Hildibrand and moogle mail except as a serious drama? 

When you choose to focus on the mundane (kill 5 boars) and the silly (Hildibrand) it really takes away from the serious, dark world building.

Some of it is reader apathy too. When you've seen X amount of horrible things in other stories, it becomes difficult to top them. 'My wife and children are dead' is not the pinnacle for absolute character suffering anymore. It's sad, it's awful and it's entirely normal for fiction. The amount of suffering presented in Eorzea is fantasy status quo that doesn't make it any darker than your standard JRPG or an entertaining D&D romp. It's just enough conflict to justify having adventures and super powers.

We have seen a shift in mood with HW taking FFXIV onto a darker road. Right now I'm level 57 and I'm still not seeing this 'Game of Thrones' like quality that has been used as a comparison from the creators. 

What does this huge ass post have anything to do with Graeham's post though? Well, just as we have seen a boost in characters who are Elezen or hail from Ishgard, if racist elements were to become more of a focus in story and world building, we would see them more in RP too. 

Additionally, surely I'm not the only one who changes the type of characters she roleplays as depending on the setting? A character I would RP in World of Darkness is going to be vastly different from a character in Final Fantasy. In other words, the mood of the setting and game can help affect what people RP as. It made sense to RP a racist in WoW, for example, because racial tensions are pretty much the center of conflict in that universe. If Mr. Koji Fox were to show more details on just how the current races are 'working together but just tolerating each other' then we might see more people RPing these elements.

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - Flashhelix - 08-05-2015

"Koji Fox may have said X, but it doesn't matter because he doesn't show it!"

That's not how creating things work. A developer shouldn't have to justify his every word to you with cutscenes/ingame tidbits/etc. If it were in the game to begin with, it wouldn't even have come up in the dev Q&A. The entire point of those is to expand on things that aren't shown in their entirely ingame.

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - Flickering Ember - 08-05-2015

(08-05-2015, 12:08 AM)Flashhelix Wrote: "Koji Fox may have said X, but it doesn't matter because he doesn't show it!"

That's not how creating things work. A developer shouldn't have to justify his every word to you with cutscenes/ingame tidbits/etc. If it were in the game to begin with, it wouldn't even have come up in the dev Q&A. The entire point of those is to expand on things that aren't shown in their entirely ingame.

I absolutely do believe in the usefulness of dev Q&A's for lore. I do believe, though, that if it has to be mentioned in a Q&A instead of showing up in the actual story that it isn't THAT important. (IE: Going back to my previous post about these elements being 'out of focus')

What makes Mr. Koji Fox's post problematic though is that his words on race conflicts what we see in game. It's really hard to believe that the various races are 'just tolerating each other' when multiple characters of varying races form friendships with each other.

All this time the lalafells in the pugilist guild were just 'tolerating' their sensei, Hamon Holyfist. Biggs and Wedge are just 'tolerating' each other despite being mostly inseparable. Hildibrand and his assistant are just 'tolerating' each other throughout their wacky hijinks. 

I thought it was universally agreed upon that "Show, don't tell" was a sign of good story-telling and writing? It certainly should be at least noteworthy in situations like this where what Mr. Koji Fox says in game seems to clash with what we actually see.

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - LiadansWhisper - 08-05-2015

(08-05-2015, 12:47 AM)Flickering Ember Wrote:
(08-05-2015, 12:08 AM)Flashhelix Wrote: "Koji Fox may have said X, but it doesn't matter because he doesn't show it!"

That's not how creating things work. A developer shouldn't have to justify his every word to you with cutscenes/ingame tidbits/etc. If it were in the game to begin with, it wouldn't even have come up in the dev Q&A. The entire point of those is to expand on things that aren't shown in their entirely ingame.

I absolutely do believe in the usefulness of dev Q&A's for lore. I do believe, though, that if it has to be mentioned in a Q&A instead of showing up in the actual story that it isn't THAT important. (IE: Going back to my previous post about these elements being 'out of focus')

What makes Mr. Koji Fox's post problematic though is that his words on race conflicts what we see in game. It's really hard to believe that the various races are 'just tolerating each other' when multiple characters of varying races form friendships with each other.

All this time the lalafells in the pugilist guild were just 'tolerating' their sensei, Hamon Holyfist. Biggs and Wedge are just 'tolerating' each other despite being mostly inseparable. Hildibrand and his assistant are just 'tolerating' each other throughout their wacky hijinks. 

I thought it was universally agreed upon that "Show, don't tell" was a sign of good story-telling and writing? It certainly should be at least noteworthy in situations like this where what Mr. Koji Fox says in game seems to clash with what we actually see.

I think that it's a bit disingenuous to characterize Biggs and Wedge, Hildebrand, or the Lalafells in the pugilist guild to be "average" Eorzeans.  In fact, including Hildebrand in any serious discussion is just plain silly.  That entire questline is meant to be light and silly and completely ridiculous.

What Mr. Fox is, ostensibly, referring to is what the average Lalafell feels about the average Miqo'te, what the average Hyur thinks about the average Elezen.  We're not average, and a lot of the people we interact directly with aren't average.  But there's a lot of stuff going on alongside us - mostly in NPC dialogue that we only see in passing - that suggests there's more going on than what we see directly in quests.

I do have to agree, however, that simply dismissing the story developer's words because you don't see it is a bit silly.  "Show, don't tell" or not, the man is the damn developer for the game.  Are you calling him a liar?  Are you suggesting that he's just deluded?  Or confused?  I mean...really?

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - Kage - 08-05-2015

(08-05-2015, 12:56 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: What Mr. Fox is, ostensibly, referring to is what the average Lalafell feels about the average Miqo'te,
Average lalafell are welcoming and share prosperous relations with the average Miqo'te and other average races. *nod*

RE: Avoiding contemporary liberalism in RP and embracing traditional conservatism - LiadansWhisper - 08-05-2015

(08-05-2015, 01:12 AM)Kage Wrote:
(08-05-2015, 12:56 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: What Mr. Fox is, ostensibly, referring to is what the average Lalafell feels about the average Miqo'te,
Average lalafell are welcoming and share prosperous relations with the average Miqo'te and other average races. *nod*

Okay Kage.