Invisible or inaccurate?

[VirusZero 176]

While I was writing a response to this topic 

I had pondered the idea of certain things being banned because of poor representation. In the past I've seen lots of people lament the fact that things are often portrayed incorrectly and that people really shouldn't use <thing> (ex- homosexuality) if they aren't going to give a good portrayal. But then I've also seen people complain that there's not enough <thing> (especially Lesbians) either. That made me start to think: Which is more desirable... no representation at all or horribly incorrect versions?

(Note that I'm not trying to pick on Lesbians here, you could substitute any group/race/mental issue/disability/whatever here and it'd still be the same discussion.)

 

I mean let's suppose for sake of argument that there are no good portrayals ever, they just don't happen. No one who portrays that does it right ever. They always screw up in pretty spectacular ways. So is it more desirable then to not have it shown at all or is it better to accept that it's pretty bad but it is at least there and seen?

 

Now, because this topic is open to this problem, to head this off right here... this is not a spot to play oppression olympics. If you think that some groups have it worse than others and/or need more representation than others, that's fine but this is not the spot to argue that. 

[Morrigan 1,826]

Probably. I mean to me I think you have to experience it in order to really understand if you are portraying it correctly. I mean, by all means, the media has not been kind and is often over-dramatized BS so views on it can be skewed. This actually ties in with the "genre sin" thread this one:

Everyone believes that this is the must. The weak die or you're not interesting unless. I mean those are the characters that people connect with in stories. That's who you go to the movie to watch. I mean you don't go to watch the normal best friend of Superman that does all the copying. You go to see superman kick ass and take names and save Lois etc.

[Brocade 1]

This is a really great note of thought, and I am glad your brought it to light. In my Roleplay travels, I have seen similar arguments for banning characters while those people, at the same time, bitch that there are not enough of those sort of characters. Seems silly to me.

 

In the spirit of the thought process here, though, I think that this all depends on personal perspective. Two different individuals may have two different opinions on the portrayal of a character. For example, someone might think that Ben Affleck makes a good Batman, while another would fervently disagree. There is also each individual players idea of how a particular way of being is portrayed. My idea of a bad ass character is someone who struggles and perseveres, while someone else might think a bad ass character is one that does not struggle because they are so strong.

 

That being said, I think that banning a certain way of being, such as homosexuality or characters with a certain personality type, is not the way to go about getting the desired effect. What the banning party might view as a 'poor portrayal', might be very good to someone else. In fact, I sort of feel like banning types of characters, because a person thinks that they will be played badly, is rather selfish and it snuffs out creativity. And, isn't creative freedom that why we roleplay? 

 

Another thought that your post brought to mind is that if fantasy, magic, and unreal settings are part of the the roleplay, how can a dubbed unrealistic or poorly portrayed character be banned? I suppose we could ask that Sci-Fi or Fantasy not be made because no one can truly say whether or not it is being portrayed properly; maybe all the sci-fi and fantasy lovers got it wrong. Lol, it just doesn't make sense to me. These reasons for banning just seem short sighted in the face of the fact that a poor portrayal can teach a person to better portray. Rome wasn't built in a day and not all roleplayers are master story crafters.

 

I also agree with a point that Morrigan makes; You don't go to the movies to watch 'normalcy'. Writing is creativity and there is a level of drama that comes with it. Art is not replication of the norm, but a bending of it. Same with humor - it is just an exaggeration actual life. 

 

I think that the only time a ban on a character type/trait should be allowed is if there are so many on a forum already and some diversity is needed. Otherwise, let people be creative, even if someone thinks they suck at it.  If people don't like the 'poor portrayal' those people should not write with the characters they deem poorly portrayed.

[Morrigan 1,826]

3 hours ago, Brocade said:

I think that the only time a ban on a character type/trait should be allowed is if there are so many on a forum already and some diversity is needed.

 

I think on the flip side of that, is if the setting doesn't allow it. I mean in Sci-Fi settings depending on the level of tech it could eliminate certain types of diseases diformities (anyone seen Gattaca?)

[Brocade 1]

 

8 minutes ago, Morrigan said:

 

I think on the flip side of that, is if the setting doesn't allow it. I mean in Sci-Fi settings depending on the level of tech it could eliminate certain types of diseases diformities (anyone seen Gattaca?)

 

That makes sense. Though, if that is part of the setting/plot of the roleplay, you would think that people would know better than to make a character with diseases or deformities that had been removed from humanity and wouldn't really need to put a formal ban on it. Maybe I am giving people too much credit in expecting them to read the plot?

[Morrigan 1,826]

It all depends really. Sometimes the bans are there for the people that plead for them. I know that one site that was basically a marriage dystopia site, had to ban people that were demanding "gay marriage" because in the society it wasn't a thing.

[Guest Archaic Cyborg]

I think it depends on the typical audience that XYZ is geared for or attracts, as in some communities / crowds / age group / etc, you can find respectable and tactful representation.. whereas in others, you can find the absolute worst, and a ban is the only way to go in that situation.

 

For one of my games, I've banned the majority of mental disorders (e.g the popular 'main' ones), because it's an animal rp / fandom. And animal rps are generally notorious for having terrible representation of disorders. For the most part, I have that ban because my game's level of anthropomorphism is minimal. It's simply too much to have the animal characters replicate mankind's psychology in every which way.

 

For some animal fantasy / anthro settings, if you allow the psychology to overlap, then you're just playing a human stuck in an animal's body. That's my main reasoning behind said ban, and coming in a close second is the representation factor. I have zero patience for most animal rpers and their 'hurr hurr my wolf has 6.2 disorders look how dark and edgy I am~' attitudes.

 

I'd rather have no representation instead of disrespectful ones. An absence to me isn't disrespect, whereas a poorly-made character, tailored with XYZ to look 'cool' or 'insane' or 'unique and different' is difficult to interact with, on both an IC and OOC level.

 

@Brocade, you got it right~. A lot of guests don't read the plot and/or lore, but even some who do, they still insist on playing a banned or unplayable ______. I run a particular fandom game where a race is extinct, pretty much.. and people still on occasion beg to play it. (if I allowed it, I would have to reinvent the game, wtf).  Extinct = there are no more left. No new babies, no secretive hermits hiding out somewhere that miraculously appear. If someone can't have something, then begging is the way to change the staff's minds, apparently! =D

[Brocade 1]

@Morrigan & @Blackjack Bart

And here I am trying to give humanity credit...lol

 

I've never experienced that sort of behavior on forums, though I think I can understand that sort of ban now. I simply cannot fathom that people would join a forum without at least reading the plot. Blows my mind a little, to be honest. 

[Guest Archaic Cyborg]

It's an eternal struggle, literally.  You'll run into a lot of players over the years, who claim they've read everything, or a certain thread or two, and they clearly haven't. Reading and writing are essential for this stupid hobby, and yet so many people want to skip it.

 

It makes my head hurt. >(

[VirusZero 176]

Personally I have a hard time with this topic. I mean on one hand, I think even horribly bad portrayals have some merit (even if people disagree). I mean they could be so bad it's funny.  Or just serve as a cautionary tale of how not to screw up. I disagree with the idea that having bad portrayals means there has to be a negative impact. 

 

But there are times when there just isn't a call for certain things because of the story. Like Morrigan mentioned, in a dystopian society where everything might be regulated (including genetics) they could very easily eliminate the genetic markers which lead to homosexuality*. (So in this case it'd only be the players who get upset, they feel their identities are getting erased. Which is another issue... they're unable to separate in character and out of character. )

 

* It's also possible they could eliminate any number of things like basically the whole Autistic spectrum, fibromyalgia, various cancer risks, porphyria, etc... 

 

If memory serves recently there was a controversy in gaming around this idea, Baldur's Gate got an expansion (or pre-sequel?) and people got pissed off because in the game lore transgender just isn't a thing. There are like 5 different ways to switch gender and when done no one cares. So to have a character be implemented that says how much of a struggle it is really breaks the lore. No, it's not a struggle. It's an easy fix... drink the draft of dude (or dame) and carry on.

 

When it comes to people... Agent K said it best: