Social Stigma (Second-Class Citizen)—a poor simulation of historical sexism?

[Lovewyrm]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It's not a disadvantage when it's normal and socially accepted behaviour that doesn't cause the character any problems.

So the character can invite his black freeman friend into his church?
After getting wounded on a remote trail and being nursed back to health by said friend?
While staying with his family who are all good faithhavers?
His children sang beautiful hymns in the study of their house, and everything.

Perhaps the character would still recline.

But then tragedy happens. Because the friend was not able to come to church that day, he got into a deadly accident, or something.
And the last words they exchanged was "You know how it is, not disadvantageous at'ah"

I bet you could squeeze a point or two out of that... could go into that one point of horseriding that turned out decisive a few sessions down the road, you know?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Lovewyrm

So the character can invite his black freeman friend into his church?
After getting wounded on a remote trail and being nursed back to health by said friend?
While staying with his family who are all good faithhavers?
His children sang beautiful hymns in the study of their house, and everything.

Perhaps the character would still recline.

But then tragedy happens. Because the friend was not able to come to church that day, he got into a deadly accident, or something.
And the last words they exchanged was "You know how it is, not disadvantageous at'ah"

I bet you could squeeze a point or two out of that... could go into that one point of horseriding that turned out decisive a few sessions down the road, you know?

I could in fact not squeeze a point out of that because even if I felt inclined to invite my Black Friend (tm) into my whites only church, he'd be met at the door and told to get lost. And very possibly me too for trying that crap. Then we'd both die in the deadly accident on the way home to drown our sorrows over the injustices of society.

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

I mean, it is, though. Or at least it can be. Limiting what actions you can take is a disadvantage, even if it doesn't directly penalize you in some way.

It doesn't limit my actions though. Regardless of my default -2 reaction roll to Mr. Freeman Black I could still choose to try to take him to my church and seat him with my family in the front. I just couldn't get him in and would probably acquire a Bad Reputation for trying particularly if it was part of a pattern of rebellion against social norms.

Note incidentally that Intolerance causes a reaction roll penalty on both sides but Social Stigma often does not. Freeman Black doesn't have a negative reaction modifier to a 19th century white person who has the normal -2 reaction modifier to him, because he's used to it. He expects it. Now, Thongor the Barbarian does have a negative reaction to the city folk who who react to him at -3 because he's not actually from the culture that regards him as a "barbarian". If the reference setting is The Barbarous Wilds, and there's a guy from the city there, then he is the one who has a social stigma, and if he retains the prejudices of his homeland that only adds to the chance that he'll be quickly murdered.

[malloyd]

I think the primary problem people have with Social Stigma is they want to read it as if the reaction penalty were the disadvantage. That's IMO exactly the wrong way around, and indeed I consider most of the quoted reaction penalties to be pretty nonsensical. People don't react [poorly] to children with Social Stigma (Minor) they react [differently], sometimes better, sometimes worse, sometimes just different, depending on the situation, and it nets out to an inconvenience for children [trying to function as adventurers]. Same thing really for Second Class Citizen. Yes people sometime don't help you as much or scapegoat you (negative reaction sure) but occasionally they'll ignore you to your benefit (stupid one of THEM couldn't possibly be smart enough to be the villain here/nah no worries, even if he saw anything he can't testify....), nets out to usually a small drawback.

The reaction penalty isn't the point of the trait, it's a tacked on add on that works no better than most of GURPS reaction modifiers, which mostly isn't great. I understand you need mechanical rules, because if you leave social disadvantages entirely to roleplay, munchkins claim free points, but [lots] of GURPS social traits aren't really about the reaction modifiers, and don't make a great deal of sense if you try to insist they are.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

(nods) Quite. There are many times and places where not being intolerant of this group or that would be what singles you out as one of Those! people: what, are you some kind of "X" lover or something?!?

I recently read a story about two Tuskegee Airmen during WW2. One was obviously Black, the other was light-skinned enough that he could just about pass for White. When they were coming back from leave while in Alabama, a bunch of bigots jumped the airman with the Passing Appearance Perk for being a "N***** Lover" and beat him so badly he had to be hospitalized.

THAT's what Bad Reputation (Sympathetic to Hated Minority Group Members) can get you, at the very least, in settings where religious or racial intolerance is the norm.

The nuances of various Social Stigmas are so varied that you can't really do it justice using just the rules in the Basic Set. It's one of those disads that should have a big asterisk next to it, so that the GM knows that it's very much campaign dependent. In a well thought-out game setting, the GM should put some thought into what Social Stigmas exist and what they mean. It might be as simple as just a -1 to -3 Reaction Penalty, or a package of specific social limitations (e.g., Medieval Jews or prostitutes having to wear distinctive dress to allow them to be quickly identified as such) and Taboo Traits.

If the GM or players don't want to deal with the Not Fun implications of Social Stigma, just make it a Quirk.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by malloyd

The reaction penalty isn't the point of the trait, it's a tacked on add on that works no better than most of GURPS reaction modifiers, which mostly isn't great.

It's not RAW, but I've always taken reaction penalties for Social Stigma to be situation dependent. As long as you "stay in your lane" the Stigma might not apply. If you play it correctly, you might even be able to use your Stigma to your advantage. Go beyond your social role and penalties apply.

For example, if it's pertinent to their job and they behave in an obsequious enough fashion (a successful Fast Talk or Savoir Faire (Servant) roll) a slave might not have a penalty if they ask their master for necessary clarification to perform some task they've just been assigned.

If a slave tries to take command of a situation, even if it's an emergency that they're best equipped to handle, they'll have penalties. People might not respect their authority or they might get beaten or killed later for being uppity.

[Kaslak]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Something I've been thinking about lately: Basic Set suggests that in some societies, women will have Social Stigma (Second-Class Citizen), something reinforced in the relatively recent Steampunk books and possibly other sources. But the main mechanic for Second-Class Citizen is a flat -1 to reactions, which seems like a poor fit for a great deal of historical sexism, particularly when you consider all the things GURPS uses reaction rolls for:

• Potential combat situations: sure, in a sexist society many people wouldn't expect women to be competent fighters, but this might be balanced by a common belief that it's "dishonorable" to hit a woman.
• Commercial transactions: it's possible some merchants will assume women don't know how to haggle, but by no means guaranteed.
• Requests for aid: could be a problem if asking for help with a traditionally masculine pursuit, but seems likely not to be a problem in general.
• Loyalty: again, seems like it should be more situational—a female military officer might have trouble getting respect, but it seems like a noblewoman's household staff would be just as loyal as a nobleman's?

An alternative might be to treat it more like Social Stigma (Minor), except replace "whenever you try to deal with others as an adult" with something like "whenever you try to engage in traditionally men-only activities". But even that's a potentially poor fit for societies where the main issue women face is legal restrictions such as being unable to own property. After all, Social Stigma (Valuable Property) carries no reaction penalty at all, so it seems odd that less severe limitations on your legal rights would be modeled by a reaction penalty.

But if you're not using reaction penalties for societies where women's status is "significantly lesser then men but not at the 'literally property' level", there's the question of how do you represent it. If the restrictions are genuinely significant then treating it as a sort of 0-point feature seems wrong. Thoughts?

You can use existing traits as building blocks to create an aggregated trait in your campaign. Being of a given gender can be both a social stigma and a social regard (as pointed out, for potential combat rolls for instance).

Note also that Mysteries suggests to use social stigma when said person engages in a profession that the society does not see as fit for that gender, and the penalties relate mostly to rolls on the job, not outside. The example is woman investigator in the last century - penalty when dealing with witnesses and victims - but that approach could be extended, some societies may still see elementary school teaching as unfit for men...

[Lovewyrm]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I could in fact not squeeze a point out of that because even if I felt inclined to invite my Black Friend (tm) into my whites only church, he'd be met at the door and told to get lost. And very possibly me too for trying that crap. Then we'd both die in the deadly accident on the way home to drown our sorrows over the injustices of society.



It doesn't limit my actions though. Regardless of my default -2 reaction roll to Mr. Freeman Black I could still choose to try to take him to my church and seat him with my family in the front. I just couldn't get him in and would probably acquire a Bad Reputation for trying particularly if it was part of a pattern of rebellion against social norms.

Note incidentally that Intolerance causes a reaction roll penalty on both sides but Social Stigma often does not. Freeman Black doesn't have a negative reaction modifier to a 19th century white person who has the normal -2 reaction modifier to him, because he's used to it. He expects it. Now, Thongor the Barbarian does have a negative reaction to the city folk who who react to him at -3 because he's not actually from the culture that regards him as a "barbarian". If the reference setting is The Barbarous Wilds, and there's a guy from the city there, then he is the one who has a social stigma, and if he retains the prejudices of his homeland that only adds to the chance that he'll be quickly murdered.

I think we essentially have come to similar conclusions about the sexism thing, but from different angles.

You touch on the black folks being used to it all and therefore not 'rolling' for reactions (often enough to make it noteworthy).

But that when pressed on the issue, someone who doesn't actually outright hate the other party, might get intro trouble by those who take it one step further.

Just like Freeman Black and white Character can cooperate etc.
They still are under objections, and could get into actual trouble by more hardline members of the overall ideologies that create the division in the first place.

Just like a woman could overall be a very mild second grade citizen overall, with a generally pervasive mindset of "they just ain't as good as men".
At the relatively low penalty of -1, but in such a society where that even is a thing, you might have people that just take it a lot farther, to extents that would probably warrant a "roll" for it.

The difference between verbal abuse and the threat of physical injury, for example.
You could very well get numb to words, but...the sticks and stones coming at you might still be due to added intolerances, sadism, bullying, perhaps even bloodlust by the ones wielding the rocks and cudgels.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

It's not RAW, but I've always taken reaction penalties for Social Stigma to be situation dependent. .

It is totally RAW for a GM to use their judgement to decide what task difficulty modifiers apply to any roll based on the circumstances that apply to a given situation.

[dcarson]

And as several classic mystery series (Mrs. Marple, Maude Silver) show, it matters how you approach things. If they say they are investigating the murder they don't get answers, they get criticized for being out of their place. If they are just gossipy old ladies they learn lots.

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

It's not RAW, but I've always taken reaction penalties for Social Stigma to be situation dependent. As long as you "stay in your lane" the Stigma might not apply. If you play it correctly, you might even be able to use your Stigma to your advantage. Go beyond your social role and penalties apply.

For example, if it's pertinent to their job and they behave in an obsequious enough fashion (a successful Fast Talk or Savoir Faire (Servant) roll) a slave might not have a penalty if they ask their master for necessary clarification to perform some task they've just been assigned.

If a slave tries to take command of a situation, even if it's an emergency that they're best equipped to handle, they'll have penalties. People might not respect their authority or they might get beaten or killed later for being uppity.

Well reasoned enough that it SHOULD be added to RAW. I am unlikely, as a member of the aristocracy, to have a poor reaction to a member of the underclass acting "properly." Sam Gamgee doing the field cookery or backing up his "master," yep, he's in his lane, well done, keep up the good work. Sam Gamgee telling us what the battle strategy is going to be, he's going to get a lot of funny looks.