Playing Against the Trend: Non-Villainous Anti-PSR, Reactionary etc. Characters

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by ClayDowling

I was curious, because I didn't remember that from the setting, so I did some reading. The actual text says that eating real flesh is viewed about like hunting, fishing and trapping is today.

I think I read in some book that being known to eat realflesh can be damaging to one's reputation. It need not be a meme supported by the majority - just a significant minority.

Originally Posted by ClayDowling

Based on that, I would expect that outside of the E.U., where raising and eating meat animals is outlawed, it would be considered socially acceptable. I live in Ann Arbor, one of the more liberal cities in the U.S., and even here, anti-hunting and anti-fishing sentiments are rare, and raising your own meat animals is not only socially acceptable but considered an honorable activity, even among the very liberal. Even the vegetarians I know are fine with other people eating animals taken through predation.

At this point, I wonder what 'liberal' has to do with it. Liberty involves lowering Control Rating and banning some stuff people eat involves raising it. Can't have it both ways.

Anyway, I think the fauxflesh/realflesh controversy that exists in some cultures is a 'safe' example for the modern audience, in that most of us are likely to accept either choice as a matter of opinion, culture and upbringing. Conversely, many people in the modern audience seem to treat (by 'gut reaction') bioroids as 'humans with funny powerz' and, to a lesser extent, AIs 'playable characters', and thus rooting for their legal personhood. Of course, it's not that simple: e.g. there seem to be supporters and opponents of biochauvinism; there are people who are okay with AIs being brainwashed into Honesty and those who aren't (but doing it to biosophonts seems to be less popular either way).

Anyway, I wonder which positions on the many controversial topics in THS make players and/or characters automatically classify a character as a villain/jerk/psychologically unhealthy, in what ways such auto-classifications are subverted or avoided, how much pushing the boundaries has one seen characters get away with etc.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

At this point, I wonder what 'liberal' has to do with it. Liberty involves lowering Control Rating and banning some stuff people eat involves raising it. Can't have it both ways.

LOL, good joke, Vicky!

Or perhaps that wasn't intended as humor?

Bill seems to be more or less what used to be called a 'liberal.'

Trust me, that's very diifferent from what most Americans mean when they say 'liberal.' And I'm definitely including the left wingers...

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Anyway, I wonder which positions on the many controversial topics in THS make players and/or characters automatically classify a character as a villain/jerk/psychologically unhealthy, in what ways such auto-classifications are subverted or avoided, how much pushing the boundaries has one seen characters get away with etc.

I don't quite understand why you are including the players.

I think THS is veering towards being a crapsack horror world.

This doesn't necessarilly mean that I'm going to play a PC who thinks of things that way.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

At this point, I wonder what 'liberal' has to do with it. Liberty involves lowering Control Rating and banning some stuff people eat involves raising it. Can't have it both ways.

"Liberal" in the United States has not meant that for many decades. That's why we have the word "libertarian"—though a few people still say "classical liberal." By and large, a liberal in the United States is someone who advocates extensive government regulation of economic activity, significant redistribution of income to benefit the poor, and restrictions on freedom of expression to limit negative statements about nonwhite ethnic groups, women, gays and lesbians, the disabled, and other groups seen as disadvantaged. All of these tend to raise the CR of the United States, not lower it.

Bill Stoddard

[Flyndaran]

You guys, stop that. Liberal is not a curse word meaning everything you hate about western society.

Freedoms don't exist without governmental protection, and that requires governmental control of some things.

As to hunting/fishing/etc., freedom may mean protection for the hunted/fished/etc. too. Humans aren't the only thing that exists now, let alone in THS.

I find those things both grotesque and primitively alluring. But from my experiences in the "liberal" Portland Oregon metro area, I am a minority.

People that eat road kill, and/or "vermin" like rodents are the ones viewed as trashy.

[ClayDowling]

What whws said, re: liberalism. Specifically as it relates to food, there are significantly more people in Ann Arbor who are vegetarians for either religious or ethical reasons, and a strong local food movement, including a prominent restaurant and mail order company (Zingermans) that caters to that market.

I like the notion of Quebec adopting a more European attitude on social issues, presumably as separate from the rest of Canada. Some day I will get to actually visit Montreal. Sadly, this year is not the year.

I didn't mean to give the impression that if it wasn't outlawed it was common. I was rebelling instead against the notion of a fifth wave monoculture, where everybody would consider eating dead animals barbaric. Within a region, especially an urban area, I can certainly see that as being the case. But for people living out in the little burbclaves, where per the text hobbyist farming is practiced, I would be shocked if people considered eating animals barbaric, just as people living outside of cities today tend to be fine with hunting and fishing for dinner. I would also imagine that just as today people consider hunting and fishing, and the consumption of wild game, to be luxury activities, eating dead animals would be considered a special occasion rather than a common activity for most people.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by whswhs

"Liberal" in the United States has not meant that for many decades. That's why we have the word "libertarian"—though a few people still say "classical liberal." By and large, a liberal in the United States is someone who advocates extensive government regulation of economic activity, significant redistribution of income to benefit the poor, and restrictions on freedom of expression to limit negative statements about nonwhite ethnic groups, women, gays and lesbians, the disabled, and other groups seen as disadvantaged. All of these tend to raise the CR of the United States, not lower it.

Bill Stoddard

Well-put, Bill. I agree.



Flyn-

I'm actually from Portland, born and bred. I've eaten rodents (squirrels) and once I ate jerky made from a deer that was accidentally struck and killed by a friend's vehicle. This is pretty normal stuff for people I know.

Oregonian men like me don't give a damn what a bunch of silly hipster out-of-state-immigrants think.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

LOL, good joke, Vicky!

Or perhaps that wasn't intended as humor?

Bill seems to be more or less what used to be called a 'liberal.'

Trust me, that's very diifferent from what most Americans mean when they say 'liberal.' And I'm definitely including the left wingers...

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

You guys, stop that. Liberal is not a curse word meaning everything you hate about western society.

Freedoms don't exist without governmental protection, and that requires governmental control of some things.

As to hunting/fishing/etc., freedom may mean protection for the hunted/fished/etc. too. Humans aren't the only thing that exists now, let alone in THS.

I find those things both grotesque and primitively alluring. But from my experiences in the "liberal" Portland Oregon metro area, I am a minority.

People that eat road kill, and/or "vermin" like rodents are the ones viewed as trashy.

I'd rather not turn this thread into another modern-political one, since that would make it lock-bait.

Edit: I did get suspicious when I saw someone accuse EU of being too liberal.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'd rather not turn this thread into another modern-political one, since that would make it lock-bait.

Sorry. I just felt the need to present a slight counter view. It's just that in the U.S. I see a lot more anti-vegetarian animosity than anti-meat. Other than P.E.T.A. but they are merely a very loud insane teeny tiny speck minority of animal lovers. (supposedly)

As to the main point, I understand how hard it might be to play a character with what you personally view to be hard headed destructively wrong views in a non-farcical "evil" manner.
People are weird in how we can be horribly atrocious in some aspects of life, and yet kind and compassionate in others. Like hardened criminals that would protect pets with their lives kind of weird.

I've wondered if I could play a devout religious character in a world without obvious deities, and not make him a caricature.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Anyway, I wonder which positions on the many controversial topics in THS make players and/or characters automatically classify a character as a villain/jerk/psychologically unhealthy, in what ways such auto-classifications are subverted or avoided, how much pushing the boundaries has one seen characters get away with etc.

The THS characters I've played have been Europeans who have generally supported PSR, without getting carried away by them. They would get upset by gross ill-treatment of creatures they consider people, but most of the organisations who do that are criminals by everyone's standards anyway.

There was a case of an astropus who was working at a US construction station in LEO who was smart enough to stow away on a module that was being towed by an EU ship to a Russian orbital hotel, and ask for asylum en-route. We decided to help him: the US station got sniffy about this, but we responded that since they were not supervising their animals in a dangerous environment, we could have suffered damage or injury, and they left it at that rather than have complex lawsuits. As we were a one-ship towing company, we felt it impractical to keep him with us, and passed him onto an asylum society.