On the one hand it's true that history was politically incorrect compared to the kind of radical progressives that use "RPGnet Forums", but on the other hand the barbarism often gets exaggerated by atrocity stories told about enemies. For example, there's no evidence that anyone was ever actually put to death by scaphism (it was a story Greeks told about how nasty Persians were) and America in the 19th century wild western era only hanged a few dozen people a year for violent crimes. Fantasy settings are often absolutely ludicrously violent to the point where society is basically the Khmer Rouge killing fields and wouldn't survive more than a few years. This is especially true in video games, I can't really speak for tabletop games since they were before my time. What I'd go for is a balanced approach where realistic sexism/racism exists with people throwing around hilarious slurs as appropriate, but it isn't normal to straight up murder everyone you meet with a sword on sight.
Japan wasn't at all close to winning World War 2 since their industry was tiny compared to the allies. The best they could have done was take over the small parts of Asia they had before the war and then industrialised into a major power at peace.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
Well... we can't ever say for sure because it's not like records of the past are super easy to come by - or are even 100% truthful when they are.
It does bug me when fiction has the whole "Oh a minority showed up somewhere - they are instantly oppressed to the worst extent" - as if even majorities in areas don't have better things to do than hassle people.
On the other hand, I'm not sure things were quite as rosy as some people think. Suffice to say, survival was paramount. So a lot of times people would avoid violence just because of the risk to themselves. Especially in places without modern medicine where a sufficiently deep cut anywhere could kill someone.
I like Shield Hero. I don't like how some of the stuff is handled (slavery's always going to be touchy), but if you have a sympathetic bone in your body you can see why someone would be driven to such an extreme as the MC was. I also noticed they don't like Goblin Slayer, and I assume it's because of a badly handled rape scene in the first episode. Thing is, if you're a fan of dark fantasy RPGs at all, Goblin Slayer will be right up your alley provided you can get past the cringey rape scene that gave me some of the most confusing feelings in my life. But no, we can't have nuance in our weaboo shit so into the memory hole it goes!
EDIT: Forgot to mention, the rape scene in episode 1 is the only actual rape scene. There's a lot of result of rape and some rape survivors talking about being raped, but you don't see it happen on screen anymore. A cheap way to make sure we hate the goblins? Yeah, but it works to get us in the pretty insane MC's headspace.
Uh... are you talking about what happened to Female monk?
Even in episode 1, nothing in Goblin Slayer is ever shown on screen. Even in the light novels (which I've read) things are always
implied and the author seems to realize that leaving things to the imagination of the reader are so much worse.
Which is of course why SJWs hate it. If they imagine a republican getting elected is a death sentence, then of course they're just going to freak out over having to imagine actual bad shit.
I think they hate Goblin Slayer for its racist overtones more than anything else.
Ironic since in the series Goblins are everything they claim right-wingers are. (though when the light novel gives you insight into their minds they are... well a little too much like RPG mods)
I’d be asking what possible goal a player could have in mind for playing an intersex character. Is it relevant to the game? Does it confer an in-game advantage?
A fundamental law of human behaviour is that nobody ever does anything that does not benefit them in some way. If there are no benefits to playing an intersex character in-game, then the benefit must be ex-game, that is to say, of benefit to the player, not the character.
And what advantage would it bring the player, then?
The only logical answer that presents readily is that the player is trying to win asspats and accolades for STUNNING AND BRAVE attacks on the assumption that RPG characters don’t need physical deformities to be well-rounded.
This is a choice being made to stroke an ego and gain some kind of smug moral superiority. In a GAME.
It’s a piss-poor character hook dreamed up a progressive fruitcake so their fat, autistic co-players grind their teeth jealously and have to dream up different ways of advancing their characters to the next step of the special snowflake ziggurat.
As a GM I have no issues with anyone playing intersex, or gay, or crippled, or retarded, or bright fucking purple if they can come up with a reason and/or backstory. But if an intersex character constantly walks around in my games (based in The Empire from Warhammer Fantasy) blathering about having mutant genitals, they can expect to attract the attention of Witch Hunters, violent religious fanatics, and some very shadowy groups that love dissecting chaos mutants. Thanks for coming- would you rather be burned alive, vivisected or just plain beaten to death by a mob with torches and pitchforks?
At this point I'm surprised RPG.net hasn't invented a game where all characters start out as white, straight males and then as you level up, you gain oppression features.
"You are now level 2!"
"Awesome! I wish to become black."
"You're not taking the trans trait?"
"Nah, I'm saving that for level 4."
