Rewrite Lt Harris's arc redside so it's not so offensive

[justicebeliever]

At the time I wrote it I just saw a ‘standard’ hero situation. But I had written a woman character who was a victim of domestic violence who needed rescuing. Unoriginal and casually, unintentionally sexist.

 

Women who need rescuing from domestic violence don't exist? Cool story bro. Maybe she just needed to suddenly become an Uberfrau like in your dialog edit.

 

What are you talking about?  It's not a real story...It's a story that HE wrote...Are we in such a place that we can't even criticize our own writing?  Seriously...If you don't like the changes he's suggesting than don't like them - but attacking people's morality over this?  Seems unnecessary

[Super Atom]

That said, isnt this potentially a slippery slope if this is changed on the reasoning of having a real world analogue? Like, instances where you are using violence by a Male player character to defeat female npcs... as ludicrous an example that is, isnt that worse since you are actually doing it especially if you're a Male villain beating up female protagonists?

 

It's exactly that. Soon we're changing terra arc and then the orphanage arc, and then we're removing "Hellion girlfriends" and soon there just won't be target-able women in the game. This entire thread is one person over-reacting to a story line. Changing this story line just because shes a women and therefor nothing bad should happen to her is probably more sexist than the actual story line. "Shes a women so she shouldn't get killed" ok bud

 

On a side, the nav text could probably be changed to "Defeat the longbow" or "Defeat lt page". The girlfriend thing doesn't make too much sense given the story.

[jack_nomind]

This entire thread is one person over-reacting to a story line.

 

I'm a second person over-reacting to this story line.  It genuinely bothers me.

[Steampunkette]

If people poisoned Orphanages on the regular it'd make sense to compare the two... but they don't. So it doesn't.

 

Which is always great consolation to lone victims everywhere.

 

I'm... trying to parse your reasoning, here, but I just can't.

 

Because individual children are poisoned (Typically by their mothers, fathers generally pull the trigger or use another weapon because, again, cultural conditioning!) in rare instances (because no matter how you slice it that's a pretty rare freaking occurence) we should place the same level of cultural weight to poisoning an orphanage (which... has that even happened in a hundred years?) that should be applied to women being murdered by would be paramours (Which happens with shocking regularity)?

 

... I mean... that's a unique hill to die on, friend, but so long as you're on it rather than me... Go for it.

 

Isnt there an arc where you poison an orphanage?

 

Just making sure that one is cool too

 

... not only has it been commented on, it's also not a pervasive cultural issue in the modern world..?

 

Like... you get that's why this is being brought up, right? Not "It's a bad thing to do!" but "It's a bad thing to do that is frighteningly common in the world today and based entirely on the sort of sexist/misogynistic violence which is so pervasive to western culture that you can hardly play a video game, read a comic, or see a movie/tv-show without it being placed front and center"

 

If people poisoned Orphanages on the regular it'd make sense to compare the two... but they don't. So it doesn't.

 

That is fair, and that is what I get for only having a moment to look and respond.

 

That said, isnt this potentially a slippery slope if this is changed on the reasoning of having a real world analogue? Like, instances where you are using violence by a Male player character to defeat female npcs... as ludicrous an example that is, isnt that worse since you are actually doing it especially if you're a Male villain beating up female protagonists?

 

Slippery Slopes are a logical fallacy. They assume that because A to B, therefore C through Z must occur. As if humans can't draw a line of difference at any point between B and Z.

 

A superhero punching criminals regardless of their gender on the basis of the socially acceptable nature of punching criminals is not sexist. If he were to ONLY punch female criminals, or ONLY punch male criminals, then sexism could hold weight in the discussion (either a personal hatred of women leading him to ignore crimes committed by mens, or a more traditionalist 'benevolent sexism' based on cultural assumptions of women's weakness)

 

Similarly, a villain kills whoever between him and his goal is probably not going to be targeted with calls of sexism unless he explicitly targets only shit that women own or otherwise are in control of/protect.

[Super Atom]

This entire thread is one person over-reacting to a story line.

 

I'm a second person over-reacting to this story line.  It genuinely bothers me.

 

Why? Do you get upset every time you have to kill a female in game purely because they're a female? Should females never be used in tragedy? Should we only allow men to have tragic FICTIONAL story lines that progress a dialogue about the entire situation?

 

Slippery Slopes are a logical fallacy.

 

Not in this situation it isn't, it's directly targeting violence twords women which there are other arcs that do so. To assume eventually the same people would want those changed is not unreasonable.

[Steampunkette]

That said, isnt this potentially a slippery slope if this is changed on the reasoning of having a real world analogue? Like, instances where you are using violence by a Male player character to defeat female npcs... as ludicrous an example that is, isnt that worse since you are actually doing it especially if you're a Male villain beating up female protagonists?

 

It's exactly that. Soon we're changing terra arc and then the orphanage arc, and then we're removing "Hellion girlfriends" and soon there just won't be target-able women in the game. This entire thread is one person over-reacting to a story line. Changing this story line just because shes a women and therefor nothing bad should happen to her is probably more sexist than the actual story line. "Shes a women so she shouldn't get killed" ok bud

 

On a side, the nav text could probably be changed to "Defeat the longbow" or "Defeat lt page". The girlfriend thing doesn't make too much sense given the story.

 

Pat Robertson once said that it's a long downward slide to legalizing sex with ducks if two men can stand side by side in marriage.

 

Slippery Slopes are a fallacy. An argument from emotion presenting a terrible outcome as the clear result from an only tangentially related topic (In Robertson's case: Expanding marriage rights to gay couples being equated to expanding marriage rights to bestiality. In yours, explicit targeting of women in retaliation for rejection becoming an outright ban on violence against female characters at all)

 

Stop it.

[justicebeliever]

That is fair, and that is what I get for only having a moment to look and respond.

 

That said, isnt this potentially a slippery slope if this is changed on the reasoning of having a real world analogue? Like, instances where you are using violence by a Male player character to defeat female npcs... as ludicrous an example that is, isnt that worse since you are actually doing it especially if you're a Male villain beating up female protagonists?

 

Most slippery slopes never slip.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope.  I post this not to demean your argument, because I believe it's well intentioned.  But they always assume that there can't be a middle ground between one example and everything...

 

But regardless, I'm with Steampunkette, who, like me, has suggested that the story need NOT be changed.  I'd be fine with a warning if the storyline does trigger people in a bad way, as long as they are provided an out (their gameplay shouldn't be stopped if they need to skip it).  I'd also be OK with someone (from the community) rewriting it and suggesting that to the community.  Who know's, we might like it better...

[Super Atom]

Pat Robertson once said that it's a long downward slide to legalizing sex with ducks if two men can stand side by side in marriage.

 

Slippery Slopes are a fallacy. An argument from emotion presenting a terrible outcome as the clear result from an only tangentially related topic (In Robertson's case: Expanding marriage rights to gay couples being equated to expanding marriage rights to bestiality)

 

Stop it.

 

 

and again i urge you to think for longer than 5 seconds. This arc is similar to the terra arc. She is forced to become a monster and lay eggs. Slippery slope absolutely applies because there is enough evidence to point that this is the next "This is sexist" arc to get changed hence "slippery slope". Don't strawman with the gay rights analogy either, it's kind of insulting.

[GamerKate]

+1 to changing Mariska Page's display name.

+10 to an option at the beginning of the fight to betray Harris a few minutes early and help her, either letting her leave (a "rogue" style ending) or sending her back to Arachnos for processing/ransoming/etc (the "villain" style ending).

 

I don't like the Longbow multi-arc specifically because of the Harris portion.  I wouldn't call it fridging because this isn't Harris' story (he "grows" into a potted plant), but whatever it's called, it's distasteful even as a villain.  'Neither elegant nor creative,' nor is specifically Page's death required for our objectives.

 

I agree with this. The story works as it's written, but it would be more villanously elegant to betray Harris early and discard him as the crazy tool that he is, while capturing Lt Page for Arachnos. Letting him kill her to no gain is not nearly as much fun as betraying him, IMO.

How about just scrapping the mission and replacing it with a simple dialog option at the end.

"Harris, security there is still too strong but I can help you. Take these bombs, place them all over the base. I'll set the timer so you can get out."

Option 1: give bombs with a 60 second timer set. -Counts the same as completing the mission and sparing Harris.

Option 2: give bombs with a sabotaged timer. -Counts the same as completing the mission and killing Harris.

Option 3: give bombs filled with knockout gas. -New option. Harris, Page, and the rest all live. You gift Arachnos with a Longbow base full of incapacitated soldiers. Less experience reward but a larger inf. reward.

 

ROFL Option 3 is EEEVIL! I love it.

 

MCM

[justicebeliever]

This entire thread is one person over-reacting to a story line.

 

I'm a second person over-reacting to this story line.  It genuinely bothers me.

 

Why? Do you get upset every time you have to kill a female in game purely because they're a female? Should females never be used in tragedy? Should we only allow men to have tragic FICTIONAL story lines that progress a dialogue about the entire situation?

 

Slippery Slopes are a logical fallacy.

 

Not in this situation it isn't, it's directly targeting violence twords women which there are other arcs that do so. To assume eventually the same people would want those changed is not unreasonable.

 

By my count there are at least 4 people who aren't a fan of the storyline.  So let's at least not pretend that any ONE person is the issue here.  It's clearly a divisive issue...

 

So let's turn this around...Why are you arguing FOR the storyline so much.  What about the storyline do you like so much that editing it would cause you to enjoy the game less?

 

And no, I am not insinuating that ANYONE likes the storyline because it's about killing women.  If you do think that, you are a monster and should have no voice here.  So I'm assuming ALL the posters here do not have that as their motivation.

 

EDIT:  Changed "removing" to "editing"...No one is advocating removing the storyline wholesale (which is a fact - not ONE poster has advocated for this)

[Steampunkette]

Pat Robertson once said that it's a long downward slide to legalizing sex with ducks if two men can stand side by side in marriage.

 

Slippery Slopes are a fallacy. An argument from emotion presenting a terrible outcome as the clear result from an only tangentially related topic (In Robertson's case: Expanding marriage rights to gay couples being equated to expanding marriage rights to bestiality)

 

Stop it.

 

 

and again i urge you to think for longer than 5 seconds. This arc is similar to the terra arc. She is forced to become a monster and lay eggs. Slippery slope absolutely applies because there is enough evidence to point that this is the next "This is sexist" arc to get changed hence "slippery slope".

 

I don't think you understand this, yet... Slippery Slope NEVER APPLIES. It's a logical fallacy.

 

Maybe someone will present the Terra arc as being problematic. Maybe they'll do it as a result of this discussion. But any argument about that is a separate argument. Not a "Continual Trend"

 

And it absolutely won't lead to "Female Characters are Immune to attack!"

 

See, it's that last part of it where you go from a reasonable discussion "If this arc is a problem, would this other arc also be a problem for similar reasons?" straight to "PANIC and DESTRUCTION!"

 

"A is B. Is C also B?" is a continuing discussion. "A is B, therefore C, D, E, F, G, and all other letters are also and thus we can't have anything related to A or B unless we ignore A is B!" is a logical fallacy. It presents an emotionally charged potential outcome of -many- different discussions down the line as the logical outcome of making the current decision.

 

It is maddening. Stop it.

 

Also, the patronizing ad hominem "Think for 5 seconds"? REALLY not conducive to constructive discussion.

[Super Atom]

By my count there are at least 4 people who aren't a fan of the storyline.  So let's at least not pretend that any ONE person is the issue here.  It's clearly a divisive issue...

 

So let's turn this around...Why are you arguing FOR the storyline so much.  What about the storyline do you like so much that removing it would cause you to enjoy the game less?

 

And no, I am not insinuating that ANYONE likes the storyline because it's about killing women.  If you do think that, you are a monster and should have no voice here.  So I'm assuming ALL the posters here do not have that as their motivation.

 

Poor wording on my part, i apologize that this became your focus. People are being over dramatic ;)

 

I'm not arguing FOR the story line, merely that changing it on claims of sexism is silly. I don't see an issue with the story line because It's not suppose to make you feel good about what you did. I don't see a problem in using a female character in tragedy in one direction or the other. We shouldn't immediately remove stuff just because it's against a women. If the storyline was killing her because shes a female and females don't deserve life then sure but that's not what this is.

[Super Atom]

Pat Robertson once said that it's a long downward slide to legalizing sex with ducks if two men can stand side by side in marriage.

 

Slippery Slopes are a fallacy. An argument from emotion presenting a terrible outcome as the clear result from an only tangentially related topic (In Robertson's case: Expanding marriage rights to gay couples being equated to expanding marriage rights to bestiality)

 

Stop it.

 

 

and again i urge you to think for longer than 5 seconds. This arc is similar to the terra arc. She is forced to become a monster and lay eggs. Slippery slope absolutely applies because there is enough evidence to point that this is the next "This is sexist" arc to get changed hence "slippery slope".

 

I don't think you understand this, yet... Slippery Slope NEVER APPLIES. It's a logical fallacy.

 

Maybe someone will present the Terra arc as being problematic. Maybe they'll do it as a result of this discussion. But any argument about that is a separate argument. Not a "Continual Trend"

 

And it absolutely won't lead to "Female Characters are Immune to attack!"

 

See, it's that last part of it where you go from a reasonable discussion "If this arc is a problem, would this other arc also be a problem for similar reasons?" straight to "PANIC and DESTRUCTION!"

 

"A is B. Is C also B?" is a continuing discussion. "A is B, therefore C, D, E, F, G, and all other letters are also and thus we can't have anything related to A or B unless we ignore A is B!" is a logical fallacy. It presents an emotionally charged potential outcome of -many- different discussions down the line as the logical outcome of making the current decision.

 

It is maddening. Stop it.

 

Also, the patronizing ad hominem "Think for 5 seconds"? REALLY not conducive to constructive discussion.

 

You're arguing semantics at this point and trying to invalidate others opinions that this correlates directly with other story lines in doing so. Most of the arguesment in this thread are boiled down entirely to 

Women should not have to die for men to deal with their shit.

and in doing invites the comparison, if you don't like the term slippery slope then we won't use it for your sake. The concern that this will lead to more changes is absolutely valid however due to the sheer evidence from wording using in the arguments to change the story-arc.

 

Maybe it was rude, i apologize for coming off as rude. I don't know you outside of this and it was wrong to attack you. What i should have said better and with more respect was don't assume our concerns are invalid just because of the term used.

 

edit; my phone is just auto correcting everything. silly phone

[EggKookoo]

Because individual children are poisoned (Typically by their mothers, fathers generally pull the trigger or use another weapon because, again, cultural conditioning!) in rare instances (because no matter how you slice it that's a pretty rare freaking occurence) we should place the same level of cultural weight to poisoning an orphanage (which... has that even happened in a hundred years?) that should be applied to women being murdered by would be paramours (Which happens with shocking regularity)?

 

... I mean... that's a unique hill to die on, friend, but so long as you're on it rather than me... Go for it.

 

Imagine telling the victim of a crime that they have to shelve their sense of disenfranchisement because the offense against them isn't, I dunno, fashionable or something.

[GamerKate]

Isnt there an arc where you poison an orphanage?

 

Just making sure that one is cool too

 

... not only has it been commented on, it's also not a pervasive cultural issue in the modern world..?

 

Like... you get that's why this is being brought up, right? Not "It's a bad thing to do!" but "It's a bad thing to do that is frighteningly common in the world today and based entirely on the sort of sexist/misogynistic violence which is so pervasive to western culture that you can hardly play a video game, read a comic, or see a movie/tv-show without it being placed front and center"

 

If people poisoned Orphanages on the regular it'd make sense to compare the two... but they don't. So it doesn't.

 

That is fair, and that is what I get for only having a moment to look and respond.

 

That said, isnt this potentially a slippery slope if this is changed on the reasoning of having a real world analogue? Like, instances where you are using violence by a Male player character to defeat female npcs... as ludicrous an example that is, isnt that worse since you are actually doing it especially if you're a Male villain beating up female protagonists?

 

I don’t think it is. Adding women Skulls and Hellions Etc as well as the men characters as street mobs and minions etc in missions is just portraying a world which is more inclusive. The women goons we beat up are not suffering due to their gender, they’re suffering because they’re Cannon fodder just like their men comrades.

 

MCM

[justicebeliever]

I'm not arguing FOR the story line, merely that changing it on claims of sexism is silly. I don't see an issue with the story line because It's not suppose to make you feel good about what you did. I don't see a problem in using a female character in tragedy in one direction or the other. We shouldn't immediately remove stuff just because it's against a women. If the storyline was killing her because shes a female and females don't deserve life then sure but that's not what this is.

 

In this case, there is a binary decision that can be made...

 

a.) Change the story

b.) Keep it as it is

 

OR (I just said binary didn't I)

c.) I don't care...but I don't have an issue with the story

 

If you are C - then just say so.  But don't get in the way of people who are offended and would like to see a change.

 

If you are not C, then pick - are you A or B?  And if you are B - please tell me why you want to KEEP the story.

 

Saying it doesn't need to be changed isn't really an argument.  Nothing in the entire game needs to be changed.  The whole game could live in a bubble of non-change forever and no one's life would be harmed.

 

So do you really care?  And if so, why?

 

 

[jack_nomind]

I'm not arguing FOR the story line, merely that changing it on claims of sexism is silly. I don't see an issue with the story line because It's not suppose to make you feel good about what you did. I don't see a problem in using a female character in tragedy in one direction or the other. We shouldn't immediately remove stuff just because it's against a women. If the storyline was killing her because shes a female and females don't deserve life then sure but that's not what this is.

 

The storyline isn't killing her off -- we are, as players, and I feel like I've got no agency in that.  I'm gonna betray Harris in like, five seconds anyway, so why can't I do it a few minutes early?  It's one of those "shout at the screen" moments.

 

As I mentioned it also bothers me that she's listed as "Harris' GF" rather than "Lt. Page" or etc.  It makes it seem like rather than a worthy foe (which, given the conceit of the storyline, she pretty much ought to be) she's just a prop with boobs.

[GamerKate]

That said, isnt this potentially a slippery slope if this is changed on the reasoning of having a real world analogue? Like, instances where you are using violence by a Male player character to defeat female npcs... as ludicrous an example that is, isnt that worse since you are actually doing it especially if you're a Male villain beating up female protagonists?

 

It's exactly that. Soon we're changing terra arc and then the orphanage arc, and then we're removing "Hellion girlfriends" and soon there just won't be target-able women in the game. This entire thread is one person over-reacting to a story line. Changing this story line just because shes a women and therefor nothing bad should happen to her is probably more sexist than the actual story line. "Shes a women so she shouldn't get killed" ok bud

 

 

 

You are the only person who has mentioned any of those extra things in this thread.

 

And you misunderstand the objection. My call for changing  the story is not because ‘nothing bad should ever happen to a woman’ in CoH story arcs.

 

I did not say ‘she’s a woman so she shouldn’t get killed’.

 

I said ‘she shouldn’t get killed just to provide emotional labour for a man’

 

MCM

[justicebeliever]

Because individual children are poisoned (Typically by their mothers, fathers generally pull the trigger or use another weapon because, again, cultural conditioning!) in rare instances (because no matter how you slice it that's a pretty rare freaking occurence) we should place the same level of cultural weight to poisoning an orphanage (which... has that even happened in a hundred years?) that should be applied to women being murdered by would be paramours (Which happens with shocking regularity)?

 

... I mean... that's a unique hill to die on, friend, but so long as you're on it rather than me... Go for it.

 

Imagine telling the victim of a crime that they have to shelve their sense of disenfranchisement because the offense against them isn't, I dunno, fashionable or something.

 

EggKooKoo - you are clearly just playing devil's advocate here, or the argument would be - let's get rid of CoV in totality.  And City of Heroes, because it too deals with violence...

 

But since that isn't your argument (and if it is, you picked an odd game to play), let's stick the specifics and not abstract them beyond the pale.

 

And I'm also assuming that when you suggest gender violence is "fashionable" you are being facetious, which would be unhelpful in a serious discussion about a serious issue.

 

So my question to you - why are you for the current storyline as is and unchanged?

[Super Atom]

she's just a prop with boobs.

and when you're killing all the men in the game, are they not just a prop with a weenie?

 

As I mentioned it also bothers me that she's listed as "Harris' GF" rather than "Lt. Page" or etc.

 

agree 100%

 

So do you really care?  And if so, why?

 

I don't care if the story line gets changed. I do care that it could lead to more story lines being changed under the same premise.

 

I said ‘she shouldn’t get killed just to provide emotional labour for a man’

 

this is exactly why I'm concerned eventually this topic will be about other Arcs. This arc is not unique and happens for both genders throughout the game. The carnival and dominatrix alone are all that really need to get mentioned to support the other side getting the same treatment. Like i said above, i agree with you on the nav text. She isn't his girlfriend and it shouldn't say she is. Also, isn't she apart of longbow and in arachnos's way? she would have to be killed just like all the other men and women "Fodder" of longbow to accomplish that.

[Leogunner]

I don’t see why tropes or cliches should be exempt from being examined for social justice purposes. There are racist cliches we don’t allow anymore, for example, rightly sp.

 

MCM

 

Social Justice, itself, is a corruption of true justice by adding that qualifier on it.  That being said, I'm a subscriber of the philosophy that prescribes actions based on actual harm, not merely perceived harm.  Even racist depictions have an underlying purpose in society.  The problem is, people have be come overly sensitive to their perceptions that they view malice, harm and violence when there is none and turn a blind eye to things that are harmful and damaging to society.  Like, can you believe people are suggesting there be racial segregation in schools again under the guise of social justice!?  And it appalls me that people assume pandering to people's sensibilities in a manner like is being explained in this thread is somehow helpful or empowering when in reality, it's the exact opposite!  You infantilize women and "people of color" by PC washing media for them.  But I assume you don't see it that way, right?  You're trying to protect people from facing struggles from past interactions or PTSD, yes?  You want to broaden people's perceptions to certain depictions and inform them of morally sound representations of scenarios, hmm?  You want to stick it to those mainstream narrative tropes that encapsulates all the wrongs facing certain minorities?

[justicebeliever]

So do you really care?  And if so, why?

I don't care if the story line gets changed. I do care that it could lead to more story lines being changed under the same premise.

 

But this is where the slippery slope argument falls apart. 

1.) It supposes that one change will most certainly lead to a 2nd change - no one who has suggested changing the storyline has made the insinuation

2.) It supposes that we can't have a separate discussion, based on the merits, when the next change is requested.

 

So instead of discussion this storyline on IT's merits, we are discussion potential future storyline requests based on potential merits...

 

If you don't care about this storyline, then just leave it at that.

 

"I don't care if we change this storyline, but I don't want us to go willy-nilly and change every storyline..." is a perfectly valid opinion without jumping into a slippery slope.

[Steampunkette]

Because individual children are poisoned (Typically by their mothers, fathers generally pull the trigger or use another weapon because, again, cultural conditioning!) in rare instances (because no matter how you slice it that's a pretty rare freaking occurence) we should place the same level of cultural weight to poisoning an orphanage (which... has that even happened in a hundred years?) that should be applied to women being murdered by would be paramours (Which happens with shocking regularity)?

 

... I mean... that's a unique hill to die on, friend, but so long as you're on it rather than me... Go for it.

 

Imagine telling the victim of a crime that they have to shelve their sense of disenfranchisement because the offense against them isn't, I dunno, fashionable or something.

 

Were you a poisoned orphan or something? I ... I don't understand where you're going with this, here. Why is this example so key to your identity when there's several missions about lawyers getting killed or kidnapped for not getting their clients off on all charges, endless muggings, and so forth which are all much more common than poisoning of orphans..?

 

Are you trying to suggest that it's a binary situation where ALL violence must be taboo or no violence is? I Kant understand that.

 

 

 

 

[Leogunner]

Through art we've conditioned people to see this as the way things happen. The way it works. Once those ideas and mindsets are stuffed together in an echo chamber long enough you get the "Nice Guy" and eventually the Incel. Hey, remember Elliot Rodger? Yeah. This is how he wound up where he was that lead him to going out and shooting women 'cause even the ones he never approached didn't fling themselves at him for sexual favors.

 

Have you looked into the Elliot Rodger story?

 

I'd sooner blame the fact he grew up in a broken home as a momma's boy taught to hate his father who is the person in his life meant to teach him about women and relationships.  Media had nothing to do with it, unless you want to bring up media depictions of mothers getting undue custody of children when, in reality, it's probably better if the father raises the children after age 8 (especially for boys).  But I guess that's a media depiction we've been socialize to reject...

 

 

Isnt there an arc where you poison an orphanage?

 

Just making sure that one is cool too

 

... not only has it been commented on, it's also not a pervasive cultural issue in the modern world..?

 

Ooooh ho ho ho...ho oh no...lol no no no.  You don't want to touch on the modern acceptance of poisoned orphans subject.  No no no...

[Galaxy Brain]

That is fair, and that is what I get for only having a moment to look and respond.

 

That said, isnt this potentially a slippery slope if this is changed on the reasoning of having a real world analogue? Like, instances where you are using violence by a Male player character to defeat female npcs... as ludicrous an example that is, isnt that worse since you are actually doing it especially if you're a Male villain beating up female protagonists?

 

Most slippery slopes never slip.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope.  I post this not to demean your argument, because I believe it's well intentioned.  But they always assume that there can't be a middle ground between one example and everything...

 

But regardless, I'm with Steampunkette, who, like me, has suggested that the story need NOT be changed.  I'd be fine with a warning if the storyline does trigger people in a bad way, as long as they are provided an out (their gameplay shouldn't be stopped if they need to skip it).  I'd also be OK with someone (from the community) rewriting it and suggesting that to the community.  Who know's, we might like it better...

 

Just to be clear, I'm behind the change here to make the mission more appropriate for today's audience. Bringing up slippery slope was a bit extreme sure, but I dont think it is unwarranted!

 

The arc in question is a specifically villainous mission, where the player character is assumed to be an evil-doer. Whether this is just a silly moustache twirler, simple thief, or the next great evil incarnate, their moral compass is supposed to be pointed way south. I think the suggestion made earlier to just warn about content would be best given that yeah, there are dark topics when your character is supposed to be doing messed up stuff!