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

[Super Atom]

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.

 

I've already answered you but you don't want to accept the answer. Idk how else to help you. The story line is fine IMO, changing it because some people are offended by the subject matter of a villain contact seems dumb to me. If you weren't in some way offended by the subject matter you would be a pretty cold person IMO.

[justicebeliever]

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?

 

Leogunner - I think you are treading into a much more deeply political space than these forums allow.  I hear your argument, and your passion.  I know you aren't trolling here, but tread carefully, there is a code of conduct.

 

But rather turning this into an unwinnable game of personal life philosophies that no one can win...let me ask you - what do you like about the story that makes you want to keep it as is without edits?

[Leogunner]

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

 

This is where that whole "self awareness" concept I was talking about.  Nowhere in the post you quoted, did he attack someone's morality.  He literally just made a post about not liking the suggested changes and nothing more.

[justicebeliever]

I've already answered you but you don't want to accept the answer. Idk how else to help you. The story line is fine IMO, changing it because some people are offended by the subject matter of a villain contact seems dumb to me. If you weren't in some way offended by the subject matter you would be a pretty cold person IMO.

 

I think changing something because people are offended by it, when I don't have a personal stake keeping it as is, seems appropriate to me. 

 

 

[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

 

This is where that whole "self awareness" concept I was talking about.  Nowhere in the post you quoted, did he attack someone's morality.  He literally just made a post about not liking the suggested changes and nothing more.

 

Seriously, he suggested that the poster doesn't think women of domestic violence are worth rescuing.  Seems like a morality attack to me

[capsmackdown]

Wouldn't the easiest way to repair this is to turn Harris into a woman? Anyways, I just don't want time and energy being redirected from the content that would more directly result in the most people having more fun. Things like new powersets, better mechanics, maybe even the occasional new AT.

[Super Atom]

I've already answered you but you don't want to accept the answer. Idk how else to help you. The story line is fine IMO, changing it because some people are offended by the subject matter of a villain contact seems dumb to me. If you weren't in some way offended by the subject matter you would be a pretty cold person IMO.

 

I think changing something because people are offended by it, when I don't have a personal stake keeping it as is, seems appropriate to me.

 

and thus the "slippery slope" argument represents itself.

[Rylas]

I would agree that Lt. Page shouldn't be referred to as "Harris' GF." There was a comment about this being more about mocking Harris for his affection, and I could see that being the case. But unfortunately tone doesn't carry over in text format as well as we'd like. Referring to her by name just makes more sense and leads to less confusion.

 

As for the rest of the suggestion, I can't jump on board. Mentally unstable people do terrible things to other people all the time. It's a tragically sad reality. Obsession isn't a gender specific issue. I'm sure at least some on this forum have seen the film Misery. I'm sure some of us remember the story of a particular astronaut driving cross-country in a diaper. I'm sure the person she was driving to found the situation as unsettling and frightening as anyone who's been stalked and harassed.

 

I understand if "women in freezers" is a trope, but that doesn't by default mean a story using such a trope has fallen for misogynistic bias. If the roles were reversed, one wouldn't claim the arc was condoning man-hating. And to say that reversing the roles wouldn't be the same because it doesn't happen to men on the same level trivializes male victims of stalkers and abusive partners. Let's not do that.

[jack_nomind]

Wouldn't the easiest way to repair this is to turn Harris into a woman? Anyways, I just don't want time and energy being redirected from the content that would more directly result in the most people having more fun. Things like new powersets, better mechanics, maybe even the occasional new AT.

 

I promise that rewriting dialogue won't impact any of those things.

[Steampunkette]

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...

 

Woof. Let's unpack this...

 

Elliot Rodger had his Dad in his manifesto. And his dad's girlfriend. Lived with them through at least 15 for a week at a time. I dunno about you, but I had every "Birds and the Bees" variation from parents, grandparents, and sex ed classes by 13... so... *shrug!* I didn't read his manifesto after age 15 'cause good god the indulgent bullshit of the whole thing became far too much to bear. Don't think his dad being gone had nearly as much impact as you're suggesting...

 

Also the idea that boys need their dad more than their moms for learning relationships is just... so much conjecture and ignores just... SO MUCH. Like. If Elliot Rodger had eventually had kids instead of committing mass murder, with all this shit that's in his manifesto still in his mind: Do you still believe he'd be better to teach his kids how to have relationships over their mother?

 

As to "Media had no impact on it" I just laugh. No one is immune to societal depictions of interactions. You get exposed to a specific perspective long enough and it becomes the one you believe is normal. That's how you get extremists. Whether Incel or Nazi or Daesh. They're all people who have focused in on a narrow enough band of socialization that it becomes the core of their understanding. And media is a powerful tool for it, for good or ill.

 

As to the modern acceptance of poisoned orphans subject... I'm gonna assume you're trolling? Haha. Meme. Good job.

[PaxArcana]

GOOD GRIEF.

 

Is it a story about something horrible happening?  YES, yes it is.

 

Should it therefor be changed?  NO, not only because of that!

 

IT.  IS.  A.  VILLAIN.  STORY.

 

And, seriously, it isn't even the kind of nasty squick story that would be truly hard for the majority of people to play through.  It's petty insecurity and fragile masculinity taken much too far.  And that's all it is.

 

Honestly, I wish there were MORE stories where you were asked to do truly despicable deeds.  When I play a villain, I want him or her (or it - some of my characters are robots, after all) to be completely effing EVIL.  CoV usually only gives is the Kick the Dog level of villainy.  MEH.

[justicebeliever]

I think changing something because people are offended by it, when I don't have a personal stake keeping it as is, seems appropriate to me.

 

and thus the "slippery slope" argument represents itself.

 

If you don't have a personal stake, where's the slope?

 

I think preventing people from making changes, when I am not personally impacted, on the grounds of "well I just don't like change" seems a rather restricting view for a MMORPG where change is norm...

[Leogunner]

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?

 

Leogunner - I think you are treading into a much more deeply political space than these forums allow.  I hear your argument, and your passion.  I know you aren't trolling here, but tread carefully, there is a code of conduct.

 

But rather turning this into an unwinnable game of personal life philosophies that no one can win...let me ask you - what do you like about the story that makes you want to keep it as is without edits?

 

It's a standard story.  The main thing I like about the story is how it brings to the play, the mechanics of zone phasing making certain arcs feel impactful and the world more malleable than what you may have encountered in past MMOs.

 

Overall, the premise is quite elementary.  I may not have glowing praise for the arc, that doesn't mean I'd advocate for changing it.  Players are so caught up in one specific detail, that Harris had feelings for Page.  They are forgetting that Harris felt slighted by his whole unit too or that he went out of his way to kill them all.  They are also forgetting that YOU are an accessory to their deaths as well, not just Harris. 

 

At the end of the day, I'd say despite the basic premise of the story, it accomplished its goal: to illicit an emotional response.  If we have to be protected from our own feelings, then I'll just end my words there.

[Leogunner]

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

 

This is where that whole "self awareness" concept I was talking about.  Nowhere in the post you quoted, did he attack someone's morality.  He literally just made a post about not liking the suggested changes and nothing more.

 

Seriously, he suggested that the poster doesn't think women of domestic violence are worth rescuing.  Seems like a morality attack to me

 

That is literally NOT what was said.

[Super Atom]

If you don't have a personal stake, where's the slope?

 

I think preventing people from making changes, when I am not personally impacted, on the grounds of "well I just don't like change" seems a rather restricting view for a MMORPG where change is norm...

 

You're entirely avoiding the point just to dismiss me and its becoming annoying. I don't want this changed because i don't think its a problem and i wouldn't want anything else to be changed for the same reasons this one is suggested be changed for. Its not a leap or stretch to make the assumption that this will continue forward to more and more especially when its been boiled down to a claim of misogynistic writing.

[Doctor Brainbottle]

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.

 

She's an agent of Longbow, and you're a Villain working your way up the ranks of Arachnos. I wouldn't mind an option to betray Harris BEFORE fighting Page, and make the point sooner and more clearly that fighting her is just Arachnos business and nothing personal, but the fight was going to happen in any case.

[Steampunkette]

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

 

This is where that whole "self awareness" concept I was talking about.  Nowhere in the post you quoted, did he attack someone's morality.  He literally just made a post about not liking the suggested changes and nothing more.

 

Seriously, he suggested that the poster doesn't think women of domestic violence are worth rescuing.  Seems like a morality attack to me

 

That is literally NOT what was said.

^This

 

The guy made the rhetorical suggestion "Oh so women who need protection don't exist?" as a nice Strawman Argument to shove over.

 

'Cause logical fallacies are a big part of the internet...

[Rylas]

I've already answered you but you don't want to accept the answer. Idk how else to help you. The story line is fine IMO, changing it because some people are offended by the subject matter of a villain contact seems dumb to me. If you weren't in some way offended by the subject matter you would be a pretty cold person IMO.

 

I think changing something because people are offended by it, when I don't have a personal stake keeping it as is, seems appropriate to me.

 

To quote Ricky Gervais, "just because you're offended by something, doesn't mean your right." Or as Stephen Fry commented about saying something is offensive, "it has no meaning, it has no purpose, and it has no reason to be respected as a phrase." Where do we draw the line on making sure content isn't offensive? I don't know what the answer to that question would be, but the story arc doesn't teach that anything Harris does is okay to do. If it had, I might be on board with changing something about it. But it explicitly treats it as a bad act and not a morally acceptable course of action.

[Leogunner]

 

Woof. Let's unpack this...

 

Elliot Rodger had his Dad in his manifesto. And his dad's girlfriend. Lived with them through at least 15 for a week at a time. I dunno about you, but I had every "Birds and the Bees" variation from parents, grandparents, and sex ed classes by 13... so... *shrug!* I didn't read his manifesto after age 15 'cause good god the indulgent bullshit of the whole thing became far too much to bear. Don't think his dad being gone had nearly as much impact as you're suggesting...

 

Dealing with women and relationships is more than sex.  Masculinity is more than chasing women.

 

The guy had such a complex, he hated people in relationships.  He needed a DAD to smack in straight and give him confidence.  Instead, he had a mother that turned him against his father.  The situation between BOTH his parents contributed to the issue.  I suppose I shouldn't have said his father could have fixed the situation, but blaming romance in media is just as foolish.

 

Also the idea that boys need their dad more than their moms for learning relationships is just... so much conjecture and ignores just... SO MUCH. Like. If Elliot Rodger had eventually had kids instead of committing mass murder, with all this shit that's in his manifesto still in his mind: Do you still believe he'd be better to teach his kids how to have relationships over their mother?

 

So much conjecture and ignores just....SO MUCH.  But oh, those romance comedies are definitely the ticket lol

 

 

As to "Media had no impact on it" I just laugh. No one is immune to societal depictions of interactions. You get exposed to a specific perspective long enough and it becomes the one you believe is normal. That's how you get extremists. Whether Incel or Nazi or Daesh. They're all people who have focused in on a narrow enough band of socialization that it becomes the core of their understanding. And media is a powerful tool for it, for good or ill.

 

As to the modern acceptance of poisoned orphans subject... I'm gonna assume you're trolling? Haha. Meme. Good job.

 

No meme.  It's gotten worse.  Stop and think about it.

[Steampunkette]

If you don't have a personal stake, where's the slope?

 

I think preventing people from making changes, when I am not personally impacted, on the grounds of "well I just don't like change" seems a rather restricting view for a MMORPG where change is norm...

 

You're entirely avoiding the point just to dismiss me and its becoming annoying. I don't want this changed because i don't think its a problem and i wouldn't want anything else to be changed for the same reasons this one is suggested be changed for. Its not a leap or stretch to make the assumption that this will continue forward to more and more especially when its been boiled down to a claim of misogynistic writing.

 

You don't have a point is the problem, Atom. You have an emotionally charge conjecture that "At some point" terrible things will happen because of a decision made on this topic based on a long series of other discussions that will all, obviously, come out in the perfect way to create that catastrophic ending.

 

That's what the Slippery Slope is.

 

At any point between "Yeah, we should maybe change this or add some kind of note to it" and "That's it! No violence against women at all!" people could say "Nah. There's a point where this makes sense to do, and this point is beyond it, so let's not." and end the "Slope" you're trying to grease up.

 

There's no slippery slope. There's a series of potential discussions that may not even happen. And at any point people can decide one way or the other. In fact, people could decide one way on some of them, and another way on others. And they could do it in different orders!

 

No one here is invalidating your argument, Atom. It was invalid from the start. We're just trying to explain to you -why- it's invalid.

[Super Atom]

No one here is invalidating your argument, Atom. It was invalid from the start. We're just trying to explain to you -why- it's invalid.

 

I don't see how this arc is any different from Terra or blinding the two children so the guy can creep on their mother. If you can't see the connection i can't help you.

[justicebeliever]

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.

 

This is where that whole "self awareness" concept I was talking about.  Nowhere in the post you quoted, did he attack someone's morality.  He literally just made a post about not liking the suggested changes and nothing more.

 

Seriously, he suggested that the poster doesn't think women of domestic violence are worth rescuing.  Seems like a morality attack to me

 

That is literally NOT what was said.

 

Of course it's not literally what he said.  If I took it literally, I would think he was questioning the need to rescue domestic violence victims himself.  And that women should just rise above domestic violence on their own.  But that would make the poster a monster, and I do not think that little of Castrum.  So the only alternative is that he was suggesting the OP had that attitude.

[Super Atom]

I do like the idea someone suggested of betraying him before killing the longbow, but that's a wider topic on a whole. If every story line had praetorian tiers of choice that'd be lovely.

[justicebeliever]

I think changing something because people are offended by it, when I don't have a personal stake keeping it as is, seems appropriate to me.

 

To quote Ricky Gervais, "just because you're offended by something, doesn't mean your right." Or as Stephen Fry commented about saying something is offensive, "it has no meaning, it has no purpose, and it has no reason to be respected as a phrase." Where do we draw the line on making sure content isn't offensive? I don't know what the answer to that question would be, but the story arc doesn't teach that anything Harris does is okay to do. If it had, I might be on board with changing something about it. But it explicitly treats it as a bad act and not a morally acceptable course of action.

 

Rylas - I like how you post.  You are evenhanded, and don't add drama.  (I mean that)

 

With respect to Mr. Gervais - I agree, that's why we have the discussions.  With respect to Mr. Fry, I believe plenty have reasons have been given, beyond "I'm offended" (which is what I believe he was referring to - people just saying they are offended without any real insight about how/why).

 

I don't know the answer to your question about where to draw the line.  But since we are still miles away from any morally reprehensible lines, let's focus on this situation, and not the ones that could be.  I agree that the story doesn't, for me, need to be changed.  I think it's bad writing, and that could always use a change.  But I'm not opposed to someone proposing a rewrite., and I wouldn't want to dig in on an area where I don't have a vested personal interest in the status quo. 

 

And I think that's where we are getting off in some different tangents.  We are assuming that any change to the story would only be worse - bad assumption - odds are 50/50 it could be better.  We are assuming that there are suggestions here of wholesale content changes, and there are no such suggestions.  People keep throwing out an argument of "I don't see the need for change", and that's fine.  But unless there is an argument to keep it as is (like - hey this is great writing, or this is a great morality lesson I'd want to share with my kids), then what's the harm in changing it?

[Steampunkette]

 

Woof. Let's unpack this...

 

Elliot Rodger had his Dad in his manifesto. And his dad's girlfriend. Lived with them through at least 15 for a week at a time. I dunno about you, but I had every "Birds and the Bees" variation from parents, grandparents, and sex ed classes by 13... so... *shrug!* I didn't read his manifesto after age 15 'cause good god the indulgent bullshit of the whole thing became far too much to bear. Don't think his dad being gone had nearly as much impact as you're suggesting...

 

Dealing with women and relationships is more than sex.  Masculinity is more than chasing women.

 

The guy had such a complex, he hated people in relationships.  He needed a DAD to smack in straight and give him confidence.  Instead, he had a mother that turned him against his father.  The situation between BOTH his parents contributed to the issue.  I suppose I shouldn't have said his father could have fixed the situation, but blaming romance in media is just as foolish.

 

Also the idea that boys need their dad more than their moms for learning relationships is just... so much conjecture and ignores just... SO MUCH. Like. If Elliot Rodger had eventually had kids instead of committing mass murder, with all this shit that's in his manifesto still in his mind: Do you still believe he'd be better to teach his kids how to have relationships over their mother?

 

So much conjecture and ignores just....SO MUCH.  But oh, those romance comedies are definitely the ticket lol

 

 

As to "Media had no impact on it" I just laugh. No one is immune to societal depictions of interactions. You get exposed to a specific perspective long enough and it becomes the one you believe is normal. That's how you get extremists. Whether Incel or Nazi or Daesh. They're all people who have focused in on a narrow enough band of socialization that it becomes the core of their understanding. And media is a powerful tool for it, for good or ill.

 

As to the modern acceptance of poisoned orphans subject... I'm gonna assume you're trolling? Haha. Meme. Good job.

 

No meme.  It's gotten worse.  Stop and think about it.

 

Dude had at least 15 years with his dad, and I can't say he had more than that 'cause I stopped reading after that point. He lived with both of his parents up to that point on a weekly basis, swapping back and forth. Dude had plenty of time for his dad to smack him upside the head on masculinity. His dad didn't. Why? Fucked if I know.

 

I find it interesting you think his Dad needed to knock some sense into him and his mother had only negative impact on him in the matter... Nevermind the fact that he grew up with his Dad's girlfriend Soumaya and his Uncle Dan going through girlfriends every few months...Wonder what kind of impact it had on him when he realized his Dad had been cheating on his Mom before the divorce... huh.

 

Yeah. Maybe his Dad couldn't have fixed him. Maybe he could've. But the idea that boys "Need" a father to teach them about masculinity or relationships is just mindboggling. It's based entirely on conjecture because you can't make an experiment to test the hypothesis. In such an experiment you'd need a control group, all the families functioning identically outside of testing conditions, and then the testing conditions themselves presented in Single Father families presenting appropriate and inappropriate masculinity, Single Mother families presenting appropriate and inappropriate masculinity, and Nuclear Families presenting appropriate and inappropriate masculinity. And the control group would just raise their kids however they feel is appropriate.

 

And you'd need thousands of kids in each group to get a decent sample size. It's a massively unethical concept since you'd be willingly training at least some portion of the subject to be shitty people, denying them appropriate care and relationships.

 

Thus it's conjecture. An untestable declaration of a belief as fact.

 

Yeeeah... Now I remember why I had you ignored on the live forums!