The Politics of Tabletop RPGs

This is the problem bit, not compassion towards fellow soldiers.
The first thing is what leads to warcrimes and people like that psychopath that trump pardoned.

If you are capable of doing those things to your fellow humans, then yeah i do think less of you.
You are aware of how war works yes? Those enemy soldiers want to kill you or your friends. Expecting soldiers to be brimming with compassion for their enemies is such an insipid conception of morality.

More importantly I don't care if you like or dislike military culture, the problem is not the amount of disapproval you have. It's your use of rhetoric that says that they are less human because of that. Do you not know how words work? Denying a person's humanity is intrinsically derogatory. And when we're talking about a group as broad as "soldiers" then that's fundamentally unjustified. Spurious allusions to war crimes doesn't change that, you aren't fighting against immoral behavior by broadly denigrating a group of people who have a wide variety of motivations and conduct.
 
Last edited:
You are aware of how war works yes? Those enemy soldiers want to kill you or your friends. Expecting soldiers to be brimming with compassion for their enemies is such an insipid conception of morality.

Regardless I don't care if you like or dislike it, the problem is not the amount of disapproval you have. It's your use of rhetoric that says that they are less human because of that. Do you not know how words work? Denying a person's humanity is intrinsically derogatory. And when we're talking about a group as broad as "soldiers" then that's inherently unjustified. Spurious allusions to war crimes doesn't change that, you aren't fighting against immoral behavior by broadly denigrating a group of people who have a wide variety of motivations and conduct.
Yeah most non defensive wars are infact inherently immoral.

And it isn't a spurious claims. Most militaries that engage in war are recorded to have commited warcrimes. The aussies, the brits, the americans, the Israeli and I am sure you could find examples from other miltaries if you looked that are outside my knowledge.

So if it is a reccuring problem that happens accross a wide varity of orgs then there is something wrong with those orgs in a fundamental form. Maybe training people to kill other people causes that problem.

And its not like being a soldier is an inmutable trait, many soldiers become anti war advocates because of their experiences. So yeah i stand by what i said but i will amend it to active duty soldiers.
 
It is completely acceptable to criticise the role of soldiers. But if we're gonna criticise the military, at least criticise the stuff the matters: overreach, abuse, corruption, pollution, torture, killing civilians, war crimes, failing at their duties, making things worse geopolitically, you know, stuff that matters.

But killing the enemy? That's not it.
 
Wow, tripling-down on 'soldiers are not human' sure is, uh, a look.

Also, to bring this back to the topic, Humanity is literally not a stat humans in oWoD or nWoD possess. There's no 'baseline human' splat in oWoD, and nWoD 'baseline humans' have Integrity, which is basically psychological stability.

Humanity in oWoD is implicitly/explicitly, depending on which edition you use, just a psychological framework that the vampire has because of a bunch of unexamined cultural mores they've inherited from the human they once were; this is why there are alternate Paths that work similarly but have completely different moral frameworks, because what matters is that you have a set of rules you comply with, as a vampire, not really what those rules are. You use the rules to chain the Beast, and the Beast doesn't give a shit about anything but hunger and fear so any rules work, so long as you keep them.

nWoD Humanity is explicitly not 'how human you are', but is 'how closely you hew to the rules of the human society you're in'. It represents attachment to current society, and honestly should have been renamed something like 'Attachment' or similar just to get rid of the whole 'human' baggage. Less Humanity means you're detached from current society, and that freaks out current society, and the lack of attachment means your own psychological stability - something strongly impacted by social ties, even in no-longer-human vampires - suffers.
 
It is completely acceptable to criticise the role of soldiers. But if we're gonna criticise the military, at least criticise the stuff the matters: overreach, abuse, corruption, pollution, torture, killing civilians, war crimes, failing at their duties, making things worse geopolitically, you know, stuff that matters.

But killing the enemy? That's not it.
Just to clarify. I mentioned war crimes many times. The problem i am pointing out is training them to kill other people requires them to be lose empathy that leads to all those things you mentioned.
 
If you are capable of doing those things to your fellow humans, then yeah i do think less of you.

On Christmas Day of 1914, British, French, and German soldiers came out of the trenches and exchanged mementos, played soccer, and ate together. On December 24th and 26th, they killed one another by the thousands.

I am capable of doing that. You are capable of doing that. Everyone here has that capability. That's part of being human. A lack of compassion towards certain people at certain times does not begrudge people of their humanity.

A lack of compassion towards an enemy only matters if someone is always and intrisically your enemy. That's rarely the case.
 
Also, to bring this back to the topic, Humanity is literally not a stat humans in oWoD or nWoD possess. There's no 'baseline human' splat in oWoD, and nWoD 'baseline humans' have Integrity, which is basically psychological stability.

Humanity in oWoD is implicitly/explicitly, depending on which edition you use, just a psychological framework that the vampire has because of a bunch of unexamined cultural mores they've inherited from the human they once were; this is why there are alternate Paths that work similarly but have completely different moral frameworks, because what matters is that you have a set of rules you comply with, as a vampire, not really what those rules are. You use the rules to chain the Beast, and the Beast doesn't give a shit about anything but hunger and fear so any rules work, so long as you keep them.
Indeed, and it helps that vampires quite literally aren't human. For vampires "losing humanity" isn't just a metaphorical thing, it's embracing their monstrous nature and becoming a creature with an increasingly inhuman view of the world. So even treating it as an intrinsic thing isn't particularly problematic.

With the metaphors they're working with Humanity makes complete sense as a stat. The only issue is when it's thoughtlessly applied to human beings, which as you note the games don't actually do.
 
Last edited:
Anyways, I might as well throw in a bit of my opinion here, as someone who is a reservist combatant (this is written in the context of a poster's opinion and should not constituted as staff ruling)

Understandably the relationship between an individual's decision to join the armed forces, their opinions within the military and the relationship they will inevitably have with the policy decisions of the state and the people they will inevitably point weapons at, is complex enough that most people kind of have difficulty wrapping them together. After all, it can be said that the individual has choice in the matter, even when serving a regime that is enacting ruthless and cruel acts (exhibit A: the Nuremburg Trials) and that the most baseline of action, the willingness to inflict for violence for the state, is something the individual is responsible.

But I think its more important to also recognize that the society influences the individual as so much as the individual can act on it; and with that in mind, it should be noted that in the modern era (which I base this commentary on), that with how most nations have opted for the professionalization of the armed forces, that most people enter the military often for various reasons that do not necessarily have to be for the purposes of inflicting violence. Sometimes, its the propaganda of the state, luring people in with promises of adventure and bravado (as most Americans can attest to), sometimes its societal pressure from family or friends, or even the desire for an iron rice bowl that isn't as boring sounding as a public service official. The desire to kill is secondary; which is also reinforced by how warfare has become more and more decoupled from violence itself save the actual frontline personnel.

As for myself, conscripted as one of these frontline personnel a while back, this wasn't a choice I was allowed to make; me and my compatriots 'joined' the military simply to complete our legal obligations - whatever fantasies of officerhood or promotion we might have had otherwise. And even then, I think I speak for them and myself that we would really prefer that the mere existence of us as trained soldiers would be deterrence enough for any possible foe. But if we have to have to act against neighbors to defend our livelihoods, assuming a certain hypothetical, then, assuming we still had faith in our nationstate, most likely we would continue to return to our posts and take up arms.

That's not to say that there aren't people who revel in the violence, or that the state often ends up ordering the soldiery to commit horrible, horrible acts. But its important to understand that the distinction, the relationship, of individual and societal responsibility in the realm of ethics in war is one that must be made, difficult as it is.

For the topic at hand - this is honestly one reason why I'm not comfortable with how often TTRPGs, and assorted settings, often do their own sort of dehumanization, of the tropes of the 'perfect/super soldier' or the loss of 'humanity' (both as in the stat that was being discussed pre-derail and other ways it is measured in TTRPGs). Because they often overlook that there are many moral, political, social and personal reasons to do violence or participate in a system that is about inflicting massive violence, which also tells of how they overlook the relationship between the stature and power of a nation-state and its ability to project violence. Like, those are intertwined on a very deep level; the prototypical states of history were all measured and founded on the ability to organize warfare. And the way I feel TTRPGs relate it to character expression, creation and play - is all too insufficient.
 
Last edited:
A triple post since we are on a roll; I promise this is my last input, then I will get lost immediately.

So how does one explore the relationships between personal motivation and the strategic interests of nationstates? For any aspiring TTRPG setting-crafter, I postulate a few different 20/21st century case studies for analyzing the reasons, motivation for soldiery and the attitudes of the men of the formation itself - the French Foreign Legion or the British Army at the start of 1914.

The first is basically the last of the state-sanctioned mercenaries of the 19th century. For those unaware, the FFL, as a member of the French Armed Forces, has the power to recruit anyone who simply shows at their HQ in metropolitan France, assuming they are fit, under 40yrs old, and not wanted by Interpol. This has meant that an interesting cavalcade of people have joined, and will join, the Legion - from people seeking French citizenship, to people of certain disposition, to literally criminals that are making a break for it before getting hit for certain crimes. And often not, the Legion has been continuously deployed to France's last remaining colonies, or to conduct actions near or beyond the Francophonie, when deployment of standard FAF units is impossible - but they aren't likely to be actually used in combined arms warfare as a whole.

The second one is an interesting bifurcation of motivations - for those unaware, the British Army in Europe during the start of the First World War required reformation immediately after the first starting battles, which had resulted in a total collapse of morale among the existing units. There's a reason for that - because most of these units were rotated from the British Empire colonies, which often were the best performing in their specific regions, but simply broke when faced with the might of fully industrialized powers. As such, that led to the rise of the all-volunteer units of the New Army, formed by Lord Kitchener, which would thus become the main form of organization for the BEF from then until 1918, who were mainly motivated to defend Britain from the rise of Germany. The colonial/national troop mustering, as well as the difference in logistic handling, are an honestly overlooked part of mil-history.

I put these examples because its a good base to start in wondering how soldiers would act, or think, depending on the societal situations they are in, or which they are offered. What I write doesn't do justice to the contradictions of the periods, to be fair, but I hope its a good starting point to poking out ideas. I think it would be more interesting that settings do consider the military angle, not purely for aesthetics, or for milwank, but to richen and to enhance the player interaction with their characters.
 
Last edited:
I've been watching a lot of Magic the Gathering videos recently, with some emphasis on the morality and attitudes of the Colors in their color pie. I've seen the color pie suggested as an alternative to SnD's Alignment chart, and any real discussion about upgrading or replacing the alignment chart has to consider morality. As well as ethics.

One heartwarming idea I've seen in superhero fiction is a pair of questions. "What would superheroes do if all the supervillains and monsters were beaten? Or if they stopped?" It is paired with "what would supervillains do if all of the superheroes were defeated or surrendered? Or if they joined villains?" In the former, traditional superheroes would generally continue to help with disaster relief, social programs, and research technology to improve the lives of civilians in their society. With the latter question, supervillains would not reign in their excesses. They would butt heads with each other and cause collateral damage in their attempts at conquest and resource gathering. They would ruin government institutions and services.

The color pie of white, blue, black, red, and green is not the same binary as above- though for the above there are exceptions, like superheroes who would try to run for office or would uproot a corrupt foreign government with some risky plan. The color pie helps explain what a person will focus on, how they see the world, and what they would do with power.

As much as the color pie appeals to me, I'm willing to acknowledge it is just a tool. It is just like modern astrology, a tool for categorizing people- a framework to talk about the world in useful ways. It is not "The Truth." Oppression, indoctrination, deception, enforcement of ignorance (and murder of intellectuals), war crimes, intolerance, segregation, greed...

There are many possible reasons someone will permit cruel deeds, will perform cruel deeds, or will try to prevent cruel actions. The big arguments will come from disagreements on what behaviors and traditions are more cruel? So... Everyone has to internally prioritize capital-G GOOD and capital-E EVIL for themselves.
Truth, integrity, freedom, compassion, equity, justice... A sapient creature in TTrpg fiction, or a human, who is blue-aligned probably won't prioritize Freedom as much as someone red-aligned, but they will still care about when their freedom is restricted. What matters is, will they care enough to act?

To make sacrifices and take risks in order to see that freedom restored? Or to set right an injustice? Or to spread truth to people misled by deception or propaganda?

The question when it comes to morality, in easy cases and in cases as tricky as modern soldiers' actions and impact, is all about priorities. Do you priorities match your society? This is considered in the MtG Alara sets. When the shards are brought back together and missing mana flows back into every portion of the plane, people (outcasts of each world) are finally able to feel their worldview, their priorities, recognized by the world around them.

That is my last point. You have your primary color or colors, and your society has its own. There may be a little overlap, none, or you could match it exactly. But if you match your society, then you'll probably have a harder time understanding the world from the perspective of others who have a different alignment. And that matters because, as indicated with the wheels within wheels link above, different colors (or archetypes, or astrological signs) have different ways of understanding the world. They would do different things if they held power, and they see different motivations from others when they see power wielded.

To bring this back around to TTrpgs- consider your character's color alignment. This is a cohesive philosophy for living and understanding the world. Consider the society the campaign is set in's color alignment, which could clash with your character's or which could cause it to call another particular alignment "evil" and immoral. And finally remember that the way a player can feel emotionally satisfied through RPG play (go watch a "The X types of players" video) may depend on their color(s).


Edit: hmm, really rambled on with this one.
 
Last edited:
Something I noticed about Cyberpunk in general including Cyberpunk RPGs is that the megacorptions are portrayed as ultra competent and conniving.

While in real life companies fuck up a lot
 
Something I noticed about Cyberpunk in general including Cyberpunk RPGs is that the megacorptions are portrayed as ultra competent and conniving.

While in real life companies fuck up a lot

There's this idea that evil is inherintly self destructive, and this is true. However, just because that it is, doesn't mean they won't do extreme harm and are able to keep it together for a long period of time.

There's a reason that Nestlé is still around.
 
"Reality is unrealistic", and you need the antagonists to not be a horde of bumbling jackasses or it makes everyone else in the setting that has so far failed to stop them look even worse.
I think it would be equally effective to properly establish why a 'horde of bumbling jackasses' have been able to ride roughshod over humanity: the fact that they're ultimately just interchangeable components within a machine that has (depending on how you reckon it) anywhere between ~400 and ~3,000 years of momentum pushing it forward.

The megacorp CEOs don't actually need to be competent in order to maintain the cyberpunk dystopia. In fact, most of the work has already been done for them. The mines are already dug, the petrochemical plants are already humming away, the web of incestuous financial skulduggery has been eagerly propagating itself for generations. Most of what stabilizes and reifies the system takes place on a scale where no individual within the system, however much they've been empowered by capital, can really exert much influence without truly drastic measures.

(This is part of why revolutions often hinge on identifying demographics within the current system which have both forms of power which the system has overlooked and strong incentives to use that power against the system once they're made aware of how it exploits and abuses them.)
 
Something I noticed about Cyberpunk in general including Cyberpunk RPGs is that the megacorptions are portrayed as ultra competent and conniving.

While in real life companies fuck up a lot

A thing I like in the Android:Netrunner setting is that while the megacorps are evil, they aren't really, like... monolithic evil geniuses. There are plenty of smart people there, but they're often working at cross purposes, different departments are doing different shit and snit-fighting, and a lot of people in them are just earning a living, and a lot of fuckups happen from managers just wanting different things. They shatter millions of lives and most of the time it's not even on purpose, but as a side effect of chasing bigger bonuses for their execs and bigger ratings and the line going Up. Which feels very true to life!

Like an NBN division might have plans to do some evil shit, but there is no big overarching Evil Plan(tm). There's like one guy with an actual Evil Plan(tm) and he is specifically an interesting oddity antagonist because he's an exception, and he has to basically fight his own corp constantly to advance it because Evil Plans(tm) are not immediately good for the managers' advancement prospects or whatever.
 
Last edited:
I think the mega corps are not really depicted as competent, what they are is powerful.
And if you are powerful enough, you can afford to be incompetent lot of the time as long as your peers are just as incompetent as you.

And while they are often stupidly evil, they are not so anymore than modern corporations are, only freed from what little legal constraints nations currently set on them.
If they were depicted as having stood forcenturies as they are, that would be an issue, but generally cyberpunk dystopias are slowly crumbling edifices of corruption and greed, with mega corps feeding of the dying world and exasperating problems instead of solvingthem.
Just like modern corporations, now that i think about it.
 
Yeah, I don't know if "competence" was ever really implied in these cyberpunk dystopias. If the megacorps were that competent, then the shadowrunners wouldn't be getting away with nearly as much as they do.
 
Yeah, I don't know if "competence" was ever really implied in these cyberpunk dystopias. If the megacorps were that competent, then the shadowrunners wouldn't be getting away with nearly as much as they do.
Shadowrunners are most likely the deniable , expendable wet works specialists and mercenaries subcontracted external help of the corporations/big rich.
Like in real life competency and security of the corporation/target varies from place to place and time to time.
 
Shadowrunners are most likely the deniable , expendable wet works specialists and mercenaries subcontracted external help of the corporations/big rich.
Like in real life competency and security of the corporation/target varies from place to place and time to time.
Yeah. The thing is that a cyberpunk setting (especially one like Shadowrun) contains a lot more metaphorical space for those mercenaries and wetwork specialists to do their jobs.

In real life companies don't do that kind of stuff, at least not in the developed world, because everyone knows it would end badly with the FBI kicking in doors, arresting at least the middle manager cutouts involved, oh and arresting the wetwork specialists too. Elon Musk would be happy to have assassins on payroll, but he'd never get away with that in practice for any length of time before the system came down like a ton of bricks.

Now, part of how the megacorps can get away with this is that the legal system is weakened and more prone to "turning a blind eye" when it comes to the megacorps' own deniable activities. But another part almost has to be that the megacorps themselves aren't running very tight ships, and aren't able to make law enforcement run a tight ship on their behalf. Because at this point all the infighting and random ninja crap going on is probably, on net, bad for business! But the megacorps can't collectively run a society capable of preventing such things, because that would involve sacrificing advantages for the greater good, and well, capitalism.
 
Yeah. The thing is that a cyberpunk setting (especially one like Shadowrun) contains a lot more metaphorical space for those mercenaries and wetwork specialists to do their jobs.

In real life companies don't do that kind of stuff, at least not in the developed world, because everyone knows it would end badly with the FBI kicking in doors, arresting at least the middle manager cutouts involved, oh and arresting the wetwork specialists too. Elon Musk would be happy to have assassins on payroll, but he'd never get away with that in practice for any length of time before the system came down like a ton of bricks.

Now, part of how the megacorps can get away with this is that the legal system is weakened and more prone to "turning a blind eye" when it comes to the megacorps' own deniable activities. But another part almost has to be that the megacorps themselves aren't running very tight ships, and aren't able to make law enforcement run a tight ship on their behalf. Because at this point all the infighting and random ninja crap going on is probably, on net, bad for business! But the megacorps can't collectively run a society capable of preventing such things, because that would involve sacrificing advantages for the greater good, and well, capitalism.

I think the problem is that, like, we know IRL at least that excessive reliance on contractors and wetwork and etc can erode state war-making capacity or lead to a devolution of their ability to actually keep all the balls going up.

It feels like the extent to which the tail wags the dog could be something to be explored, but it would have a very different 'vibe' then a lot of the "shadowrunner/etc" positions tend to focus on narratively.
 
I think a lot of the subtle social science weirdnesses like this in classic cyberpunk comes from it being written about worlds that theoretically have very weak governments, while the world they were being written in (the West during the neoliberal turn, Thatcher, Reagan, etc) was actually a fairly strong state going laissez faire, which is only superficially the same thing, but informed everyone's underlying assumptions.
 
I think a lot of the subtle social science weirdnesses like this in classic cyberpunk comes from it being written about worlds that theoretically have very weak governments, while the world they were being written in (the West during the neoliberal turn, Thatcher, Reagan, etc) was actually a fairly strong state going laissez faire, which is only superficially the same thing, but informed everyone's underlying assumptions.
Ultimately what it resulted in I think was writing the megacorporations as acting not as megacorporations, but as actual strong governments unto themselves fighting a shadow war for control of territory.
This is not how actual powerful corporations act - government-like behavior imposes expenses they'd prefer to minimize - but to writers for whom strong governments are the primary example of a centralized power, its an understandable mistake.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top