I'm a fan of Android: Netrunner. I think the cyberpunk genre is one of the most relevant subsets of speculative fiction, especially with works like Blade Runner and The Windup Girl. Fantasy Flight has done an exemplary job of representation with the various characters that inhabit the setting. Further, I respect that a significant amount of A:NRs storytelling comes from epistolary bits gleaned from card's flavor so an individual character's personality, motives, and identities may be largely in a sort of quantum state of unknowability and projection. It cannot be ignored, however, that the work is also a product of its time and the mindset of its developers. The decision to portray a character in a particular way is quite intentional. I applaud the developers, for example, for not cheapening the game by portraying Andromeda as a poorly characterized "use heteronormative sexual appeal to assist me in my goals," she is as intelligent and skilled as any other character in the game.

However, given that the game is by its basic conceit a game about committing, exposing, and hiding crime there is an inherent negative aspect to every character. No runner can be clearly said to be morally upstanding. Even the most benevolent corp decks have problematic aspects of otherization. Mental Health Clinic, for example, is presumably a for-profit institution and plays on stereotypes of the "evil insane asylum" if not up front, then as a means of unethical research. This is inherent with dystopian fiction.

Particular characters are also worthy of questioning. The ethnicities of Gabriel Santiago and Nasir Meidan play on Western European stereotypes of "thieving foreigners." Additionally, Nasir Median can be interpreted to be Muslim; or the increasingly common "reformed future Islam" trope (per Order of Sol) seen also in such products as Dropzone -- suggesting something is wrong with current West-Central Asian norms. Lastly is the gender identity of Ji 'Noise' Reilly, peripheral information identifies Noise as being a transman, possibly against Noise's will. The portrayal then of being a violent, or at least destructive, criminal plays into hateful otherization.

Before it is said, I do not believe I am "reading too much into" anything. I expect more of the products I choose to support. I hold their auteurs to the highest possible standard. I seek to open dialogue and urge less negative portrayals of non-sociohegemonic individuals. Thank you.

well, I don't want to speak for the developers necessarily, but what's more problematic? Not having any representation of ethnic or sexual minorities just because it's a morally gray-and-gray world? Do you expect the company to include only privileged groups as characters so as not to be seen as punching downward?

It has been a deliberate decision to include diversity among the characters presented in the game. (Noise isn't actually trans*, though--he's a G-mod, an enhanced human. But yes, these things were done to him at a very young age without his consent; I'm sure that there are parallels to the trans* community if they wanted to look at it that way.)

Kate: mixed African-American Ancestry.
Gabe: Latino
Noise: Irish/Chinese
Chaos Theory: Mixed race not otherwise specified.

Whizzard: Caucasian
Andromeda: Caucasian
Exile: Caucasian
The Professor: Caucasian
Kit: Caucasian (though I still suspect she's actually a bioroid)

Reina: Latina
Silhouette: African American
Iain: Caucasian
Ken: Japanese (clone)
Quetzal: not specified*
Nasir: Arab
Leela: Indian

Forthcoming, Edward Kim is Korean, MaxX is caucasian, and Valencia Estevez is clearly Latina (and an Investigative Journalist which is clearly a positive portrayal.)

So we have an extremely heterogenous spread of genders and ethnicities. I don't think you could say that any race or class is portrayed better or worse than any other. I DO think you're reading too much into it, as there'd be more cause for concern if minorities were being underrepresented. You can find problematic depictions of any given thing if you look hard enough. I'm suprised you didn't fault Veterans Program for ableism, and on some of them you're just objectively wrong: Order of Sol has nothing to do with Islam, for example, and Mental Health Clinic is as much an aversion of the "evil asylum" trope as it is possible to portray.

You also need to not read whatever you want into the runner characters as well: the various factions are divided by motivation, which allows us to make certain generalizations.

Anarchs are those who have strong anti-corporate motivations. What they're opposed to tells you nothing about what they're in favor of, so somebody with "anarchist" leanings like Noise or MaxX may have little else in common with a high-minded crusader like Valencia or Reina.

Shapers are motivated by the challenge and technical achievement of hacking: this alone excludes Nasir from the "thieving foreigner" archetype. (And if you're proposing that nothing is wrong with current West-Central Asian norms I cordially invite you to extract your head from the rectum of cultural relativism and start looking at some objective measures of societal health such as life expectancy, gender equality, wealth disparity, and human rights.)

Criminals are the wheelhouse of those motivated by profit. If you're looking for villains, this is as good a place as any, but again, I still think it would be more problematic if they were exclusively white. And while Gabe may be a thief, he is also a Consummate Professional. It's hardly a racial stereotype for an African American female to be a Stealth Operative.

You really set your argument up for failure when you lay out as a premise that "the game is by its basic conceit a game about committing, exposing, and hiding crime there is an inherent negative aspect to every character. No runner can be clearly said to be morally upstanding."

You're basically saying that anything portrayed in the game is going to be portrayed negatively. So the only option left is to portray nothing. I suppose you could argue the original Netrunner portrayed few if any identifiable classes, but FFG chose, quite consciously, to put ethnic and cultural diversity into the game.

*I suspect Quetzal is trans based on her quote, and that she is holding an Incubator, potentially a symbol of metamorphosis. But, that's headcanon.

Part of the goal of holding a work of media accountable is that everything should be addressed and taken to task. This is one of the inherent flaws of genre works that they will almost invariably be reliant on conflict rather than collaboration. So, yes, if a greater percentage of characters were socio-hegemonic I would critique that. The goal is to deconstruct the work, apologizing for it neither furthers the dialogue nor advances justice.

To your credit, you have provided an honest rebuttal and I respect that. I would first note that the asterick after trans is found offensive by some communities (it can be seen as symbolic of vulgarity.) But I digress, Further, I would note that Silhouette is not identified (to my knowledge) as American and it may be presumptive to say so. But these are quibbles for the sake of completeness.

I didn't address Veteran's Program (or any cybernetics) in my original post for fear of being called pedantic. Further, I simply didn't have the time to critique every card and interaction. But rather than damage my case, this is supportive of it. These are issues that the develops should acknowledge and address, and that the fan community should be made aware of before supporting a property that can at times be exclusivist and potentially hateful.

A:NR is a game that glorifies illegal and immoral activity. The characters presented as being involved are descriptive of its designers cultural norms. Critiquing the game does not need to present solvency for its content.

As far as the asterisk goes, I picked it up from a transgender blogger I followed when her blog was active. She also flatly stated that saying "transman" or "transwoman" was also offensive as they imply that a trans man is something other than a man.

But you haven't addressed my main rebuttal, that "there is an inherent negative aspect to every character." You go on to say that the game "glorifies illegal and immoral activity." So you leave utterly no room for any issue to be acknowledged or addressed. Anything and everything the game depicts is reflexively negative to you.

You've taken the designers' laudable conscious decision to portray a diverse cast of characters, and turned it into a cause to take offense. You offer no solutions, no outs. In fact, you ARE being pedantic, you are looking for excuses to take offense, and I don't for one second accept your premise that the game is indulging in "cultural norms" or "cultural appropriation." I'm not even sure you're using the latter term at all correctly. I presented several examples to undercut your argument which you either failed to address or missed the point of entirely: there is NOTHING "ableist" about Veterans Program, and only someone primed for unsupportable oversensitiveness would get that.

Zorajit, Do you also complain about star wars because Han Solo is a smuggler?

I think we've reached the extent of this discussion as you're prepared to have. The point of deconstruction is to identify and critique problematic depictions in media and I've done that. You've chosen to be an apologist for them and to defend negative portrayals as being acceptable. I don't have to offer an out, it's not my property to design. I will continue to hold the designers to the highest possible standards of inclusion and justice. If, ultimately, this means that their property will always remain problematic and some level then it is for the fanbase to be informed about.

Hypothetically, it could be suggested that Netrunner should have been left retired and the rules be repurposed to theme a game about coming to emotional understanding. Take for example the success of games like Monsterhearts in repurposing violent, power fantasies like Dungeons & Dragons into a story game of relationships and discovery.

Robin, I won't be responding to your inquiry here. Star Wars is rife with exclusionary tropes and problematic portrayals, but this is unrelated to the topic at hand. I would encourage you to demand justice from that franchise's auteurs.

I'll take that as a "yes"

But seriously if you don't like the conent of a game, don't play it.

There are far greater evils in this world than board/ card/ roleplaying games.

I'll take that as a "yes"

But seriously if you don't like the conent of a game, don't play it.

There are far greater evils in this world than board/ card/ roleplaying games.

If you don't like it then get out? You really want to fall back on this argument, the last refuge of reactionaries. I am not afraid of you. I will not be forced out because I want media to be inclusive.

A:NR is a game that glorifies illegal and immoral activity. The characters presented as being involved are descriptive of its designers cultural norms. Critiquing the game does not need to present solvency for its content.

While I DO believe your last points are true (as well as I think the aim of the discussion in itself was actually good), I also have to agree with Grimwalker on your other statement: calling A:NR "a game that glorifies illegal and immoral activity " is in my opinion an extremely simplistic statement.

Tell me, where exactly do you see that "glorification"?

Looking at Netrunner (and Android in general) I see a world where the word "glory" couldn't hold less meaning. We watch debatable ideologies clashing, we are shown a world of data and flesh that is all about "lies", different points of view, and the fact that Good, Evil and Truth are things we shouldn't take for granted or stable. The Runners are NOT heroes, barring maybe the aforementioned Reina and Valencia, that we could call idealists going down a necessary path for what they believe in.

The very concept of Morality and its blurred borders is central in Android, and the fact that runners appear more "sympathetic" to us is because they are individuals , therefore we can obviously identify with them more than we do with a Megacorp, which by definition appears somewhat threatening.

I still think you are taking a game that is all about the human nature in all its grey areas and its flaws, and describing it as a stereotyped depiction that supports a defined point of view. Again, i think the entire concept of the game is actually the opposite.

I will not delve into the "racial stereotypes" thing, I hope what Grimwalker wrote will be enough.

However, just because it wasn't mentioned, what about Weyland? Perhaps the most contradictory corp in its choices, it has a clear US characterization. They are aiming at the stars, at a better future "Up and Over", but on the other hand their brutal methods have claimed the lives of many for "The Greater Good". Are they right? There might be no answer. Is that "human"? Again, you have to THINK about what that means.

Are Shapers enlightened spirits that just go "beyond" our (their) grey and unjust society to start anew in a world that they can literally paint? Or are they selfish fools who waste their potential by NOT using it to do good? And what about the bioroids? Is there any good or evil in them? And... I might keep on rambling on the subject but I guess you already got tired of all this, and rightly so.

However, to address your initial concern (if I got it right): are all characters depicted with some degree of negativeness? Sure.

That's the point!

Are they and the world they move in a reflection of our stereotypes or an heroic depiction of immoral actions? Well,not really

I think we've reached the extent of this discussion as you're prepared to have.

The point of deconstruction is to identify and critique problematic depictions in media and I've done that. You've chosen to be an apologist for them and to defend negative portrayals as being acceptable.

And given that you arent here to be anything but oversensitive and hypercritical, and you have repeatedly rejected any desire for a productive outcome of the discussion, what you're doing is the very definition of being a troll. A very erudite and high-minded troll, but still a troll. You present the image of someone who's fresh out of an undergraduate sociology course and naïvely assumes that he has the answers to all the difficult questions.

But really you're just a stuffed shirt with a bucket of ten-dollar buzzwords like "cultural appropriation" and "auteur" that half the time you're not even using correctly. You haven't made an argument or provided any support for your assertions, you've simply handed out pronouncements on what you find problematic regardless of whether such problems are actually existent in the game. So, respectfully, you've said your piece and you're cordially invited to confine your attentions to some other game in some other place that you find more acceptable to your precious sensibilities.

@ Grimwalker: I'm just not sure if the OP is a troll or a relgious nutjob.

I was gonna reply to some of his posts but i figured i can't make a bigger fool of him than he already is doing.

I liked how he IMMEDIATLY got hyper defensive. I tought for a moment to start trolling him back, but it's to easy:

I mean i like shooting fish in a barrel but this is watching fish in a barrel commit suicide.

I'm very conflicted. I'm certainly on the liberal side of the spectrum and have been called "White Knight" or "Social Justice Warrior" enough times in relation to feminist issues and Gamergate and whatnot, so I'm fundamentally on OP's side of this debate. There ARE problematic tropes in all sorts of genres--one of my college professors wrote an entire book on the cultural essentialism and cultural appropriation in the Star Trek universe. I was careful not to apply these knee-jerk labels, because invariably they're just expressive of outrage over "how dare you be more sensitive than I am! Good god, your human decency is just insufferable!"

But in a discussion like this, where you have very, very few data points to go on--because really, all we have are bits of flavor text, artwork, and names--it really becomes much more of an exercise in confirmation bias, where if you are inclined to see cultural injustice lurking behind every bush, you can paint that picture around the tiny bits that the game gives. But frankly, Zorajit needs to recognize that he's engaging in headcanon.

One can just as easily take what's given and recognize that the world being depicted is as grey as our own, and that the designers are making deliberate efforts to be inclusive of multiple backgrounds and cultures, and that being reminded of tropes is not the same as those tropes being in play.

I dunno, They are tropes but the game doesn't say say "hacking is good" it doesn't say "megacorporations are good" it just says: " this is a game about hackers who steal information from mega corporations" Thats it. Since the game doesn't incourage illegal behaviour there is no reason to get upset about it since its just a game.

I dunno, They are tropes but the game doesn't say say "hacking is good" it doesn't say "megacorporations are good" it just says: " this is a game about hackers who steal information from mega corporations" Thats it. Since the game doesn't incourage illegal behaviour there is no reason to get upset about it since its just a game.

The idea that any piece of media is "just that" is the exact sort of privileged nonsense that reinforces oppression. Everything has to be evaluated and held to the absolute highest standard. A work of media wherein the ostensible protagonists are committing crime portrays those protagonists in a specific way. Especially a genre work where there is less inherent artistic value than a literary work that disassembles an immoral protagonist. Your comments, however, make it clear that non sociohegemonic persons have no place in your hobby; so I'm not surprised to see you go to these lengths.

I'm very conflicted. I'm certainly on the liberal side of the spectrum and have been called "White Knight" or "Social Justice Warrior" enough times in relation to feminist issues and Gamergate and whatnot, so I'm fundamentally on OP's side of this debate. There ARE problematic tropes in all sorts of genres--one of my college professors wrote an entire book on the cultural essentialism and cultural appropriation in the Star Trek universe. I was careful not to apply these knee-jerk labels, because invariably they're just expressive of outrage over "how dare you be more sensitive than I am! Good god, your human decency is just insufferable!"

But in a discussion like this, where you have very, very few data points to go on--because really, all we have are bits of flavor text, artwork, and names--it really becomes much more of an exercise in confirmation bias, where if you are inclined to see cultural injustice lurking behind every bush, you can paint that picture around the tiny bits that the game gives. But frankly, Zorajit needs to recognize that he's engaging in headcanon.

One can just as easily take what's given and recognize that the world being depicted is as grey as our own, and that the designers are making deliberate efforts to be inclusive of multiple backgrounds and cultures, and that being reminded of tropes is not the same as those tropes being in play.

I have never identified myself as a "he" and reject the implications and assertion of such. Criminal protagonists are not admirable under any circumstances and they reflect poorly on the identities to which those characters belong. The designers should not be engaging in rote genre formulas when they are capable of creating a work with artistic merit. There are existing tabletop games which succeed at this, such as Monsterhearts and Train.

The designers should show only positive portrayals of their characters, and if they fail to do so; then they should acknowledge this and be called out for it. It's lazy, low-brow writing which denigrates the persons being portrayed. We are on the same side of this debate, I would encourage you to acknowledge that I am merely holding the designers to a higher standard than you are comfortable with; and encourage you to join me in calling for greater awareness of the problematic aspects of A:NR.

Criminal protagonists are not admirable under any circumstances and they reflect poorly on the identities to which those characters belong. The designers should not be engaging in rote genre formulas when they are capable of creating a work with artistic merit. There are existing tabletop games which succeed at this, such as Monsterhearts and Train.

The designers should show only positive portrayals of their characters , and if they fail to do so; then they should acknowledge this and be called out for it. It's lazy, low-brow writing which denigrates the persons being portrayed.

Come on. Really?

Listen, we tried to show you a different point of view, but it is getting ridiculous. You are starting to look like a troll.

Not only you ignored many of the points we made (yes, I am whining in the corner because you totally disregarded my entire post ^^), but you again are CLAIMING something with no justification behind your assertion. You think that is a civilized way of discussing my friend?

You also seem to contradict yourself: on the one hand you want something that is morally challenging (like the games you cited), but on the other hand you totally refuse morally ambiguous characters in netrunner ! Wait, what? So you DO want someone to impose you what HE thinks is a positive cast of characters. Am I missing something? I don't understand how this line of thought is consistent. What you believe to be morally good is not necessarily what I believe to be morally good .

Anyway, let's make a point clear: the games you describe as good examples are quite an odd couple.

Train. Really? I agree that the idea behind it is wonderful, but it is an experience with no real interest for the gameplay! It's an educational lesson, NOT A GAME. Be honest, how can you really compare that to Netrunner?

Are you just trying to confuse us? (please explain)

And monsterhearts. Again, you really believe the moral struggles depicted with its "monsters" are comparable to those you see in Netrunner? I do believe Android to be way more mature and deep than Monsterhearts. I honestly find monsterhearts to be pretentious. An artistic work that says: "look how cool I am, I will make you think! Look at me, I am deep!" in such an obvious and trite way is the worst kind of wasted potential. You don't have to blatantly show your pedagogic genius if your game really brings about interesting dilemmas. Again, I personally hate when an artistic work treats its audience as a herd of idiots.

However, this is just my personal point of view. (I honestly hope I am not devoting my time to feeding a troll.)

Feel free to leave your previous opinion untouched, but please acknowledge that your arguments can be challenged.

Peace and love.

However, this is just my personal point of view. (I honestly hope I am not devoting my time to feeding a troll.)

Feel free to leave your previous opinion untouched, but please acknowledge that your arguments can be challenged.

Peace and love.

This whole thing gave me a good laugh, but if you're seriously debating this, then...you should step away from the keyboard and take a walk. There are people who just go around looking for things to be offended about, and then they hop online to harangue others about how offended they are. Are they trolls? I don't know, but what I do know is that arguing with them is a total waste of time.

Well, this was the weirdest thing I read today.

I cannot post enough popcorn gifs in this thread. I pop back every few hours to see what the responses are.

I cannot post enough popcorn gifs in this thread. I pop back every few hours to see what the responses are.

Drinking game: Take a shot anytime someone uses words like "sociohegemonic" .

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the liquor store, I seem to have ran out of rum...

However, given that the game is by its basic conceit a game about committing, exposing, and hiding crime there is an inherent negative aspect to every character. No runner can be clearly said to be morally upstanding. Even the most benevolent corp decks have problematic aspects of otherization. Mental Health Clinic, for example, is presumably a for-profit institution and plays on stereotypes of the "evil insane asylum" if not up front, then as a means of unethical research. This is inherent with dystopian fiction.

You have flawed premises. Being outside the law is not automatically wrong. Being inside the law is not automatically good. As such there is no inherent negative element to every character. But even if it was, it wouldn't be problematic if it was spread out evenly among all skin colours, genders, sexualities etc, which as far as I can see, it is (other than a preference to caucasians which I hope will improve). Fiction is allowed to have heroes and villains and morally ambiguous characters as concepts

The designers should show dishonest portrayals of the human condition with their characters, and if they fail to do so; then they should acknowledge this and be called out for it. It's lazy, low-brow writing which denigrates the persons being portrayed. We are on the same side of this debate, I would encourage you to acknowledge that I am merely holding the designers to a higher standard than you are comfortable with; and encourage you to join me in calling for greater awareness of the problematic aspects of A:NR.

Honestly, you've not given any metric to which standard you wish things to be held to, then on the other hand labeling the entire content of the game in a particularly binary fashion.

You assert there is a myriad of people that you wish to see portrayed then immediately deny a vast spectrum of how they could be realistically portrayed. In a world full of fallible people you want to create some rose tinted wonder land where everything is just right and good and everyone is great and wonderful .

Just as Grimwalker has largely covered you seem to be taking offence and calling for 'justice' over issues you are reading into the property. A property that, I might add, that has only really scratched the surface of its potential when it comes to representing what it means to be human.

Within the limited window we have for the world of A:NR there is only so much you can take away about the individual characters and their merits and flaws. We see some of what they do and how they do it, even a measure of why but beyond that we learn very little about them personally. In a game seeded with activities of dubious legality from its very inception, to demand it show every aspect in a purely positive fashion would detract from the entire experience.

TL;DR

Anything that portrays its content in a monochromatic fashion is inherently dishonest and disrespectful not just to the subject matter but also the onlooker.

If I was you I would revise your definition of justice and standards to A) include some kind of metric and B) have a realistic cause for repatriation.

The reality is, Zorajit is telling a lot of stories, with very little facts. Stories "he" has created in "his" head based on "his" interpretations of the very minuscule narrative content available in a card game set in a morally ambiguous post modern futuristic society reminiscent of dystopian literature. "He" needs to re-evaluate his stories.

Here's a story: In the worlds of cyberpunk mega-corporations have replaced world governments and the hacker/anarchist is the only counterbalance to the drones that feed them. Ergo the Hackers are GOOD. The Corps are BAD. No ambiguity! But I'm generalizing. Most things are usually more nuanced, complex and rarely so black and white.

Ugh. I don't normally post in the Netrunner forum but the lack of critical thinking in the opening post was just too painful.

First, just becuase you believe you aren't reading too much into something does not mean it is actually true. You are.

It is disengeniuos to pick out particular characters as being stereotypes, such as criminals, due to race, when characters of other races are doing the exact same thing.

Objecting to a card such as Mental Health Clinic for furthering stereotypes misses the point of the card. As you recognized, it is implicitly negative. What you failed to grasp is that it is supposed to be, as this is a trope of dark fiction. It does not imply what mental health facilities are like, for good or ill, in reality.

Your assertation that media should be held accountable fails to grasp that you do not to arbitraliy get to decide what is or is not suitable.

The fact that genre works are often predicated upon conflict is not a flaw. As a work of fiction it does not matter whether there is conflict or collaberation since none of it is real.

Trying to write off others arguments as apologies is inherently dishonest. Again, you do not get to solely decide what is or is not appropriate content. They are looking at the same thing as you and simply coming to a different conclusion. In my personal view, a more accurate one.

Net runner does not glorify criminal activity, or at least no more so than any other genre of fiction. Saying that it does is as pedantic as ascribing violent behaviour to video games.

Trying to dismiss others arguments does not give you the high ground. On the contrary, it shows that you do not wish to have an honest conversation. Instead you try to cast those that disagree with you in a poor light and claim that yours is the only moral authority, and as such the sole arbitrator of what is acceptable. Not only do you not get to decide this, your very attempt to do so shows you to be a person of low character and not interested in open discussion.

I can only hope you are a troll. It pains me to think someone could be so uneducated in this day and age.

Zorajit showed up under his own name on a Netrunner Facebook group and a simple Google search was able to link his name with his handle--it was obvious they were the same person based on the buzzwords he threw out and how he misused them. He took it just far enough on there for people to realize he's a Poe.