I've got a little arc planned set on Tattooine, and need a shady parts dealer for the PCs to interact with. Watto is a canon character who would be a perfect fit, so great!

Except... I think in the intervening time, we've become more conscious of the fact that he references elements of antisemitic stereotypes* **. So the question is, as a GM, is it reasonable to include Watto in your games knowing that? It's two steps removed, a reference to a reference, and whilst I don't think players will necessarily think about the link (and I'm 100% not doing a voice for the character!) it's still a point of concern for me. Is he sufficiently 'Star Wars' by now to be divorced from the real world context?

* If you're not aware, just google Watto racism or similar- I don't think this forum is the place to debate the topic.

** I'm not saying George Lucas is actively antisemitic, just that, as a person living in a racist society, he may have unconsciously drawn on stereotypes.

[I fully understand if this thread gets locked as this is a pretty tricky question]

Personally I'd have no problem with including him. These aren't "new" issues anyway, from Watto to the Nemoidians, the clear racial stereotypes were apparent at the time of the movie's release. I remember thinking that during the movie...that it was a little "on the nose" so to speak. So I really don't care about what itch the "woke-police" have in their pants this week, that they think they just "discovered".

Besides, TCW makes Watto kind of an outlier in his own species, so there's that to work with if you're concerned about it.

I agree with whatfrog; but if you're worried about it enough to ask, you might be more comfortable with a different NPC. Perhaps the original Mace Windu...

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Macemillian-winduarté

Unless it's a point of contention at the table the rest of the world doesn't get a vote at my table. I would never cover or do anything that 'alienates' any player, but I sure as **** wouldn't give 2 squirts of room temperature piss beyond that. Creativity first, now, and always.

I say use him as you see fit. How many characters can you find (anywhere) that aren't 5%, 10%, 50%, 95% stereotyped on some culture of race or nationality? I would think that such a character would rather be like a blank page of paper. I would think the character wouldn't be understood or be relatable to the audience if it didn't have SOME characteristics of something familiar. As a GM, I suppose there is a level with which you are comfortable RP'ing a character that is similar to known people without being a negative stereotype. I understand what you are saying, though. I let out an audible gasp in the theater viewing the Asian stereotypes in Rogue One. I couldn't believe that portrayal made it to the big screen during these times! If it is "a point of concern" for you, as you said, then do as you please. I cannot imagine that players would protest to a little change here or there. It actually might be MORE fun if you added in Watto's brother (or cousin), Qatto, who is running the business now. Or, simply insist there are other types of Toydarians and some speak differently. No need to explain to the players 'why'.

If you start to think this way, the whole SW galaxy becomes problematic. It's filled with speciesism everywhere, if you try to include something like this into imaginative worlds, it's almost impossible not to bleed real-world influences into whatever you create. Sometimes this is even necessary. The more someone can identify such tropes, the characters in question become more relatable. There is a reason why, for example, a lot of Hollywoods bad guys are British and honestly, that's not very nice also.

Concerning Watto, I read an interview with the Voice Actor of Watto and he said that the character was played like a shady Italian-godfather-salesman. Even if Watto was written as one specific stereotype, the way the actor played him was just another "bad stereotype" put on top of it.
And honestly - who cares?

If you are concerned that it could rub your table the wrong way - don't do it. Hopefully, you know those people good enough to know something like that.
Just don't give a **** about outside opinions on how you should play. Even those who could freak out about using Watto in a game are often the same people demanding to play like they want to - whatever that includes other people could be outraged about.

And looking at the big picture, you can't please everyone - search long enough, you will find someone who will be outraged...

23 hours ago, whafrog said:

Personally I'd have no problem with including him. These aren't "new" issues anyway, from Watto to the Nemoidians, the clear racial stereotypes were apparent at the time of the movie's release. I remember thinking that during the movie...that it was a little "on the nose" so to speak. So I really don't care about what itch the "woke-police" have in their pants this week, that they think they just "discovered".

Besides, TCW makes Watto kind of an outlier in his own species, so there's that to work with if you're concerned about it.

I used conscious rather than aware intentionally, as yeah, people were aware he was a bit racist at the time but with the rise of the far right it's become a bit harder to just overlook these things.

Still, it looks like people aren't especially concerned by it so I'll probably just use him then. I don't think any of my players would be bothered, but I didn't want to just assume that was the prevailing opinion.

3 hours ago, Talkie Toaster said:

I used conscious rather than aware intentionally, as yeah, people were aware he was a bit racist at the time but with the rise of the far right it's become a bit harder to just overlook these things.

Still, it looks like people aren't especially concerned by it so I'll probably just use him then. I don't think any of my players would be bothered, but I didn't want to just assume that was the prevailing opinion.

I find the whole question absolutely baffling. But that's just me I guess...

7 hours ago, Talkie Toaster said:

but with the rise of the far right it's become a bit harder to just overlook these things.

Well, that's quite an interesting way to connect things that have so very little in common.

Sorry! epic mispost

Oh damnit, and when I edited it I lost the post. Oh well. Super simplified post time.

I like creating characters that embody certain steriotypes as, inevitably, the alien species in this universe largely represent condensed character archtypes (supporting cast) or are villians (basically the entire trade federation). For better or worse, aliens are basically shortcuts for creating characters they don't need to develop, so just lean into that a little but twist it slightly so that they are believable as characters. Though in all fairness, just use Watto, really any resemblance between him the culture he's apparently based on is pretty skin deep; he's a greedy junk dealer and a scum bag who is cunning. Those character traits could easily represent themselves in a wookie, a Hutt or anything else.

Owned a character who was a racist, sexist trandosian based on the general trandosian outlook, but twisted that trope so that he was an incredible articulate businessman in exile who had a presistant rumour of eating his competition. Made for a perfect rebel recruiting operative! It also made an effective shortcut for what was basically a tempory character. By the end of his arc he had ended up adopting 40+ children and had an adjusted world view, though strangely those rumours continued as a running gag as the squad made sure to count the children every time they visited him. Scandalous!*



*No he didn't eat the children! XD

Ops, sorry, finger slipped!

On 1/24/2021 at 3:05 PM, Malashim said:

If you start to think this way, the whole SW galaxy becomes problematic. It's filled with speciesism everywhere, if you try to include something like this into imaginative worlds, it's almost impossible not to bleed real-world influences into whatever you create. Sometimes this is even necessary. The more someone can identify such tropes, the characters in question become more relatable. There is a reason why, for example, a lot of Hollywoods bad guys are British and honestly, that's not very nice also.

Concerning Watto, I read an interview with the Voice Actor of Watto and he said that the character was played like a shady Italian-godfather-salesman. Even if Watto was written as one specific stereotype, the way the actor played him was just another "bad stereotype" put on top of it.
And honestly - who cares?

If you are concerned that it could rub your table the wrong way - don't do it. Hopefully, you know those people good enough to know something like that.
Just don't give a **** about outside opinions on how you should play. Even those who could freak out about using Watto in a game are often the same people demanding to play like they want to - whatever that includes other people could be outraged about.

And looking at the big picture, you can't please everyone - search long enough, you will find someone who will be outraged...

And movies use these stereotypes as a shorthand. The point is to say this guy is shady and not trustworthy and is trying to get the most out of his "hapless" customer. And the reality is there are shady characters like this from every culture. because humans are often greedy and lazy.

I think it's a good thing to consider @Talkie Toaster and I hope your table appreciates that consideration. People will (obviously) always whine about "woke police" and all that dreck at the first sign of someone showing some basic racial or cultural awareness so I hope you don't lose that level of attention.

First off, I don't see that we have much to say on the subject, it's you, your game, and your players, and none of us really know anything about any of that.

As the GM, it's your job to make sure everyone at the table has fun, including yourself. If you are uncomfortable with a character's portrayal, don't portray the character. I made that mistake once and it was absolutely mortifying . The other players didn't care, but I was begging the hangar floor to swallow me.
If you think it would make your players uncomfortable, don't do it. As I stated, it's your job to make sure everyone has fun.

That's the important part and the bottom line. But if you want my opinion, here're my two cents on using the character and tropes in general:

I like tropes and stereotypes in stories. When used properly, they can be fun. From here on out, apply rule number one (everybody has fun) to everything about "right" or "fine" because even if something is morally fine, somebody may be averse to it.

Negative racial stereotypes are a touchier subject, but my take on it is that if you aren't applying the negative stereotype to someone with the intention of denigrating the race, religion, etc. of the group the stereotype originally applied to, it's fine (if you adopt too many unrelated characteristics, it gets more sketchy). Some negative stereotypes are amusing, or make for good villains, and many stereotypes or tropes are so over the top that they are just inherently funny.
Just because it was used to demean a group of people unfairly doesn't mean you can't have a character who fits those stereotypes.

As for group cases, especially in Star Wars or other universes where there are many different species, giving each species a distinction or niche beyond their appearance is good for building depth and making the species actually interesting. If every species was exactly the same aside from appearance, there'd be nothing that makes them interesting and the species quickly becomes forgettable. (Typically, it's good to have both biological distinctions [+1 Br, -1 Pr] and cultural distinctions. The latter especially make for an interesting species)
Species-wide stereotypes are also made to be broken, giving the character a degree of uniqueness and more potential for an intriguing backstory, as you discover why they break the mold.

An important point: There is a difference between the out-of-universe perception and the in-universe perception. Looking at it as a writer, the stereotypes you put on the species are "accurate" unless you deem them not to be, because you are creating the world. If you were to have a stereotyped idea of a fellow human in the real world based on their visible or cultural characteristics, that would likely be wrong because you are not the arbiter of reality and have an incomplete picture and/or a colored perception. This is basically the group-sized counterpart of my conclusion on individual cases.

Just to reiterate, your responsibility is to ensure everybody has fun. Exercise your own best judgement in what you and your players are comfortable with, and don't cross lines you don't think you should cross. If you think it's best to avoid even the potential appearance of something bad, then take that course.

22 hours ago, rogue_09 said:

People will (obviously) always whine about "woke police" and all that dreck at the first sign of someone showing some basic racial or cultural awareness so I hope you don't lose that level of attention.

Lol. More like the "woke police" think they invented basic racial or cultural awareness, and have no clue about the long march of history, which they just joined.

Case in point.

It's at this point I'd start popping popcorn. Pity we're at like T minus 120 hours and counting......

2 hours ago, 2P51 said:

It's at this point I'd start popping popcorn. Pity we're at like T minus 120 hours and counting......

But it would be somewhat poetic to finish the countdown with a not 100% on-topic discussion that most certainly won't lead anywhere.

Sometimes it can be entertaining to watch the world burn, especially after you stopped participating.

21 minutes ago, Malashim said:

But it would be somewhat poetic to finish the countdown with a not 100% on-topic discussion that most certainly won't lead anywhere.

Sometimes it can be entertaining to watch the world burn, especially after you stopped participating.

Except this is not "watching the world burn", and it already has lead to Talkie Toaster being helped with his problem.

What is your problem here?

1 minute ago, micheldebruyn said:

Except this is not "watching the world burn", and it already has lead to Talkie Toaster being helped with his problem.

What is your problem here?

This would be far from the first thread which at exaclty this point went overboard for dozens of pages with heated discussions.

And in the case this happens here it would qualify for watching the world burn because the world (forum) is going down like the titanic. The only difference is that our lifeboats are fewer but way bigger (couple new forums).

I don't expect everyone to have the same humor as me, but i don't have any problem just because you don't understand it

Just pointing out that we've had more discussion over how this thread is going down the tubes than actual posts leading this thread down the tubes.

22 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I like tropes and stereotypes in stories. When used properly, they can be fun. From here on out, apply rule number one (everybody has fun) to everything about "right" or "fine" because even if something is morally fine, somebody may be averse to it.

Negative racial stereotypes are a touchier subject, but my take on it is that if you aren't applying the negative stereotype to someone with the intention of denigrating the race, religion, etc. of the group the stereotype originally applied to, it's fine (if you adopt too many unrelated characteristics, it gets more sketchy). Some negative stereotypes are amusing, or make for good villains, and many stereotypes or tropes are so over the top that they are just inherently funny.
Just because it was used to demean a group of people unfairly doesn't mean you can't have a character who fits those stereotypes.

I think this gets to the crux of the idea. Tropes are great! Love a good trope. It's shorthand to draw players in and immediately set a scene based on preconceived notions. (Also fun to toss a trope on its head since you don't need a lot of time to set things up before turning it sideways.)

Real world example. In our last session, the PCs infiltrated a Moff's palace based on a tip that either the Moff or a high level staff member was willing to turn over to the Alliance. Turned out the mole was actually his teenage daughter. Not only did they have to exfiltrate her, and her six giant computer cores of information, they also had to contend with a snotty teenager who had no problem commenting on the quality of her rescue. "Snotty teen" was a fun trope to play with and we all had a laugh.

And as a trope, it is ageist and potentially offensive. If the player with actual teenage kids had said he wasn't comfortable with my portrayal, I naturally would have stopped. But "snotty teen" isn't a stereotype that has traditionally been used to fuel oppression of an entire group of people. In Watto's case, the "Jewish merchant" trope came off pretty strong and people had a reaction to it. (Not the intent of the creators, but the impact nonetheless.) I'm far less likely to lean on an offensive trope like that than the one I did. And I would never use, say, a black minstrel character trope for any table ever.

As said above, it can be a slippery slope. If you feel safe leaning on negative stereotypes at your table, what's keeping you from dipping further into being directly offensive or harmful to others? Just because you're comfortable being offensive shouldn't mean you have carte blanche to do so just because those who would be directly harmed by it aren't at the table with you. Not without due consideration anyway.

In the end, it's the space you've curated, play how you feel. But don't cry about it when others wish to put some forethought into their actions.

19 minutes ago, rogue_09 said:

Real world example. In our last session, the PCs infiltrated a Moff's palace based on a tip that either the Moff or a high level staff member was willing to turn over to the Alliance. Turned out the mole was actually his teenage daughter. Not only did they have to exfiltrate her, and her six giant computer cores of information, they also had to contend with a snotty teenager who had no problem commenting on the quality of her rescue. "Snotty teen" was a fun trope to play with and we all had a laugh.

And as a trope, it is ageist and potentially offensive. If the player with actual teenage kids had said he wasn't comfortable with my portrayal, I naturally would have stopped. But "snotty teen" isn't a stereotype that has traditionally been used to fuel oppression of an entire group of people.

Well, yeah, and I'd argue that it isn't "ageist" or offensive. Some teenagers are absolutely insufferable, and when they're spoiled it can be even worse. Doesn't mean they all are.

26 minutes ago, rogue_09 said:

As said above, it can be a slippery slope. If you feel safe leaning on negative stereotypes at your table, what's keeping you from dipping further into being directly offensive or harmful to others? Just because you're comfortable being offensive shouldn't mean you have carte blanche to do so just because those who would be directly harmed by it aren't at the table with you. Not without due consideration anyway.

"Harmful" is a stretch. A pretty big one. And it isn't a slippery slope because I'm not sliding. I have judgement and a moral compass and am able to discern right and wrong.
And I said nothing about being "offensive" as long as someone who'd be "directly harmed" by it isn't there. What I said was that even if something is morally fine, you should not do it if it would inhibit the enjoyment of the others at the table because your job is to ensure that they have a good time.

That said, if what I want to do is morally fine, and the person would get their pants in a twist over it is three states over and isn't a part of my game (which I suppose I need to clarify in this day and age), what will or will not bother them has absolutely no bearing on my game whatsoever, nor should it. If that's what you mean, then I disagree. The only due consideration in that case would be no consideration.

A point of clarification: Certain behaviors are contingent on context and intent for appropriateness, and some that are relatively unobjectionable in one context or with one intent can be very problematic in another. If you're with some friends at the bar and you drop a few curse words, it's not a big deal. If you use those same curse words to cuss out your four year old, it becomes very, very different.
A Toydarian merchant who acts similarly to a racist trope: Not wrong. Some people may be offended by it (wrongly, if understandably, in my opinion), but especially in the context of a few friends playing a roleplaying game where it isn't meant for broad consumption, there's nothing inherently wrong with it.
Using the Jewish merchant racist trope to characterize Jews: Wrong. It is slanderous and inappropriate.

1 hour ago, rogue_09 said:

In the end, it's the space you've curated, play how you feel. But don't cry about it when others wish to put some forethought into their actions.

And I did that when? I specifically stated that if you aren't comfortable with it, don't do it. If your players aren't comfortable with it, don't do it.
And I don't think anybody else did that either.

9 hours ago, Malashim said:

But it would be somewhat poetic to finish the countdown with a not 100% on-topic discussion that most certainly won't lead anywhere.

Sometimes it can be entertaining to watch the world burn, especially after you stopped participating.

Oh it's an appropriate book end to the forum, a sort of product cancer warning label imo....