When Shannara jumps in just as you're quoting her...

But don't say apples too often, or you'll end up in 'The Count' territory.

(Look up 'The Count Censored' on Youtube, I won't link it here because the comments section of the video is decidedly less clean than the mods might appreciate).

When in doubt, do it Shakespear style.

"I bite my thumb at thee, sir."

The official guideline for what material is safe for inclusion in non-adult games is 'nothing you wouldn't read in your local newspaper.'

Same guideline works for language.

Of course, doing so knocks any form of vulgarity right off the table, and, unless I'm wrong here, doing so removes nearly all possibility of expressive interjections, which are necessary in written format to indicate mood. This issue, of course, makes perfect sense when considering the newspaper rule, as newspapers are meant to be entirely neutral in tone.

I think it's a bit unclear whether you're referring to the use of profanity in games, or in public RPoL forums. The way you wrote the first post seemed to imply what was okay to say in things like Community Chat and other public forums.

If you do mean in-game profanity usage, then it's different if I recall correctly. That's why there are Mature and Adult tags available for games.

That said, though, I'd just also clarify that profanity is far from an absolute necessity for "expressive interjections" or indicating mood. There are plenty of ways to write good quality prose without it.

Vulgarity is hardly necessary in the public forums. ;)

RPoL doesn't go around policing private games to make sure no profanity is used in game threads, even the Group 0 ones.

We expect our users to use common sense, and if a game contains profanity, vulgarity, and the like ... then it needs to be kept to a reasonable level if it is in public view.

I would also hope that the GM and the other players makes allowances for the comfort level of those in the game, and 'tone it down' if it interferes with others enjoyment -- but ultimately that is the GM of the game's call.

If a character can't comment on the fact that the sun is shining without the use of profanity (exaggerated example) then likely the group threads need to be private -- preferably without it ever coming to the moderators' attention as a problem.

RPoL's policy is --

public boards:  fruit/pastry it out or omit it.  Err on the side of caution.

Private games:  use common sense.  If in doubt, err on the side of caution, use private groups and ratings as appropriate, and respect other players in the game and the GM's wishes.
This message was last edited by the user at 12:36, Mon 09 Nov 2015.

Do you bite your thumb at  me, sir?


I respectfully disagree that vulgarity is required to indicate mood. As evinced both by the the fact that Community Chat exists and also almost every YA novel ever written.

I respectfully disagree that vulgarity is required to indicate mood. As evinced both by the the fact that Community Chat exists and also almost every YA novel ever written.
</quote>
I'm pretty sure the point he was making is that the "newspaper rule" is significantly more restrictive than "no profanity/vulgarity".

Regardless, there are some games in some genres (particularly those mimicking a certain TV or movies) where using "bad words" is pretty much required to keep the same tone as the original.  Still, it's not like it's hard to keep your threads in group 1 or whatever so that the casual, uninvolved viewer cannot see them.

Granted. But I still respectfully disagree. I've read many novels that could easily be printed in my local paper with no pearl-clutching by the readership.

truemane, I don't think that makes it universally true.

Can I tell a standard sword-and-sorcery story without any profanity?  Certainly.

Can I run a game titled Pulp Fiction II: Electric Boogaloo based off the Pulp Fiction movie without any profanity?  Not if I want to keep with the tone of my source material.

Also, don't forget that a lot of books get around the problem of profanity by simply making up their own in-world "profanity" that has no real impact on the reader.  Take Harry Potter, for instance.  They makeup a derogatory term "mudblood" that would never get printed if it were a real-world equivalent to the made-up word.

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 17):

Everything you're saying is true and I have no argument with any of it. I think we might be talking at cross-purposes. My specific objection was with this:

"Of course, doing so knocks any form of vulgarity right off the table, and, unless I'm wrong here, doing so removes nearly all possibility of expressive interjections, which are necessary in written format to indicate mood."

It's a rather categorical assertion that removing 'any form of vulgarity' by necessity removes 'nearly all possibility of expressive interjections' and, further, that expressive interjections are 'necessary in written formal to indicate mood.'

I don't think this true. Not at all. I think there are all kinds of modes of expression and ways to indicate mood that don't require any language you wouldn't find in a newspaper.

I have neither said, nor implied, that there should be no vulgarity, or that vulgarity is never necessary or useful. I just said that the idea that it is somehow required to indicate mood is untrue.

And if you're running a game for which vulgarity is a necessity (and I would say that Pulp Fiction II: Electric Boogaloo definitely does) then you should probably be doing it as an Adult game anyway.

And just to remind people that RPoL allows profanity in games, with the permitted level dependent on the game's rating.  So if you really want to run Pulp Fiction II: Electric Boogaloo, then you can do so with the appropriate rating.

The only place where we specifically require profanity to be substituted with fruit/pastries is in the public forums (where you would not be allowed to run a game anyway).
This message had punctuation tweaked by the user at 16:15, Mon 09 Nov 2015.

My point was that sometimes such interjections are necessary.  Not all the time, or even a majority of the time, but there are cases where you can honestly make the statement that you have to use such words for the mood and tone of the story.

In my long history on this site, the number of times that's been the case has been vanishingly small (and possibly zero), but it is possible (so saying it's never the case is incorrect).

---

And then it occurred to me that Pulp Fiction II: Electric Boogaloo would be a great concept for running a game of Spirit of '77...

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 20):

Agreed! If language is like painting, then profanity is like those extra vibrant, glaring, clashing colours you have in the back of the drawer. They're neither necessary nor appropriate most of the time, but every now and again whatever you want to paint just NEEDS a dash of Bride Red, or Inglourious Blue, or Jackie Brown.

 I personally don't have a problem with profanity  but I don't use it unless I'm in an Adult or Mature only game where it's permitted. I use substitutes like Holy Cow, what the..., or @#**!!! if I'm "out in public". I do this mostly because I don't know the real ages of the people I play with or the ages of who ever is reading my posts.

We ran into this on a chat site I use, where we disagreed on what was acceptable.  IMO there are two categories.  The first is generally related to religion, and words usually associated with those.  Unless you are using the words/names in a discussion of said religion, or actions associated with it, no.  Someone (who may recognize himself) tried to argue that the words didn't really mean anything, or something like that.  Well, if they don't mean anything, why bother using them?

The other category generally refers to actions one is not usually allowed to do, and probably shouldn't discuss either, in a public place.  Some things should be kept to the bathroom or bedroom, or among good enough friends that you might share those activities.  Many of these words might more accurately be termed 'vulgarity' or 'potty talk'.  One of the very popular four letter words particularly strikes me as ironic in its current usage, since the word it stems from refers to fertility, something I'm sure most using it so freely are definitely not interested in.

While I can understand what you are saying, I'm not so sure of the universal impact of such words.  I've seen people who can't seem to get a sentence out, no matter the level of emotion and emphasis, without using profanity. They could be asking someone to pass the "Figging" butter at the Thanksgiving dinner table or giving "Golden Delicious" directions to a lost stranger. Those words are the primary colors and if that same person were to suddenly talk in a clear, slow, calm, and polite manner, that's when you know the "Strawberry" is ready to hit the fan.  "Miss Alexis Jada Wilson, you better..."

EDIT: never had much need for the fruit thing in the forums, hope I got it right.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:06, Mon 09 Nov 2015.

In reply to CosmicGamer (msg # 24):

I felt your use of "Figging" was a little brave (though, thinking on the matter, I'm not sure how many alternatives are at your disposal), and we usually like to use the red text, but I found your general choice of fruits to be most delightful.

Hmm. It would appear that I have made a sentence that carried a mood, albeit in a rather unnatural manner, without the use of expressive interjections. Furthermore, I have used "hmm" to indicate mood, which, upon a quick search through the internet, seems to be in no way vulgar at all. Thus, it would most certainly seem that my previous assessment that I made while sleep-deprived was, in fact, incorrect. Nonetheless, "hmm" is not a word one would be likely to find in a newspaper, so some elements of my point still stand.

---

Since there does seem to be some rather serious confusion on the subject, my interest in this topic is actually outside of RPoL, and has a higher focus on face-to-face communication, especially when such vulgar words are used idiomatically. There are, of course, famous quotations (Example from the 1939 film Gone with the Wind: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a danish." It's nearly a century later and people still know the line.) and other idioms which rely on profanity. In my Exalted group, many of us have said the phrase "Don't fig with the Eclipse." To replace the profane word with a less offensive synonym calls explicit negative attention to the speaker, as they have demonstrated a failure to conform.

There is a large focus in society on being accepting and tolerant of other people and their choices. If two people, one who is comfortable using profanity and the other is not, are having a conversation, it is the burden of the latter to ignore whatever offense he might take in the name of acceptance. However, with the above example, we begin to see a bit of a double standard.

In my high school, we had a few teachers who would reprimand students for nearly any form of vulgarity, regardless of how it was used. As a result, it was the general nature among the entire class to replace words one might normally use with purely scientific synonyms. Example: "Oh, fecal matter! I forgot my textbook!" This, of course, was completely unnatural and came to be a sort of running meme because of the humor in its awkwardness. While the English teacher would still complain about this (not professionally, as a teacher; rather, personally, as she was rather prudish), the science teacher was willing to let that fecal matter under the radar.

My question regarding exactly what constitutes profanity has more to do with words that are categorically taboo, and are disallowed by nearly any overseer in any professional or serious educational institution: in essence, the sorts of words that can be replaced by a fruit or pastry whose name contains the same first letter and readers already familiar with the word will know exactly what was meant. At what point do words stop being vulgar and inappropriate, and start being altogether profane?

In reply to HornetCorset (msg # 25):

Typically the moment it moves out of the realm of humor or metaphor and into a status where it directly targets, accuses, or calls into question the character of a person or the person themselves.

There is a word, which in English, is considered so profane - only the most despicable of English-speakers would ever use it; unless the circumstances truly 'warranted it' (though, even that is a vague construct.)  [Those attempting to figure-out the word, there is a baseball hitting term that rhymes with it.]

However, in German, the equivalent word has no such discernible quality.  Meaning: no one takes offense to it in the same level, and it does not have the 'punch' that it does in English.

On the other hand- in Farsi: the word "pay-dar sag" or literally "father/dog" is a fairly significant insult.  But, it loses all value/strength when brought into English (though, it doesn't take much effort to determine its equivalent.)  However, said to the right age-group?  You will start a fight for sure.

---

So, again - context + level of directedness seems to determine the line between vulgar and profane.

In reply to GamerHandle (msg # 26):

That's a rather interesting take on the matter. However, you pointed out yourself that there are words that are considered incredibly taboo. A comedian named Reginald D Hunter has a rather famous bit about an interaction with an Irishman who, having never met him before, called him the very same word you described in your last post. However, this use of the word was not a targeted insult, nor would the use of the word be remotely warranted, nor did Reginald think any less of him for having used it in this manner. Are you saying that, under such circumstances, even such a despicably profane word wouldn't be considered profane?

In reply to HornetCorset (msg # 27):

Couldn't say with any sense of certainty.  Obviously first and foremost reaction comes down to the individual listener.  However, after that, it's all a guess.  Too many factors come into play; namely culture, individual upbringing, and finally adult experience.

[And, yes those three are indeed related - those distinct concepts.]

Take myself - as someone retired from the military: I don't personally find any sense of insult-level distinction between being told "Well, I'd rather do this" and "Fruit You! No Way!"  To me the first is wishy-washy and weak.  The second is animated.  Other than that, they are both "no".

However, another person may find one or the other or even both of these offensive (the first for being passive-aggressive and the other excessively brazen.)

So.... mostly guesswork.  However, society has a tendency to determine at any given time "roughly" what is accepted and not.  Things like G and PG and such ratings on movies are an example.

That issue (of different terms being considered profane or vulgar in one language or culture, and being very much a part of daily parlance in another) is a strong argument for why RPOL has never codified profanity.  There are very few words that are considered universally vulgar or profane, and without an extensive search into the linguistics of various nations and cultures represented by RPOL users, it would be almost impossible to come up with a comprehensive list of words that should not be used.

Which is why the, 'If you're not sure, err on the side of caution' point carries so much weight.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 14:01, Tue 10 Nov 2015.

And even more so, there are lots of people who wouldn't be insulted by a given word in a face-to-face interaction, but would be VERY upset to read it in a newspaper, hear it on the news, etc. Usually because think of the children.

It is guesswork. And almost impossible to legislate with any real degree of accuracy or elegance.