Disappointingly, the scene has changed very little in the past 47 years. In George’s 2014 essay regarding the lack of diversity at Gen Con, he touchingly writes: “As an awkward teen, like other awkward teens, I wanted to be accepted. But acceptance meant something different to me, as perhaps it does to other minority teens. Acceptance meant being white.”18 With that in mind, it is interesting to note Lakofka’s historic intersection with Gen Con, as both attendee and organizer in the early years. We must ask whether Gen Con and other related community events have ever been particularly free of problematic racist and misogynist tropes.
Wow, was at Gencon (not even close to being white) and I felt accepted and not discriminated against because of my race, nor did my gf feel like there was sexism or misogynism at Gencon. Seriously, not their shield.
Even in Gary Alan Fine’s classic book, Shared Fantasy, the distinction between reality and fantasy for role-players is considered “impermeable,” despite the sociologist’s own admission that “[frequently] non-player male characters who have not hurt the party are executed and female non-player characters raped for sport.”
"Its impossible to describe male on female penetrative sex as anything other than the violent colonization of the female body by patriarchy."
A lovely quote from a professor during a gender & ethnicity class. It was at that point which I realized the magnitude of the insanity that follows the natural extension of ideological hyper-leftism.
That being said, any DM that doesn't say "way a minute, thats really fethed up" if their players decided to engage in fantasy rape is really not being a decent human being. No, "I'm playing an evil character" doesn't matter or count.
I honestly thought, and still do, that Pen to Paper Roleplays tended to be the least sexist etc things to take part in. You can be an 8 year old girl with S8 next to a male body builder with S5 and its fine as long as you go by the stats etc.
Thats all an RPG is. Stats. There is no agenda or anything, its all simply a set of stats for players to create what they wish.
I dont know, I think its just another cashing in on the current scandal thingies.
Peter Wiggin wrote: "Its impossible to describe male on female penetrative sex as anything other than the violent colonization of the female body by patriarchy."
A lovely quote from a professor during a gender & ethnicity class. It was at that point which I realized the magnitude of the insanity that follows the natural extension of ideological hyper-leftism.
That being said, any DM that doesn't say "way a minute, thats really fethed up" if their players decided to engage in fantasy rape is really not being a decent human being. No, "I'm playing an evil character" doesn't matter or count.
Peter Wiggin wrote: "Its impossible to describe male on female penetrative sex as anything other than the violent colonization of the female body by patriarchy."
A lovely quote from a professor during a gender & ethnicity class. It was at that point which I realized the magnitude of the insanity that follows the natural extension of ideological hyper-leftism.
That being said, any DM that doesn't say "way a minute, thats really fethed up" if their players decided to engage in fantasy rape is really not being a decent human being. No, "I'm playing an evil character" doesn't matter or count.
Wow. My faith in humanity just went down a notch.
I gotta admit, people that say those things have a lot of comedic value in them.
I once read this huge blog post about how sex is always rape for a women. No matter what either party says. I didnt know what to feel, so I laughed. My GF gave me a huge shock when she siad with a serious face she agrees. She was joking, but still. It isnt all bad.
Peter Wiggin wrote: "Its impossible to describe male on female penetrative sex as anything other than the violent colonization of the female body by patriarchy."
.
This line of thinking is why i dislike anti-sex feminism, pro-sex feminism seems the be inhabited by people who spout much less crazy stuff. It's good to know that all children are a bi-product of rape.Also is this sexism shitstorm really needed atm? "LEAVE GAMING (britney) ALONE!
Peter Wiggin wrote: "Its impossible to describe male on female penetrative sex as anything other than the violent colonization of the female body by patriarchy."
.
This line of thinking is why i dislike anti-sex feminism, pro-sex feminism seems the be inhabited by people who spout much less crazy stuff. It's good to know that all children are a bi-product of rape.Also is this sexism shitstorm really needed atm? "LEAVE GAMING (britney) ALONE!
I've met more than one self proclaimed pro-sex feminist who had a lot of antipathy towards men, many times with very good experiential reason. Honestly its just that 3rd wave feminism, like any conflict theory based analysis, perpetuates the conflicts that they seek to find in the structure of a society. If they didn't, the ideology would cease to exist. That is why the conflict analysis is broken into male/female rich/poor black/white PoC/White rural/urban etc etc. All the little tribes, all the little wars. Its less about the femin and more about the ism.
Or to put it another way, an ideology that neatly divides the world into two opposing camps is going to generate hatred by its very structure. That applies to everything from partisan politics to religion to conflict theory feminism.
Bullockist wrote: I agree with what you said peter, very insightful.
I still cannot read anti-sex feminist articles though.
Thanks man, it comes with the territory for me. I have to be able to defend and secure my own identity without falling into the linguistic and cognitive traps that open the door for conflict analysis to dismantle an argument.
Well of course you don't want to read them, they're boring and any man who really and truly is a good man...with concern for women as he would have concern for his own sister or mother doesn't need to read anything like that. Again, I feel blessed to have been raised in a household in which the parents worked very hard to present an image of gender equity (in terms of the power dynamic in the home) and solidarity (meaning parents never fought or disagreed over anything major) in front of kids.
My sister was raised (at least before preschool) as a "grey overall kid" so my household was always very pro equality.My sister and mother are quite pro-fixing things themselves and as a consequence of growing up like this i never really understand the finger pointing game that many activists display, however you explained it perfectly.
Aaron Trammell alludes to some worthwhile points. Games can be and have been used, whether consciously or not, to reinforce perspectives, including problematic ones. And gamers committed to problematic ideologies often defend them by some appeal to authority, either on the basis of genre regarding fiction or pseudo-history regarding non-fiction and in either case the underlying design theory of simulation. "Accuracy" justifies all sorts of iniquity as far as some gamers are concerned. Witness on Dakka Dakka the countless arguments over the upper body strength of women.
OTOH I am kind of repulsed by Trammell's implication that games should be at the service of the "values of inclusivity, plurality, and compassion." Trammell deploys those concepts with such imperial ease, as if they are universal (and universally obvious) throughout time and space. There is an echo of puritanical condescension here, ringing down from the Christian Right of the 80s. it's like the children of that generation's suburban Evangelicals rebelled by pursuing degrees in gender theory. But they never really sloughed the wild-eyed righteousness of mom and dad.
I'd really, really recommend reading the article by Jon Peterson that Trammell linked:
Even in Gary Alan Fine’s classic book, Shared Fantasy, the distinction between reality and fantasy for role-players is considered “impermeable,” despite the sociologist’s own admission that “[frequently] non-player male characters who have not hurt the party are executed and female non-player characters raped for sport.”
Really? what kind of DM hosted that game?
I wouldn't be too surprised by that claim. Remember, not only did someone create FATAL they actually thought there was enough of a market for it that it would be a viable product to sell.
TheCustomLime wrote: Why racist, though? I'm not white and I've never felt discriminated against.
Because certain segments of people are crazy and they need to have someone BE the victim so that they can 'protect' them and feel better about themselves. Even if the person who's supposed to be the victim doesn't feel like he/she is a victim, then it's all internalised misogyny/racism where the person is oppressed and doesn't know it.
Strange as one of the things I've noticed about D&D is that the rulebooks and Novels (though not necessarily the players) go out of their way to be as PC as possible. Evreything as gender/race (as in human races) neutral as possible. Even as a teenager in the 90's It just seemed ludicrous to me that these where supposed to be Medieval worlds but had the same social attitudes as 60’s era San Francisco.
It seems the SJW's just can't stand not to be in complete control of everything.
Even in Gary Alan Fine’s classic book, Shared Fantasy, the distinction between reality and fantasy for role-players is considered “impermeable,” despite the sociologist’s own admission that “[frequently] non-player male characters who have not hurt the party are executed and female non-player characters raped for sport.”
Really? what kind of DM hosted that game?
I wouldn't be too surprised by that claim. Remember, not only did someone create FATAL they actually thought there was enough of a market for it that it would be a viable product to sell.
There is also a market for my little Pony D&D, i think they take it way out of proportion, this may have happened incidentally, but all the sessions i played and DM's i know would never let this happen (at least not without major repercussion to the character).
LuciusAR wrote: Strange as one of the things I've noticed about D&D is that the rulebooks and Novels (though not necessarily the players) go out of their way to be as PC as possible. Evreything as gender/race (as in human races) neutral as possible. Even as a teenager in the 90's It just seemed ludicrous to me that these where supposed to be Medieval worlds but had the same social attitudes as 60’s era San Francisco.
Yeah, in a world with wizards, bizarre monsters, etc, it's just completely unbelievable that women and men could be equal and the world wouldn't duplicate real-world power structures. This lack of realism just kills D&D for me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jehan-reznor wrote: There is also a market for my little Pony D&D, i think they take it way out of proportion, this may have happened incidentally, but all the sessions i played and DM's i know would never let this happen (at least not without major repercussion to the character).
I think it's out of proportion, but I also think that the various TFG stereotypes exist for a reason.
Yeah, in a world with wizards, bizarre monsters, etc, it's just completely unbelievable that women and men could be equal and the world wouldn't duplicate real-world power structures. This lack of realism just kills D&D for me.
Sorry but it's just because a fictional world has fantasy elements doesn’t mean that it's not supposed to be Medieval. Trying to project modern social norms onto worlds that, though fictional, are still clearly based on a particular historic period with vastly different norms is just silly.
Why on earth do you think George RR Martin has sold so well? Because his book at the time where a breath of fresh air and despite the Fantasy elements Westeros felt like a proper Medieval world. With all the horror, disease, filth, perversity and prejudice that comes with that. Needless to say the SJW seems to have a bee in their bonnet over GOT as well.
At a con I attended (many years ago, D&D was still a TSR product and still in 2nd ed) I heard a tale that in one of the D&D games a party raped and killed a dryad then resurrected her and did it again - with the DM chortling along with the all male group.
Now, ordinarily, I'd have not lent much credence to that story - except I knew two of the players, and they HAD done similar things in other games run at my club.
They were one of the reasons rpg players had such a bad rep at cons back then (miniature gamers were tame in comparison).
At a con I attended (many years ago, D&D was still a TSR product and still in 2nd ed) I heard a tale that in one of the D&D games a party raped and killed a dryad then resurrected her and did it again - with the DM chortling along with the all male group.
Now, ordinarily, I'd have not lent much credence to that story - except I knew two of the players, and they HAD done similar things in other games run at my club.
They were one of the reasons rpg players had such a bad rep at cons back then (miniature gamers were tame in comparison).
If I had anyone try something like that, they would be out and never allowed back. That's just disgusting. Killing is fine with me, but rape is just a bit to far in a roleplaying game.
1. There was less wrong with rape in a medieval and ancient culture. When the Vikings carry off women what do you think they will do with them. Rape however is more than just a violation, and less, it was a way of finding a wife and building a tribe, not (only) a means of nasty R&R.
In many ancient and medieval cultures carrying off a wife was acceptable, to the victor go the spoils. Some of those wifes because slaves other full on wives.
I am not going to defend the practice as nuice, but I am going to defend the practice as part of ancient society, if you dont want your womenfolk carried off win battles. Also that bneing said rape was still rape, in cultures that carries off wves taking the daughter of a fellow barbarian, or his wife was a serious crime, and to be avenged. Once a women was part of the tribal unit they had rights, so casual rape was not in any way acceptable, even to cultures that carried off women from other cultures as standard plunder. Take the Vikings again they carried off a lot of wives and bondswomen, but to rape one would be a serious offense and you would have to pay her geld or pay in blood. Other cultures with similar practices like the Hebrews, Babylonians and Romans had very similar laws.
2. D&D is not a medieval or ancient culture, its a modern progressive culture with medieval technology.
D&D universes tend to be more gender equal than our own. For a start women that the same statlines, when they should take a Strength penalty, possibly also a Dex penalty. This would not expect to apply to non humans unless they were biologically similar to humans. Second there appears to be few if any gender limits to advancement. When you add all this together D&D may expect to be far more progressive towards womens rights in other areas.
Would the barbarian horde listen? Probably not.
How are half orcs made? I get the strong impression they are rape children. A number of half elves are likely similar, and some definitively are including the Dragonlance character Tanis.
Drow culture entrenches forced breeding of captives, and the whole slave society is prepetuated on rape, though of lesser races. Rape of Drow would be a different matter, and Drow are a highly matriarchial society also.
in all you cant really divorce rape from D&D, its steeped into the system background even at a core rules level.
Also a subset of evil characters can rape. The best way to handle this would be off stage.
Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women."
GM - Nods <Scene ends>
GM - Asks ofther players what they are doing.....
GM - "All that is left is the charred remains iof the foundations, the village is gone, Your Aniti paladin has had his fill, what is he to do next."
Take everything sordid offstage. The Antipaladin is now a marauder and a rapist and a despoiler of villages, and probably was already. Titles we would be adorning any anti pialadin or Warhammer Champion of Chaos.
Looking at Warhammer a moment. We don't get butthurt about playing Slaaneshi armies, and what do you think those guys do for R&R. The background has made is abundantly clear since the 80's that some Warhammer factions just are not nice, and that rape and debauchery are everyday actions to them.
Its ok to have all this in the system, but it occurs offstage.
I use the word offstage because highly controversial scenes have long been settled this way. Going back to the notation in Greek tragedy Medea will not kill her children on stage. Ancient stage direction long since taken as standard. When Anakin kills the younglings it happens off camera, when TE Lawrence calls 'No quarter' it happens off camera. There are exceptions, even to the cardinal rule of infanticide: Magda Goebbels kills her children on camera in all on screen depictions of the Feurer bunker because the object lesson overrides the objection to infanticide, aided by the fact that the children as sleeping.
Exeprtion again exists fro media intentionally made to shock or arouse, but D&D sessions and Warhammer games are not intended for that type of media.
All in all there is an issue but the linked article in the OP doesnt do justice to it.
Peter Wiggin wrote: "Its impossible to describe male on female penetrative sex as anything other than the violent colonization of the female body by patriarchy."
A lovely quote from a professor during a gender & ethnicity class. It was at that point which I realized the magnitude of the insanity that follows the natural extension of ideological hyper-leftism.
That being said, any DM that doesn't say "way a minute, thats really fethed up" if their players decided to engage in fantasy rape is really not being a decent human being. No, "I'm playing an evil character" doesn't matter or count.
In ancient times Frazzled played DnD. Frazzled never ever ever heard anything like that.
"But I'm evil"
DM Frazzled: "So am I. A lightning bolt comes out of the sky and kills you. Now get the out of my house or I'll beat you with a bat you ."
The 80's: D&D will turn our kids to Satan!!!
The 90's/00's: Video games will turn our kids into school-shooting mass murderers!!!
Theh 10's: D&D/video games will turn our kids into instruments of the patriarchy!!!
Same song. Different words.
These people are not worth worrying about. They are pitiable.
TheCustomLime wrote: Why racist, though? I'm not white and I've never felt discriminated against.
Then clearly you've internalised racism.
At least, that's what these nut bars would have you believe.
Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women." GM - Nods <Scene ends> GM - Asks ofther players what they are doing..... GM - "All that is left is the charred remains iof the foundations, the village is gone, Your Aniti paladin has had his fill, what is he to do next."
How it should be handled. Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women." GM: "Get out of my house you sick freak."
Alternatively: Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women." Wife walks by and absentmindedly pops Anti-paladin in the back of the head.
Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women."
GM - Nods <Scene ends>
GM - Asks ofther players what they are doing.....
GM - "All that is left is the charred remains iof the foundations, the village is gone, Your Aniti paladin has had his fill, what is he to do next."
How it should be handled.
Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women."
GM: "Get out of my house you sick freak."
Alternatively:
Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women."
Wife walks by and absentmindedly pops Anti-paladin in the back of the head.
Do you play 40K or Warhammer Frazzie.
Would you refuse to play a guy who plays Slaaneshi armies?
What do you think they do for R&R?
Slaaneshi debauchery has never really been disguised, especially in Warhammer as opposed to 40K as the former is on a more personal level.
Systemic rape happens. In D%&D and Warhammer both its kept to the background.
Yuan-Ti breeding pits are rape camps, as the the ones operated by the Drow. Yuan-0Ti are covered even in computer games and the breeding pits are covered in th games for example Storm of Zehir. Its ok, because its underdescribed and while its obvious what is going on if you think about it you arent shown it, the characters just mash a whole lot of snakemen in their lair.
I wouldnt want to GM an evil campaign, but you can do one just just gloss over the sick stuff. You can also mask activities by remaining. Despoiling means to rape, pillage and destroy, its a paxckage deal. You could ask the player if he wants to despoil the village, if so clock off the hours and roll 1d4 for the number of eyewitness survivors who escape. T?hen move on, you don't have to and frankly shouldnt dwell on it.
Frankly the anti-alaldin analogy is unnecesasary this is more likely to happen in a narrative Warhammer campaign. If someone plays Slaaneshi or Darik Elves in particular despoiling will be a major activity. It puts an emphasis on why you are fighting.
Would you refuse to play a guy who plays Slaaneshi armies?
Nope because I'm playing toysoldiers. his toy soldiers aren't busy ing donkeys on the gaming table. They're blowing me off the table
What do you think they do for R&R?
Pro-tip they're not real.
Systemic rape happens. In D%&D and Warhammer both its kept to the background.
It didn't happen in role playing in DnD when I played it. Admittedly back then we used animal skins to keep track of our characters and had to occasionally take a break to fight off the errant cave bear. if this is something that occurs in DnD now its definitely a new thing, or something only weirdoes play acted.
Yuan-Ti breeding pits are rape camps, as the the ones operated by the Drow. Yuan-0Ti are covered even in computer games and the breeding pits are covered in th games for example Storm of Zehir. Its ok, because its underdescribed and while its obvious what is going on if you think about it you arent shown it, the characters just mash a whole lot of snakemen in their lair.
I'll be honest when I say I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I wouldnt want to GM an evil campaign, but you can do one just just gloss over the sick stuff. You can also mask activities by remaining. Despoiling means to rape, pillage and destroy, its a paxckage deal. You could ask the player if he wants to despoil the village, if so clock off the hours and roll 1d4 for the number of eyewitness survivors who escape. T?hen move on, you don't have to and frankly shouldnt dwell on it.
Again, WTF are you talking about? We killed orks and dragons when I played DnD. And ate a lot of chips.
1. There was less wrong with rape in a medieval and ancient culture. When the Vikings carry off women what do you think they will do with them. Rape however is more than just a violation, and less, it was a way of finding a wife and building a tribe, not (only) a means of nasty R&R.
In many ancient and medieval cultures carrying off a wife was acceptable, to the victor go the spoils. Some of those wifes because slaves other full on wives.
I am not going to defend the practice as nuice, but I am going to defend the practice as part of ancient society, if you dont want your womenfolk carried off win battles. Also that bneing said rape was still rape, in cultures that carries off wves taking the daughter of a fellow barbarian, or his wife was a serious crime, and to be avenged. Once a women was part of the tribal unit they had rights, so casual rape was not in any way acceptable, even to cultures that carried off women from other cultures as standard plunder. Take the Vikings again they carried off a lot of wives and bondswomen, but to rape one would be a serious offense and you would have to pay her geld or pay in blood. Other cultures with similar practices like the Hebrews, Babylonians and Romans had very similar laws.
2. D&D is not a medieval or ancient culture, its a modern progressive culture with medieval technology.
D&D universes tend to be more gender equal than our own. For a start women that the same statlines, when they should take a Strength penalty, possibly also a Dex penalty. This would not expect to apply to non humans unless they were biologically similar to humans. Second there appears to be few if any gender limits to advancement. When you add all this together D&D may expect to be far more progressive towards womens rights in other areas.
Would the barbarian horde listen? Probably not.
How are half orcs made? I get the strong impression they are rape children. A number of half elves are likely similar, and some definitively are including the Dragonlance character Tanis.
Drow culture entrenches forced breeding of captives, and the whole slave society is prepetuated on rape, though of lesser races. Rape of Drow would be a different matter, and Drow are a highly matriarchial society also.
in all you cant really divorce rape from D&D, its steeped into the system background even at a core rules level.
Also a subset of evil characters can rape. The best way to handle this would be off stage.
Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women."
GM - Nods <Scene ends>
GM - Asks ofther players what they are doing.....
GM - "All that is left is the charred remains iof the foundations, the village is gone, Your Aniti paladin has had his fill, what is he to do next."
Take everything sordid offstage. The Antipaladin is now a marauder and a rapist and a despoiler of villages, and probably was already. Titles we would be adorning any anti pialadin or Warhammer Champion of Chaos.
Looking at Warhammer a moment. We don't get butthurt about playing Slaaneshi armies, and what do you think those guys do for R&R. The background has made is abundantly clear since the 80's that some Warhammer factions just are not nice, and that rape and debauchery are everyday actions to them.
Its ok to have all this in the system, but it occurs offstage.
I use the word offstage because highly controversial scenes have long been settled this way. Going back to the notation in Greek tragedy Medea will not kill her children on stage. Ancient stage direction long since taken as standard. When Anakin kills the younglings it happens off camera, when TE Lawrence calls 'No quarter' it happens off camera. There are exceptions, even to the cardinal rule of infanticide: Magda Goebbels kills her children on camera in all on screen depictions of the Feurer bunker because the object lesson overrides the objection to infanticide, aided by the fact that the children as sleeping.
Exeprtion again exists fro media intentionally made to shock or arouse, but D&D sessions and Warhammer games are not intended for that type of media.
All in all there is an issue but the linked article in the OP doesnt do justice to it.
I agree with all of this, right up to the implication that players shouldn't be castigated for engaging in fantasy rape.
At a con I attended (many years ago, D&D was still a TSR product and still in 2nd ed) I heard a tale that in one of the D&D games a party raped and killed a dryad then resurrected her and did it again - with the DM chortling along with the all male group.
Now, ordinarily, I'd have not lent much credence to that story - except I knew two of the players, and they HAD done similar things in other games run at my club.
They were one of the reasons rpg players had such a bad rep at cons back then (miniature gamers were tame in comparison).
I only played in 2 D&D campaigns ever so I'm not very well versed in how these things are supposed to happen, but that is some weirdo gak that was going on there, the campaigns that I was involved in usually consisted in killing baddies and getting mad loots, not re-enacting someone's sick rape-murder-rape fantasy!
At a con I attended (many years ago, D&D was still a TSR product and still in 2nd ed) I heard a tale that in one of the D&D games a party raped and killed a dryad then resurrected her and did it again - with the DM chortling along with the all male group.
Now, ordinarily, I'd have not lent much credence to that story - except I knew two of the players, and they HAD done similar things in other games run at my club.
They were one of the reasons rpg players had such a bad rep at cons back then (miniature gamers were tame in comparison).
I only played in 2 D&D campaigns ever so I'm not very well versed in how these things are supposed to happen, but that is some weirdo gak that was going on there, the campaigns that I was involved in usually consisted in killing baddies and getting mad loots, not re-enacting someone's sick rape-murder-rape fantasy!
So spending hours on imaginary murder and wholesale genocide is perfectly fine. Spending a sentence suggesting imaginary rape is wrong, apparently. I wonder if this is some American/Christian "sex bad/violence good" thing, or if it's something else.
Our games don't contain rape (other than that one time a succubus got the better of me), but I personally don't care or judge other people for it if their games do. We're classy people and our poor DM gets uncomfortable even talking about sex. I generally leave judgement of what people do in private groups behind closed doors to conservatives and liberals. Besides, it's periodically accurate, and things like half-orcs stop making sense without it.
I don't even know if I would mind it that much if it did come up in a game. I mean, some creature is known to do what is generally regarded as the most vile, terrible thing something can do, worse than wiping out civilizations of things simply for what they are even, well, that will only make my judgement and destruction of said horrible creature that much more appropriate and swift.
At a con I attended (many years ago, D&D was still a TSR product and still in 2nd ed) I heard a tale that in one of the D&D games a party raped and killed a dryad then resurrected her and did it again - with the DM chortling along with the all male group.
Now, ordinarily, I'd have not lent much credence to that story - except I knew two of the players, and they HAD done similar things in other games run at my club.
They were one of the reasons rpg players had such a bad rep at cons back then (miniature gamers were tame in comparison).
I only played in 2 D&D campaigns ever so I'm not very well versed in how these things are supposed to happen, but that is some weirdo gak that was going on there, the campaigns that I was involved in usually consisted in killing baddies and getting mad loots, not re-enacting someone's sick rape-murder-rape fantasy!
Okay, yeah, this is what I'd consider on the creepy side.
To me, it's more one of those things where if it's not graphically described, yeah, I get it, this is a terrible thing/person we're dealing with here. Bunch of Orcs kill all the men of a village and take the noncombatants as slaves? Well, we better hurry before things get really bad. If it's one of the players or it gets into detail, then it becomes a little fethed up.
I only played in 2 D&D campaigns ever so I'm not very well versed in how these things are supposed to happen, but that is some weirdo gak that was going on there, the campaigns that I was involved in usually consisted in killing baddies and getting mad loots, not re-enacting someone's sick rape-murder-rape fantasy!
D&D has three evil alignments. Some people are interested in playing the villain of a game, so these alignments sometimes get used. Other game systems don't even have alignments, and leave morality up to the players. Sometimes players create characters who are not nice people (even though the person playing them isn't a baby raping axe murderer). Campaigns that involve player characters doing bad things to NPCs exist. Generally, they are not the majority of cases, but it helps to understand that they are out there.
Now, how a GM and their players handle an evil campaign speaks a lot about them as people. If they handle the more brutal acts "offscreen" as has been suggested, they are probably mentally well-adjusted people who are just exploring the bad side of fantasy RPGs. If they are like the table full of douchecrackers who rape every female NPC they encounter and laugh about it, they probably shouldn't be permitted to interact with other human beings.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The 80's: D&D will turn our kids to Satan!!!
The 90's/00's: Video games will turn our kids into school-shooting mass murderers!!!
Theh 10's: D&D/video games will turn our kids into instruments of the patriarchy!!!
Same song. Different words.
Just a question: did people in the 80's saying D&D will turn kids to Satan play D&D?
Did the people in the 90's saying video games will turn kids to mass murderers (Hello Mr Milo Yiannopoulos. I am very happy for you that now GJW have forgiven you and they love you!) play video games?
Let us look at another article from him on his website:
http://analoggamestudies.org/2014/08/from-where-do-dungeons-come/ So, dungeons because of the cold war? Seems pretty far-stretched for me, but also does not really carry any kind of negative implications. I think this guy is really about analyzing, maybe even overanalyzing games, rather than trying to launch a campaign against games. I mean, certainly he says nowhere that “D&D will make people sexists”, but rather that people's bias made it into the game. Basically the other way around. You can not see him advocating anywhere for removing games, but you can see him advocating for changing some stuff about them. Really, I do not think your comparison has any relevancy.
D&D has three evil alignments. Some people are interested in playing the villain of a game, so these alignments sometimes get used. Other game systems don't even have alignments, and leave morality up to the players. Sometimes players create characters who are not nice people (even though the person playing them isn't a baby raping axe murderer). Campaigns that involve player characters doing bad things to NPCs exist. Generally, they are not the majority of cases, but it helps to understand that they are out there.
Now, how a GM and their players handle an evil campaign speaks a lot about them as people. If they handle the more brutal acts "offscreen" as has been suggested, they are probably mentally well-adjusted people who are just exploring the bad side of fantasy RPGs. If they are like the table full of douchecrackers who rape every female NPC they encounter and laugh about it, they probably shouldn't be permitted to interact with other human beings.
Oh, I understand all about the evil alignments and I usually prefer to play evil characters or races myself, but there are definitely some lines that I think shouldn't be crossed in a game and that story not only crossed them so much as completely obliterated them.
If my character decides to sell all of those villagers to be slaves for a Slaneeshi cult, then no harm no foul, this is a game, there are no actual real consequences for that.
But if I narrate the "despoiling" as it happens then its not only my character doing anything, its my actual mind imagining those things and that seems more than a bit wrong to me.
Yeah, in a world with wizards, bizarre monsters, etc, it's just completely unbelievable that women and men could be equal and the world wouldn't duplicate real-world power structures. This lack of realism just kills D&D for me.
Sorry but it's just because a fictional world has fantasy elements doesn’t mean that it's not supposed to be Medieval. Trying to project modern social norms onto worlds that, though fictional, are still clearly based on a particular historic period with vastly different norms is just silly.
It's just not D&D until I hear some back woods yokel refer to the party's Dark Elf as "that damned n***** elf".
Systemic rape happens. In D%&D and Warhammer both its kept to the background.
Yuan-Ti breeding pits are rape camps, as the the ones operated by the Drow. Yuan-0Ti are covered even in computer games and the breeding pits are covered in th games for example Storm of Zehir. Its ok, because its underdescribed and while its obvious what is going on if you think about it you arent shown it, the characters just mash a whole lot of snakemen in their lair.
Wasn't one of the old D&D 1st ed modules taken off the market because the comic in it actually contained a portrayal(or at least the "just about to happen" scene) of goblins raping a female captive?
The answer is simply PhantomViper, don't narrate the despoiling.
When a Slaanesh warband despoils a village its going to be different from when a Khorne warband does so.
nobody needs to go into it. The example of reducing the women captured by D&D orcs is well chosen, you know why they were spared and the menfolk not, you don't need to describe why.
You could make it plain to everyone "Let us rescue them befroe they get ravaged." No further description is required.
Meanwhile an evil party with a band of orc mercenaries might give over the women of a village to the orcs. We know why they want them as pay, nobody needs to go into it.
Said eveil pary could be players or adversaries.
As a rule of thumb I don't normally encourage evil parties, if players want one I allow it to happen, but play through the consequences of their evil. Evil is not heroic, the arch villain gives heroes a 'sporting chance' because fate dictates that to happen, vile scum get no second chances as Fate rejects them.
In the example given before I am not interested in describing a despoiled village except by dscrigbing ruins. I am very interested in the survivors who get away, and I normally allow survivors to get away from the players because as we know from real life survivors happen.
In the end it's safer not to play evil, the only reason we do is to have multiple parties at odds with each other, and the villains are only loosely handled.
I recommedn this by the way, give the players two characters, one starting good or neutral character and one fairly high level evil 'mini boss'. Players end up making their own additions to the meta plot (though the real end bosses are all full NPC). It gives the players insifght into evil and their own semi-PC's become targets for the actual party.
It also covers up plot holes, if your players think there is a flaw in your campaign they have limited authority to fix it from the point of view of the bad guys. The heroes being a lot weaker have to stay under their radar.
daedalus wrote: So spending hours on imaginary murder and wholesale genocide is perfectly fine. Spending a sentence suggesting imaginary rape is wrong, apparently. I wonder if this is some American/Christian "sex bad/violence good" thing, or if it's something else.
I think you are on the right track. There is something almost Victorian about the idiom of gender ideology in this country. Maybe it is because there is so much posturing around this topic? People (and companies) are so worried about being labeled sexist or homophobic or whatever else that they get a bit proactively shrill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: You can not see him advocating anywhere for removing games, but you can see him advocating for changing some stuff about them. Really, I do not think your comparison has any relevancy.
I think HBMC has a good point. In Olden Tymes, when you wanted to get rid of something you tried to marginalize it. Anti-D&D campaigners portrayed D&D players as freaks on the fringes of society who no one should trust. These days, people oppose things by subverting them from within. Instead of banning D&D, today's moral crusaders want to transform D&D into something they find acceptable.
But if I narrate the "despoiling" as it happens then its not only my character doing anything, its my actual mind imagining those things and that seems more than a bit wrong to me.
Agreed. I've run evil campaigns in the past and that (thankfully) hasn't been an issue. If I got someone at the table who did that, I'd tell them to stop talking and see me after game for a scolding. People who want to describe each and every vile act their character commits in detail are people who have serious issues and need phsycological counselling, and I ain't getting paid to do that at game.
daedalus wrote: So spending hours on imaginary murder and wholesale genocide is perfectly fine. Spending a sentence suggesting imaginary rape is wrong, apparently. I wonder if this is some American/Christian "sex bad/violence good" thing, or if it's something else.
I think you are on the right track. There is something almost Victorian about the idiom of gender ideology in this country. Maybe it is because there is so much posturing around this topic? People (and companies) are so worried about being labeled sexist or homophobic or whatever else that they get a bit proactively shrill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: You can not see him advocating anywhere for removing games, but you can see him advocating for changing some stuff about them. Really, I do not think your comparison has any relevancy.
I think HBMC has a good point. In Olden Tymes, when you wanted to get rid of something you tried to marginalize it. Anti-D&D campaigners portrayed D&D players as freaks on the fringes of society who no one should trust. These days, people oppose things by subverting them from within. Instead of banning D&D, today's moral crusaders want to transform D&D into something they find acceptable.
Actually no. We never went around slaughtering villagers. Just orks and other wee beasties, usually in dungeons.
This is making me wonder - what the hell happened to DnD?
Manchu wrote: I think HBMC has a good point. In Olden Tymes, when you wanted to get rid of something you tried to marginalize it. Anti-D&D campaigners portrayed D&D players as freaks on the fringes of society who no one should trust.
People in favour of gun control evidently missed that memo
Also -- you keep posting as if your experience with D&D is universal. Why?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: People in favour of gun control evidently missed that memo
Remember when S&W bowed to gun control nuts on trigger locks? Don't want to go too far off-topic here. The subversion tactic is no secret, either: you find that language throughout the post-modern manifesto genre (in which I include most contemporary writing on "inclusivity").
Also -- you keep posting as if your experience with D&D is universal. Why?
1. Read the post, don't stop at no.
2. Because I'm an OP (Original Playa).
The counterarguments being made actually are right out of the playbook arguing these things are in fact misogynistic.
If people are going around playing out rape fantasies then they're 100% on point. I'm frankly shocked because we never ever did any of that. Thats just fethed up.
Further, when we played DnD we were comic book age kids.
Actually no. We never went around slaughtering villagers. Just orks and other wee beasties, usually in dungeons.
This is making me wonder - what the hell happened to DnD?
Books containing monster ecology happened. More importantly, and I can't say for how much this would have been done back then, nor why it would have changed, but you can apply a Twilight Zone or I Am Legend (the book) twist on the viewpoint of the game:
Yes, you never went around slaughtering (human) villagers. You slaughtered encampments of orcs and other wee beasties, in their homes (dungeons) though. In the name of Good. Maybe it was you and your party that were the monsters.
We jokingly refer to the Pathfinder Society as a "den of psycho murder death hobos" during our games for this reason.
I play a lot of roleplaying games, and I have no problem with rape as a feature of the story, but I don't go in for ERP even if it's consensual and I think that is the same for the overwhelming majority of players.
Manchu wrote: These days, people oppose things by subverting them from within.
Like, for instance, the people that opposed D&D now oppose gay marriage, or the legalization of marijuana, by subverting it from within. I am not convinced.
Manchu wrote: Instead of banning D&D, today's moral crusaders want to transform D&D into something they find acceptable.
So, you are saying those peoples that play D&D want to transform D&D into something they find acceptable?
Just because I quoted the relevant part didn't mean I stopped there. I didn't quote the rest because I never suggested D&D is about slaughtering villagers.
So what? You played some D&D a bazillion moons ago and ... ?
Frazzled wrote: If people are going around playing out rape fantasies then they're 100% on point. I'm frankly shocked because we never ever did any of that. Thats just fethed up.
All this talk about "playing out rape fantasies" is way OTT. Yeah, there are some people out there who have been major creepers at the table. I don't think we can learn a lot about D&D by citing the extreme cases. On point, there is a lot of "taken for granted" stuff about rape in D&D. As Orlanth pointed out -- half orcs and yuan-ti and drow ... all examples of rape in the background that is just assumed, whether or not some uber creeper is describing it in lurid detail to the table. That stuff has been there, in one form or another, since 1974 and before. As Trammell points out, go to Appendix N and you'll find the same kind of stuff. And yet Appendix N is not a bibliography of rape porn.
Thing is, rape is assumed to be a bad thing in D&D. You can't be a lawful good rapist. But rape is certainly in D&D as a subtle background element. Rape is something the fictional women of D&D fantasy worlds have to worry about.
Manchu wrote: These days, people oppose things by subverting them from within.
Like, for instance, the people that opposed D&D now oppose gay marriage, or the legalization of marijuana, by subverting it from within.
I am not convinced.
Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish policy.
Occupy.
The Tea Party even.
I am not surprised ... considering you missed my point. The people who used to be "in power," speaking in terms of perceived moral legitimacy, (i.e., the Christian Right) are now widely ridiculed as wackos. Their method of straight up crusading against whatever has totally failed; in fact, it is a big part of why people call them wackos. The method of the people currently "in power" is subversion. It has been super effective.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, you are saying those peoples that play D&D want to transform D&D into something they find acceptable?
I don't think you can have it both ways. Either
"those people that play D&D" are misogynistic creepers who need the "values of inclusivity, plurality, and compassion" forced on them by blog activists and compliant corporate employees
- OR -
"those people that play D&D" are already champions of Good Things (TM) and blog posts like Trammell's are unnecessary.
Manchu wrote: The method of the people currently "in power" is subversion. It has been super effective.
What did the people in power in term of perceived moral legitimacy have been super effectively doing through subversion? I am pretty sure this is not Microsoft or the Tea Party you are talking about.
Manchu wrote: I don't think you can have it both ways. Either
"those people that play D&D" are misogynistic creepers who need the "values of inclusivity, plurality, and compassion" forced on them by blog activists and compliant corporate employees
- OR -
"those people that play D&D" are already champions of Good Things (TM) and blog posts like Trammell's are unnecessary.
Can I have “There are some problematic things in D&D like everywhere else in our culture, there are people that cares about those issues that plays D&D just like there are in any hobby, and the people that happen to both care about those issues and play D&D wants to fix theses issues in D&D”, instead?
Try to apply the reasoning you did replacing “D&D players” with, say, U.S. culture. So, either there are no problem of sexism in the whole of U.S. culture, or every U.S. citizen is a dirty rabid sexist. Anyone saying something about sexism in the U.S. wants to destroy the U.S.
Seems a bit of an extreme viewpoint to me.
I think the Tea Party is actually a great example. The libertarian element in US politics had been sidelined for ages. Now their caucus runs the GOP even despite being in the minority.
Back to D&D - it's very telling that you use the phrase "want to fix these issues in D&D." Trammell does the same thing by talking about "the problem" with D&D. For a lot of people who play D&D, there are no "problems" that need to be "fixed," in terms of gender ideology. The people who do see those problems want D&D transformed for EVERYONE not just themselves.
So, those peoples have different opinions from yours on what is good. Okay. Still, some D&D players having different opinions from yours on what is good and wanting D&D to be better seems very, very different from when people tried to have D&D banished because it was turning people into satanic worship, is it not?
Back to D&D - it's very telling that you use the phrase "want to fix these issues in D&D." Trammell does the same thing by talking about "the problem" with D&D. For a lot of people who play D&D, there are no "problems" that need to be "fixed," in terms of gender ideology. The people who do see those problems want D&D transformed for EVERYONE not just themselves.
This. I'm reminded of my favorite C.S. Lewis quote.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, those peoples have different opinions from yours on what is good. Okay. Still, some D&D players having different opinions from yours on what is good and wanting D&D to be better seems very, very different from when people tried to have D&D banished because it was turning people into satanic worship, is it not?
That's the point. "I don't like this, change it" has shifted from being something that comes in the form of direct opposition into something subversive that changes it from the inside.
To them. I thought it was pretty goddamn obvious considering how the first sentence was on how what they consider good is different from what you consider good.
daedalus wrote: That's the point. "I don't like this, change it" has shifted from being something that comes in the form of direct opposition into something subversive that changes it from the inside.
But it has not. People have always wanted to change what they were a part of, because it affected them directly. Those are two different things with one presented as the evolution of the other while really, they are just completely different.
It is "pretty goddamn obvious" that all this talk about "fixing issues" and "making D&D better" assumes that D&D has been bad and wrong all these years.
That's exactly what the Christian Right used to say: D&D is bad and wrong. The people who oppose D&D nowadays are more clever: they say "D&D can be changed."
Just because I quoted the relevant part didn't mean I stopped there. I didn't quote the rest because I never suggested D&D is about slaughtering villagers.
So what? You played some D&D a bazillion moons ago and ... ?
Frazzled wrote: If people are going around playing out rape fantasies then they're 100% on point. I'm frankly shocked because we never ever did any of that. Thats just fethed up.
All this talk about "playing out rape fantasies" is way OTT. Yeah, there are some people out there who have been major creepers at the table. I don't think we can learn a lot about D&D by citing the extreme cases. On point, there is a lot of "taken for granted" stuff about rape in D&D. As Orlanth pointed out -- half orcs and yuan-ti and drow ... all examples of rape in the background that is just assumed, whether or not some uber creeper is describing it in lurid detail to the table. That stuff has been there, in one form or another, since 1974 and before. As Trammell points out, go to Appendix N and you'll find the same kind of stuff. And yet Appendix N is not a bibliography of rape porn.
Thing is, rape is assumed to be a bad thing in D&D. You can't be a lawful good rapist. But rape is certainly in D&D as a subtle background element. Rape is something the fictional women of D&D fantasy worlds have to worry about.
Well its kinda what the thread is about....I'm actually defending DnD.
Maybe they're right.
Manchu wrote: It is "pretty goddamn obvious" that all this talk about "fixing issues" and "making D&D better" assumes that D&D has been bad and wrong all these years.
That's exactly what the Christian Right used to say: D&D is bad and wrong. The people who oppose D&D nowadays are more clever: they say "D&D can be changed."
Let us do that again.
It is "pretty goddamn obvious" that all this talk about "fixing issues" and "making the U.S. better" assumes that the US has been bad and wrong all these years.
That's exactly what the communists used to say: the U.S.A. are bad and wrong. The people who oppose the US nowadays are more clever: they say "the US can be changed."
Hence feminists and communists are somehow the same, but feminists are just more clever in achieving their malicious goal of attacking the US. Still feels a pretty damn extreme viewpoint.
But it has not. People have always wanted to change what they were a part of, because it affected them directly. Those are two different things with one presented as the evolution of the other while really, they are just completely different.
There's no current source material I'm aware of that has any of the things that were complained about in the article. I read it last night, and can't get to it from work (apparently that site is work-filtered. that usually says something itself there) but I'm pretty sure all those charts were from 30-40 years ago, and all the quotes from Dragon articles were ancient sounding, volume number-wise.
So there's nothing in the game to change, apparently. Must mean that there's nothing affecting the presumed player directly then other than what people do in their own private games and behind closed doors.
daedalus wrote: There's no current source material I'm aware of that has any of the things that were complained about in the article. I read it last night, and can't get to it from work (apparently that site is work-filtered. that usually says something itself there) but I'm pretty sure all those charts were from 30-40 years ago, and all the quotes from Dragon articles were ancient sounding, volume number-wise.
So there's nothing in the game to change, apparently. Must mean that there's nothing affecting the presumed player directly then other than what people do in their own private games and behind closed doors.
So, do you mean he is not trying to change anything? Awesome then, that means you have nothing to worry about from him .
daedalus wrote: and all the quotes from Dragon articles were ancient sounding, volume number-wise
Yeah this is a weak point in the article. Trammell doesn't really explain how these articles from the 70s are relevant to gaming today. I think he means that "this is the root of the problem" but he doesn't bother to trace sexism in the 70s to sexism today. I think he just assumes that's correct.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Really, so saying DnD isn't a bunch of wack jobs running around playing rape fantasies is not defending DnD?
It could be but it's not what you're doing. What you actually claim is you would yell at or hit anyone who did that and that you never did that when you played D&D as a "comic book age kid," whatever that means.
So, do you mean he is not trying to change anything? Awesome then, that means you have nothing to worry about from him .
I mean to say precisely that he's not trying to change D&D source material, because none of his cited material is relevant.
Personally, I am fething terrified of anyone who, in an apparently completely serious manner, will assert that one cannot rightly place the "ideology of simulation" above "values of inclusivity, plurality, and compassion", that there are universally quantifiable "values of inclusivity, plurality, and compassion", or that it is nothing less that a "problem" that there exist things in this world that don't conform to said "values of inclusivity, plurality, and compassion".
Manchu wrote: It is "pretty goddamn obvious" that all this talk about "fixing issues" and "making D&D better" assumes that D&D has been bad and wrong all these years.
Well yes, just like any other customer asking for changes is assuming that the product has been bad and wrong all these years. Are you similarly outraged about D&D players asking WOTC to fix the endgame balance issues where fighters cap out at "professional athlete" level power, while wizards become gods? Did you post angry complaints about "class justice warriors" who demanded changes when 4th edition left out popular core classes that had been around for decades? If not, why is it suddenly wrong when customers (or potential customers) ask for changes involving gender issues?
Systemic rape happens. In D&D and Warhammer both its kept to the background.
It didn't happen in role playing in DnD when I played it.
Peregrine wrote: If not, why is it suddenly wrong when customers (or potential customers) ask for changes involving gender issues?
Suddenly wrong? Are you arguing with me or your imaginary friends?
Here's what I said bud:
Manchu wrote: In Olden Tymes, when you wanted to get rid of something you tried to marginalize it. Anti-D&D campaigners portrayed D&D players as freaks on the fringes of society who no one should trust. These days, people oppose things by subverting them from within. Instead of banning D&D, today's moral crusaders want to transform D&D into something they find acceptable.
Peregrine wrote: Well yes, just like any other customer asking for changes is assuming that the product has been bad and wrong all these years. Are you similarly outraged about D&D players asking WOTC to fix the endgame balance issues where fighters cap out at "professional athlete" level power, while wizards become gods? Did you post angry complaints about "class justice warriors" who demanded changes when 4th edition left out popular core classes that had been around for decades? If not, why is it suddenly wrong when customers (or potential customers) ask for changes involving gender issues?
Actually, there's been a lot of people that got pissed off about that too.
daedalus wrote: Actually, there's been a lot of people that got pissed off about that too.
He doesn't dispute it; he's just strawmanning me about how if it's okay to complain about mechanics then it is okay to complain about gender politics even considering I never argued that either was not okay.
Manchu wrote: In Olden Tymes, when you wanted to get rid of something you tried to marginalize it. Anti-D&D campaigners portrayed D&D players as freaks on the fringes of society who no one should trust. These days, people oppose things by subverting them from within. Instead of banning D&D, today's moral crusaders want to transform D&D into something they find acceptable.
So, are you implying that the Anti-D&D campaigners of Olden Tymes were, and I am quoting here, “ customers (or potential customers) ask[ing] for changes”?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, are you implying that the Anti-D&D campaigners of Olden Tymes were, and I am quoting here, “ customers (or potential customers) ask[ing] for changes”?
Why are you quoting Peregrine while asking about what I am implying?
In any case, what I am saying (not implying) is that people used to oppose D&D by demanding it be banned (and it was censored as a result) and people now oppose D&D by demanding it be changed (or, to use another word, censored).
Have you recently seen "feminist" stuff at Tumblr? It's crawling with mentally handicapped SJW who have no idea what the word even means. Stuff like this is just one example. It's as with everything that's "in" nowadays - there's bandwagons and people happily jumping on it.
Back on topic, why pick specially on D'n'D? Surely the possibility of players role-playing rape has always existed in any RPG. I haven't seen it happen myself during many years of playing many different games. Perhaps I have led a sheltered life.
Manchu wrote: Why are you quoting Peregrine while asking about what I am implying?
Because that was what you were answering to .
Peregrine was talking about how some case of customers asking for change are bad while other are not, and you were answering something completely unrelated to his argument. While quoting him, and making it look like you were answering him.
I think you must still be in your world of communist feminists. Here in this thread, Peregrine attempted to strawman me. And then you step in with the assist LOL.
This right here. It's still pretty common for laypersons to use D&D to mean Role-playing as a whole mostly because it's the name everyone knows(thanks to movies, chick tracks, and anti-D&D campaigns) and due to ignorance of the industry and options available, both these days and in the past. Sure, it's what many/most of us started with, but it's pretty common to find role-players who started with Traveller, Werewolf/VTM/Mage/*insert favored WoD setting here*, and even Dark Heresy/other 40KRPG.
I think technically, I started with WHFRP 1st myself.
Is there any statistics to back up the claim that women are raped frequently in RPG game sessions? If not, then this is just click bait web trash making baseless claims.
I have played in and run games where characters' sexuality was explored but rape was never really a factor. One instance that comes to mind that broached the subject of rape was a game run by the uncle of a friend from high school. The players were all my friends from school and we were all around 15 or 16. One of the players, happening across a female human wizard living alone in a shack in a dimension of lizards and lizardmen, decided to use his thieving skills to pick-pocket the wizard. The character was pretty good at pick pocket but since a major NPC was his intended mark he was immediately spotted by the wizard and rebuked. Agitated, the player made a threat to the DM saying something to the effect of "okay, I take off my pants and grab her" and the DM, without missing a beat, nodded and said, "Okay, the wizard sees you undress, mutters an incantation and points at your manhood which immediately retracts into your body. Everyone present sees your penis become a vagina."
Now, the table full of teenage boys erupted into laughter. And the player in question got really upset, especially when the DM reminded the rest of the party that we were all males, who had been adventuring "for months" away from "town" and that our fellow adventurer was looking more attractive to us the longer he stood around showing us his vagina. The offending player immediately wanted to back up the game and "take back" his threat to rape the wizard, but the DM declined, and forced him to march around the lizard realm sans penis. Crestfallen, the player shut up and never made a rape threat in our D&D game ever again.
At the time I didn't appreciate the situation for what it was, but looking back on it I think the DM handled the situation well. He could have paused the game and lectured us on the inappropriateness of the player's threat and the trauma that rape causes. But, in all likelihood that lecture would have fallen on deaf ears because we were all idiotic teenage boys. However, morphing the character's penis into a vagina immediately made the threat of rape real for the player who obviously didn't want his character raped, and it got the idea in our collective heads that rape would not be tolerated in the DM's game. In an odd way it brought all of us down to earth and made the trivialization and "joke" of rape no longer funny, because suddenly it could happen to any of our characters.
So, yeah, not a lot of rape in my D&D/RPG experience, and when it has come up it has been managed internally within the player group.
Still, if you were running a game for a bunch of 15 year old's and one of them tried to "LOL rape" an NPC, how would you handle it? I think the DM did a fine job on the fly of knocking some sense into a group of idiot boys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: OTOH punishing someone by morphing their penis into a vagina is problematic to say the least.
Sure. As was the DM encouraging the party to rape the rapist, but it got the point across.
Well yes, just like any other customer asking for changes is assuming that the product has been bad and wrong all these years. Are you similarly outraged about D&D players asking WOTC to fix the endgame balance issues where fighters cap out at "professional athlete" level power, while wizards become gods? Did you post angry complaints about "class justice warriors" who demanded changes when 4th edition left out popular core classes that had been around for decades? If not, why is it suddenly wrong when customers (or potential customers) ask for changes involving gender issues?
The difference being that, currently, the only place gender issues are a problem is at specific tables full of immature gakheads. D&D itself has no inherant gender issues anymore. Yes, back in the day of Clive Caldwell's illustrations of chainmail bikini-clad fighter gals, you could rightly argue there were issues involving portrayals of women in D&D. Now? Not so much (or at all, really).
Again, the table full of creepers ERPing out their rape fanatasies with a chortling co-conspirator GM is not the fault or responsibility of D&D. It's the fault and responsibility of those creepers not being drowned in a bathtub by their parents.
pretre wrote: Creepy friend's uncle sex-changed my character...
My thoughts;
"So, I'm a chick now?"
"Yes."
"Am I hot, or is this one of those transformations where by build doesn't change at all I just get and innie and some bigger pecks on my otherwise masculine form?"
Still, if you were running a game for a bunch of 15 year old's and one of them tried to "LOL rape" an NPC, how would you handle it? I think the DM did a fine job on the fly of knocking some sense into a group of idiot boys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: OTOH punishing someone by morphing their penis into a vagina is problematic to say the least.
Sure. As was the DM encouraging the party to rape the rapist, but it got the point across.
This was a great way for the DM to handle the situation. Evil actions have consequences, and whenever players step out of line it is the DM's job to slap them down. This guy was a fan of ironic punishments, and there's nothing wrong with that. Some DMs would've dropped a bus on the guy. Others would have had paladins of much higher level pursue the party looking for justice. Personally, I think this particular punishment was the most effective method of shutting down a 15 year old idiot. When I was a 15 year old idiot, it would've shut me down right quick.
Still, if you were running a game for a bunch of 15 year old's and one of them tried to "LOL rape" an NPC, how would you handle it? I think the DM did a fine job on the fly of knocking some sense into a group of idiot boys.
The character was pretty good at pick pocket but since a major NPC was his intended mark he was immediately spotted by the wizard and rebuked. Agitated, the player made a threat to the DM saying something to the effect of "okay, I take off my pants and grab her" and the DM, without missing a beat, nodded and said, "Okay, the wizard sees you undress, mutters an incantation and points at you. Since your pants are around your ankles, you fail your reflex save and are frozen in place. The wizards turns to your companions and says 'If this fool is with you, you can consider our agreement off. I do not deal with amateurs.'"
Underlined part is mine.
The players then are left with a roleplaying predicament. How do they smooth over the actions of their asinine friend with this major NPC?
edit: You'll notice mine doesn't shift the rape from one person to another, but removes it entirely once the pants are dropped.
Still, if you were running a game for a bunch of 15 year old's and one of them tried to "LOL rape" an NPC, how would you handle it? I think the DM did a fine job on the fly of knocking some sense into a group of idiot boys.
The character was pretty good at pick pocket but since a major NPC was his intended mark he was immediately spotted by the wizard and rebuked. Agitated, the player made a threat to the DM saying something to the effect of "okay, I take off my pants and grab her" and the DM, without missing a beat, nodded and said, "Okay, the wizard sees you undress, mutters an incantation and points at you. Since your pants are around your ankles, you fail your reflex save and are frozen in place. The wizards turns to your companions and says 'If this fool is with you, you can consider our agreement off. I do not deal with amateurs.'"
Underlined part is mine.
The players then are left with a roleplaying predicament. How do they smooth over the actions of their asinine friend with this major NPC?
edit: You'll notice mine doesn't shift the rape from one person to another, but removes it entirely once the pants are dropped.
That is one way to handle it. Though, knowing our group at that time, we likely would have attacked the wizard and died. So, the DM's solution was to take the joke away from the offensive player, make him feel uncomfortable, and the topic quickly changed to what we were going to do in the reptile realm.
I am not arguing that the DM's solution is the only one available, but given the context of the group dynamic and the situation at hand at the time I think the outcome worked.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I am not arguing that the DM's solution is the only one available, but given the context of the group dynamic and the situation at hand at the time I think the outcome worked.
I'm sure it was one of those "guess you had to be there" situations. I mean,
Another important lesson to learn in D&D (besides the fact that Rape is not okay) is that you can't just attack anything and live. I would have let them do it, if they were that dumb, let them die horribly or be knocked out and geas'd into doing what the wizard wanted and taught them a lesson that there are bigger fish in the sea.
pretre wrote: I just don't think it really changed the situation. Basically, rape is still funny, just not when it is against the NPCs.
Except that isn't what happened, is it? Rape was no longer brought up in our group. It stopped being a punchline. I'd like to think because us players realized that rape is not funny when it is directed at you (or your character) which made us grow a little as people. Sure, you could argue that it was a bad lesson and we stopped making rape jokes so our characters could keep our penises but, again, I don't think that is how our group framed the encounter.
Still, if you were running a game for a bunch of 15 year old's and one of them tried to "LOL rape" an NPC, how would you handle it? I think the DM did a fine job on the fly of knocking some sense into a group of idiot boys.
The character was pretty good at pick pocket but since a major NPC was his intended mark he was immediately spotted by the wizard and rebuked. Agitated, the player made a threat to the DM saying something to the effect of "okay, I take off my pants and grab her" and the DM, without missing a beat, nodded and said, "Okay, the wizard sees you undress, mutters an incantation and points at you. Since your pants are around your ankles, you fail your reflex save and are frozen in place. The wizards turns to your companions and says 'If this fool is with you, you can consider our agreement off. I do not deal with amateurs.'"
Underlined part is mine.
The players then are left with a roleplaying predicament. How do they smooth over the actions of their asinine friend with this major NPC?
edit: You'll notice mine doesn't shift the rape from one person to another, but removes it entirely once the pants are dropped.
You're more forgiving than I am. My version would have look something similar to this.
The character was pretty good at pick pocket but since a major NPC was his intended mark he was immediately spotted by the wizard and rebuked. Agitated, the player made a threat to the DM saying something to the effect of "okay, I take off my pants and grab her" and the DM, without missing a beat, nodded and said, "Okay, the wizard sees you undress, mutters an incantation and points at you. The entire party watches as your body is disintegrated and your ashes scattered to the winds."
But I'm a fan of resurrection-less death for the irredeemable.
Manchu wrote: I'm with pretre on this one. Rape is not the answer to rape.
And neither is it the answer to, I guess, anything at all.
(Except for, of course, some actual questions. But then it is the word rape, not the action of raping. Like in “What is the English translation for «viol»”. So it is different.)
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I am not arguing that the DM's solution is the only one available, but given the context of the group dynamic and the situation at hand at the time I think the outcome worked.
I'm sure it was one of those "guess you had to be there" situations. I mean,
Sorry, your indignation at what occurred in a game 17 years ago is silly to me. The DM took a ridiculous action undertaken by a player and made it an example of how not to behave in the game. In hindsight could that lesson have been applied differently? Sure. But at the time it worked. The game didn't devolve into a rape scene, nor did it involve a TPK and restarting of the campaign.
As an adult I understand your objections to the lesson, but at the time, while I was at the table it ended the discussion of rape and upon further reflection I think it was a shrewd move on the DM's part because any soap-boxing he may have done to teach us about the horrors of rape likely would have been laughed off.
Another important lesson to learn in D&D (besides the fact that Rape is not okay) is that you can't just attack anything and live. I would have let them do it, if they were that dumb, let them die horribly or be knocked out and geas'd into doing what the wizard wanted and taught them a lesson that there are bigger fish in the sea.
TPK. Roll new characters, no lesson learned, or possibly side quest with still no lesson learned and a delayed campaign. Neither of those solutions are necessarily better in my opinion than the DM creating an outrageous and memorable response to a stupid player comment/action that was dropped shortly after and allowed the campaign to proceed.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: At the time I didn't appreciate the situation for what it was, but looking back on it I think the DM handled the situation well.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: At the time I didn't appreciate the situation for what it was, but looking back on it I think the DM handled the situation well.
Yes, when I was 15 I didn't realize the intention of the DM other than shutting my friend up. Upon reflection as an adult, I saw what he was doing. He turned the focus of rape back onto the player trivializing rape, and shamed him and made him uncomfortable. The DM also turned a situation that could take the campaign off track and deftly avoided a situation spiraling out of control (resulting in a dead party, dead npc, or some other campaign disrupting outcome).
Where did I make a joke of rape? Where did I approve of rape? I acknowledged that the DM encouraging rape against the rapist isn't the best, but it got through the idea that rape is bad to a bunch of 15 year old boys.
I think you are reading more into my posts than is there.
squidhills wrote: The difference being that, currently, the only place gender issues are a problem is at specific tables full of immature gakheads. D&D itself has no inherant gender issues anymore. Yes, back in the day of Clive Caldwell's illustrations of chainmail bikini-clad fighter gals, you could rightly argue there were issues involving portrayals of women in D&D. Now? Not so much (or at all, really).
And you're free to make that argument. What I object to is the argument (which also appeared in the video game debate) that "SJWs" have no right to criticize D&D/video games/etc and are trying to destroy and/or censor them. For some reason there's a "STOP TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO MAKE THEIR GAMES" reaction when it's about sexism/racism/etc, but players making demands about other things is perfectly acceptable.
Again, the table full of creepers ERPing out their rape fanatasies with a chortling co-conspirator GM is not the fault or responsibility of D&D. It's the fault and responsibility of those creepers not being drowned in a bathtub by their parents.
And I don't think anyone is making the argument that the rulebook says "rape all of the NPCs, it will be awesome". The issue is how this kind of stuff is treated by the community. And yes, a lot of people (especially older players) consider them TFGs, but in my experience there's still quite a bit of reluctance to shun people from the community even when they are TFGs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Here in this thread, Peregrine attempted to strawman me.
I did no such thing. You appeared to be making the same "SJWs have no right to make demands" argument that appeared in the video game debate. If that wasn't your intent then I apologize for misunderstanding what you were saying, but that was not a deliberate strawman.
That could be the case, let me find out. Would you recommend this strategy to other DMs? Would you use it yourself?
So what is the point of me answering this obvious set up? If I answer, "Yes, I would handle it exactly the same way" you will accuse me of encouraging rape in my games, or meeting rape with rape, and declare me immoral. If I answer, "No, I would do X differently" you'll sagely nod your head and say, "See, the DM's solution was flawed".
You can Monday quarter back this all you want, but in the heat of the moment the DM's reaction to the threat of rape killed the discussion of rape, kept the game on course, and it removed rape as a joke or player option for the rest of the campaign. I'd consider that a success.
But, to answer your question: If I was running a game for a group of young players and didn't want to pontificate on the subject of rape during a game session, I would likely come up with a similar solution that shames the offending player and allows me to get my game back on track.
And you're free to make that argument. What I object to is the argument (which also appeared in the video game debate) that "SJWs" have no right to criticize D&D/video games/etc and are trying to destroy and/or censor them. For some reason there's a "STOP TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO MAKE THEIR GAMES" reaction when it's about sexism/racism/etc, but players making demands about other things is perfectly acceptable.
And again, there is a difference between the two. In the video game case, there is a group of people who make a product (video game) which can/does have issues with negative portrayals of women. If a feminist wants to complain about that, she or he has a right to do so. If a game is sexist it is because the people who made the game made it that way. In the case of D&D, there is no inherant sexism anymore. Is there sexism at a particular table? Yeah. But feminists comlaining about "D&D" as though it were the cause of the sexism at those tables is useless grandstanding, because D&D didn't put the sexism at those tables. It is the fault of the players; they are sexist, so they put the sexism at that table. Since D&D is a social activity (far moreso than MMORPGs) if there is rampant sexism at your gaming table, the solution is: don't play with those gakheads anymore. D&D didn't make them gakheads. Complaining about D&D won't make them less gakheady, nor will it result in the ostracization of those gakheads. Odds are, they are already shunned by people who aren't gakheads and can only find other gakheads to play with. Complaining about D&D just paints *all* gamers with a brush they don't deserve to be painted with.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: So what is the point of me answering this obvious set up? If I answer, "Yes, I would handle it exactly the same way" you will accuse me of encouraging rape in my games, or meeting rape with rape, and declare me immoral. If I answer, "No, I would do X differently" you'll sagely nod your head and say, "See, the DM's solution was flawed".
It's what they call a rhetorical question. Basically, it amounts to phrasing an argument as a question. As you have demonstrated, my argument is (1) threatening a PC with rape to discourage the PC making threats of rape is at least very seriously flawed and (2) you yourself know that. At the same time, it's not a "gotcha" argument. As you have alread noted, you pointed out that this was inappropriate. BUT at the same time, you are really defending it as effective and you did answer the rhetorical question kinda sorta in the affirmative without explicitly admitting that you would make an in-game rape threat to shame a player, which is what I really was asking. But again, that was the argument: you already know it is not okay to make in-game rape threats and that's why you or me or any decent person would be hesitant to say: "yeah of course I would threaten to have his PC raped."
The point is not to Monday Morning QB a game from 17 years ago. It is to question whether making in-game rape threats is good advice for DMs today.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: So what is the point of me answering this obvious set up? If I answer, "Yes, I would handle it exactly the same way" you will accuse me of encouraging rape in my games, or meeting rape with rape, and declare me immoral. If I answer, "No, I would do X differently" you'll sagely nod your head and say, "See, the DM's solution was flawed".
It's what they call a rhetorical question. Basically, it amounts to phrasing an argument as a question. As you have demonstrated, my argument is (1) threatening a PC with rape to discourage the PC making threats of rape is at least very seriously flawed and (2) you yourself know that. At the same time, it's not a "gotcha" argument. As you have alread noted, you pointed out that this was inappropriate. BUT at the same time, you are really defending it as effective and you did answer the rhetorical question kinda sorta in the affirmative without explicitly admitting that you would make an in-game rape threat to shame a player, which is what I really was asking. But again, that was the argument: you already know it is not okay to make in-game rape threats and that's why you or me or any decent person would be hesitant to say: "yeah of course I would threaten to have his PC raped."
The point is not to Monday Morning QB a game from 17 years ago. It is to question whether making in-game rape threats is good advise for DMs today.
I am defending the actions of the GM, in the moment, with that particular group of kids, as being appropriate. I am not advocating using that same scenario in every situation that involves player initiated rape.
And again, if the DM had stopped the game to explain to us the seriousness and consequences of rape I am almost certain that the lesson would have been lost on us. He knew this because he knew us, and had gamed with us for a while at that point, so he opted to give us a lesson that would resonate. Was it the most appropriate lesson he could have given us? No. And yes, I have admitted that, but that was never my point. My point was that rape as a topic rarely came up in games that I played, and when it did, a DM used a clever tactic to get some 15 year old boys to stop trivializing rape. That you are troubled by that lesson is, frankly, rather ridiculous to me given what the alternative could have been (glorification of rape by allowing the player to follow through with his threat, derailing a campaign with pointless combat over a ridiculous action, ect.). The end result was that the topic was dropped and not picked up again by that group of players.
Alternatively if the parents of certain members of that group had heard that a 35 year old was lecturing their kids about rape, or that rape was even being discussed in our games, players would have been pulled from the group and the DM may have faced some repercussions. Instead, the DM nipped the rape issue in the bud in under 5 minutes and the game moved on. Which is totally appropriate in my opinion.
so now pretend characters (who might be roleplaying as the evilist evidoers) who may or may not be pretend raping people, which may or not even be man on woman rape, is misogynist?
At what point do we call a spade a spade and recognize when we are tilting at windmills?
People play RPGs to be in a fantasy land, its odd to get so worked up over fantasy rape, and not fantasy murder/slavery/theivery/ect."
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I am defending the actions of the GM, in the moment, with that particular group of kids, as being appropriate.
Oh?
Manchu wrote: Would you recommend this strategy to other DMs? Would you use it yourself?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: to answer your question: If I was running a game for a group of young players and didn't want to pontificate on the subject of rape during a game session, I would likely come up with a similar solution that shames the offending player and allows me to get my game back on track.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Still waiting on where I made a rape joke. Could you provide that quote for me, Manchu?
Here's what I was referring to (as I already pointed out by posting the quote):
DarkTraveler777 wrote: [...] the DM, without missing a beat, nodded and said, "Okay, the wizard sees you undress, mutters an incantation and points at your manhood which immediately retracts into your body. Everyone present sees your penis become a vagina."
Now, the table full of teenage boys erupted into laughter. And the player in question got really upset, especially when the DM reminded the rest of the party that we were all males, who had been adventuring "for months" away from "town" and that our fellow adventurer was looking more attractive to us the longer he stood around showing us his vagina.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: At the time I didn't appreciate the situation for what it was, but looking back on it I think the DM handled the situation well.
As pretre pointed out, the rape joke was inverted but rape was still the joke. Different target, same issue. You can be forgiven for laughing at the joke -- it was seventeen years ago, you were just a kid, the world was a different place, maybe it was just nervous laughter at the suddenly creepy situation. What puzzles me is that you would post it on a message board seventeen years later and defend it as a reasonable and effective method of dealing with rape in D&D, that you yourself would do it too, and that you recommend it to other DMs.
And just to be crystal clear -- I don't know what the DM should have done during that game seventeen years ago. I just don't think the way he handled it should be held up as a model for DMs. Humiliating a teenage boy by replacing his character's penis with a vagina and then threatening the character with rape by his adventuring companions is terrible on a lot of levels. I am not surprised your group quickly moved on and did not look back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: its odd to get so worked up over fantasy rape, and not fantasy murder/slavery/theivery/ect.
I admit, it is hard to explain in cold, logical terms but I would never object to a player saying "I stab the orc with my sword" but I would walk out if a player said "I threaten the orc with violence to force it to have sex with me."
I don't think there was anything wrong with what the DM did. It produced the right result in the moment and appears to have long lasting benefits to at least one of the people involved in the scenario.
Parents often tell children "how would you feel if someone did that to you" in an attempt to get the child to think about what they are doing. The DM did exactly that in a more artful way. He was not condoning rape but condemning it and doing so without resorting to preachiness that teens tend to quickly tune out.
The DMs response may not be the right one for every group, but it sure sounds like the right one for that group.
That's why I said he did it in a more artful way. The argument does help with some children in some situations, but with age it can be and may need to be more sophisticated or artfully done. And I have no problem with people getting a bit of a taste of their own medicine especially in a situation like this where there is no real harm done.
I personally find your response to the situation to be far too sensitive. Individual tastes and responses vary. I'm fine with that and just want to throw in support for the DM in the story because it have absolutely no concern or reservations about how the situation was handleded.
daedalus wrote: So spending hours on imaginary murder and wholesale genocide is perfectly fine. Spending a sentence suggesting imaginary rape is wrong, apparently.
Yep, it is wrong. Rape is more wrong than murder, far more wrong. Far more damaging to the total fabric of society as well.
So you are just doing quick, literal readings of my posts and not giving the words any thought to context or nuance? I now understand the last two pages of this thread.
By saying I would do something similar that shames a player doesn't mean I would invert the rape, it means I would do what the DM did: shame the player and move the game on from the topic of rape. There is no point in concocting hypothetical responses that I would use in such a game scenario because my response would be grounded in the context of the group I was running the game for. But, there would be consequences, those consequences would be detrimental in someway to the potential rapist character, and those consequences would move the plot away from the topic of rape. I would advise that course of action in most situations because at the game table people do not want to necessarily have a stupid comment or action devolve a game into a debate about real world issues. Most players would want to deal with the situation quickly and firmly and move on with the game. But, perhaps some groups would want to stop and have a discussion and if that is what the group decides that is fine. But for my group at the time that was not the best course of action.
So are you suggesting that the group dynamic should be ignored by a DM when deciding how to handle volatile situations such as a declaration of rape? Should some boilerplate response be given to instruct the players and turn the moment into a teachable lesson? Even if that lesson would be lost on the players? I doubt you do, but your insistence that this DM's actions were wrong while ignoring the very real variables he was faced with vis a vis the 8 teenagers staring back at him from across the table is rather unfair.
Manchu wrote: [And just to be crystal clear -- I don't know what the DM should have done during that game seventeen years ago. I just don't think the way he handled it should be held up as a model for DMs. Humiliating a teenage boy by replacing his character's penis with a vagina and then threatening the character with rape by his adventuring companions is terrible on a lot of levels. I am not surprised your group quickly moved on and did not look back.
Ah, yes, so you don't have an answer either. But you are quick to criticize someone who was in a difficult situation and handled it with aplomb. The DM's role was not one of ethics instructor, he was not there to guide our moral development, he was giving a group of teenagers something fun to do on a Saturday night. He was not a guardian to any of us, and I am sure didn't want to have to explain to our parents why he had a rape discussion with us, or why rape was even coming up in his games. Because rape wasn't a part of his game. It never was until an idiot player made an idiot statement, but! the rape never occurred, and the topic died almost as quickly as it started.
In hindsight, as I have said, the lesson could have been presented differently, but I don't think it was that DM's place to give that group of players a lesson on rape other than making it clear to us that rape is not something that will occur in that game. And he did just that. So, again, SUCCESS.
daedalus wrote: So spending hours on imaginary murder and wholesale genocide is perfectly fine. Spending a sentence suggesting imaginary rape is wrong, apparently.
Yep, it is wrong. Rape is more wrong than murder, far more wrong. Far more damaging to the total fabric of society as well.
Because... it leaves survivors?
I'd personally rather be raped than be murdered. I mean, I'd rather not either, but, you know, if I had to choose.
easysauce wrote: its odd to get so worked up over fantasy rape, and not fantasy murder/slavery/theivery/ect.
I admit, it is hard to explain in cold, logical terms but I would never object to a player saying "I stab the orc with my sword" but I would walk out if a player said "I threaten the orc with violence to force it to have sex with me."
Why are you prejudiced against dark elves and other evil aligned characters?
everyone wants to act out different roles, thats why some people get traits like "cannibal, child killer, poo shoveler," and some never know they existed
Fantasy world actions demand fantasy reactions, people are responsible for their own content (and to a degree, the other PCs around them) so they have only themselves to blame if they use an open rule set for things they do not approve of.
The fact that it is even possible murder and use black magic would "cross the line" to many people, you just happen to draw the line a bit further at fantasy ork rape.
Some might walk out when I role play some swarthy dwarven pirate *I walk into the brothel in the town and pay two silvers for a wench and some ale*
Some might walk out when I force them to make charisma checks to get me to stop drinking and go kill some dragons or something.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: By saying I would do something similar that shames a player doesn't mean I would invert the rape, it means I would do what the DM did: shame the player and move the game on from the topic of rape.
I asked you a very clear question and you gave me a weasely answer. I even pointed this out to you:
Manchu wrote: you did answer the rhetorical question kinda sorta in the affirmative without explicitly admitting that you would make an in-game rape threat to shame a player, which is what I really was asking. But again, that was the argument: you already know it is not okay to make in-game rape threats and that's why you or me or any decent person would be hesitant to say: "yeah of course I would threaten to have his PC raped."
So I guess the question has to be completely sincere rather than rhetorical:
Would you use in-game rape threats as a DM? Would you recommend that DMs use in-game rape threats?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: your insistence that this DM's actions were wrong while ignoring the very real variables he was faced with vis a vis the 8 teenagers staring back at him from across the table is rather unfair
Honestly dude you just quoted me on this yourself, in the very same post even:
Manchu wrote: [And just to be crystal clear -- I don't know what the DM should have done during that game seventeen years ago. I just don't think the way he handled it should be held up as a model for DMs.
easysauce wrote: Why are you prejudiced against dark elves and other evil aligned characters?
LOLWUT
As I mentioned earlier, rape is already in the generic D&D setting. There are evil beings out there who hypothetically rape other beings. Even so, I am not going to spend my free time hanging out with people who use RPGs as an excuse to live out rape fantasies. In my experience, that is pretty rare. I also don't want to spend my free time with folks who make rape jokes. In my experience, that is a lot less rare.
I guess in some way it is hypocritical of me not to mind when a PC kills an orc BUT to feel totally grossed out when a PC violently coerces an orc into sexual acts. I don't really mind being a hypocrite about this, however.
daedalus wrote: I'd personally rather be raped than be murdered. I mean, I'd rather not either, but, you know, if I had to choose.
Personally, I could not tell what would be worse before having them happens to me. I just cannot imagine how it feels. Certainly very wrong, but more than that? I have no idea.
daedalus wrote: So spending hours on imaginary murder and wholesale genocide is perfectly fine. Spending a sentence suggesting imaginary rape is wrong, apparently.
Yep, it is wrong. Rape is more wrong than murder, far more wrong. Far more damaging to the total fabric of society as well.
Because... it leaves survivors?
I'd personally rather be raped than be murdered. I mean, I'd rather not either, but, you know, if I had to choose.
Isnt that what many real rape victims who know they are about to be raped say. Please don't kill me......
DarkTraveler777 wrote: By saying I would do something similar that shames a player doesn't mean I would invert the rape, it means I would do what the DM did: shame the player and move the game on from the topic of rape.
I asked you a very clear question and you gave me a weasely answer. I even pointed this out to you.
No, you asked me a rhetorical question aimed at tripping up my argument. Again, without knowing the specific group of players I was dealing with I can't answer that question appropriately. Call that weasly if you want, but I am at least being honest and not taking some holier-than-thou stance as others are in this discussion.
Manchu wrote: Would you use in-game rape threats as a DM? Would you recommend that DMs use in-game rape threats?
1) If it was appropriate. 2) See 1.
Just like you have a hard time justifying the acceptance of murder over sexual assault in your games, I have a hard time discounting using a brash response for certain player's actions if that response is most appropriate for that particular player. If I am running a game for a person I am responsible for, whose development I am having a hand in drafting, then I would react in a manner differently than if it was with a group of friends or acquaintances who are beign douches.
In that room back in the late 90's the response seems appropriate to me given the factors at play within that group.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: your insistence that this DM's actions were wrong while ignoring the very real variables he was faced with vis a vis the 8 teenagers staring back at him from across the table is rather unfair
Honestly dude you just quoted me on this yourself, in the very same post even:
Manchu wrote: [And just to be crystal clear -- I don't know what the DM should have done during that game seventeen years ago. I just don't think the way he handled it should be held up as a model for DMs.
At no point in this discussion have I advocated that his response was appropriate for other DMs. That has been your argument. I merely think that he handled the situation that night correctly for that group.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: I have no problem with people getting a bit of a taste of their own medicine
This is where we differ. I don't think anyone deserves a rape threat.
He didn't threaten him with an actual rape. It was all pretend. So when a kid wants to derail the game with raping for lulz and the GM demonstrates that it might not be so funny, I say way to go GM. I don't think the GM was glorifying or encouraging rape; he was doing the opposite. And it worked. And no one real or imagined was harmed. And some stupid kids had an ah ha moment that rape isn't really cool or funny. I call it an all around success.
pretre wrote: Being a father, this kind of a response from someone else's uncle to my son would make me pretty nervous.
So you'd rather he gave your son a rape talk? Put yourself in the DM's position. A group of your nephew's friends are at your house playing D&D and rape comes up. Roll for initiative. Oh, and before you quote the revision to my story that you used earlier, you are in the hot seat. You have 8 sets of teenage eyeballs on you looking for a reaction and you have seconds to respond. Quick, what is your response? Do you end the game? Do you give a lecture to a bunch of kids about a topic that their parents likely haven't discussed with them? Is penalizing the player while moving on with the game really such an outrageous solution? I am asking, as a DM is it? You aren't these kids' guardian. For the sake of argument let's say you pull your fictitious nephew aside after the session and explain why rape is bad, mmmkay, but in the moment what do you do?
If you are honest with yourself you'd see what an incredibly difficult position the DM was in, and likely want to extricate yourself from the situation as quickly as possible with the least amount of fallout possible.
Manchu wrote: Would you use in-game rape threats as a DM? Would you recommend that DMs use in-game rape threats?
1) If it was appropriate. 2) See 1.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: At no point in this discussion have I advocated that his response was appropriate for other DMs.
If answering your rhetorical question is the same as advancing an argument then I need to go back to school and re-learn what I know about words.
You asked me a direct question, and I answered. That does not mean what I deem appropriate for my game is appropriate for other DMs. Because you are ignoring one of the main thrusts of my argument which is the response of the DM should be situational to the group.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: I don't think the GM was glorifying or encouraging rape; he was doing the opposite.
I don't think so. Imagine rape is a knife. He used his power as an adult and as the DM to take the knife out of the kid's hand and threaten him with it. This certainly shows that the knife is dangerous but I don't think it shows that threatening people with knives is wrong.
pretre wrote: Being a father, this kind of a response from someone else's uncle to my son would make me pretty nervous.
So you'd rather he gave your son a rape talk? Put yourself in the DM's position. A group of your nephew's friends are at your house playing D&D and rape comes up. Roll for initiative. Oh, and before you quote the revision to my story that you used earlier, you are in the hot seat. You have 8 sets of teenage eyeballs on you looking for a reaction and you have seconds to respond. Quick, what is your response? Do you end the game? Do you give a lecture to a bunch of kids about a topic that their parents likely haven't discussed with them? Is penalizing the player while moving on with the game really such an outrageous solution? I am asking, as a DM is it? You aren't these kids' guardian. For the sake of argument let's say you pull your fictitious nephew aside after the session and explain why rape is bad, mmmkay, but in the moment what do you do?
If you are honest with yourself you'd see what an incredibly difficult position the DM was in, and likely want to extricate yourself from the situation as quickly as possible with the least amount of fallout possible.
If I were in that situation I'd wonder why I a grown man were hanging out and DM'ing for a group of young teenagers as that's kind of creepy/pathetic considering I have friends my own age.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I need to go back to school and re-learn what I know about words.
Could be a good idea. I mean, you say (a) DMs should use in-game rape threats if they are appropriate then you say (b) you have never said other DMs should us in-game rape threats.
pretre wrote: Being a father, this kind of a response from someone else's uncle to my son would make me pretty nervous.
So you'd rather he gave your son a rape talk? Put yourself in the DM's position. A group of your nephew's friends are at your house playing D&D and rape comes up. Roll for initiative.
Oh, and before you quote the revision to my story that you used earlier, you are in the hot seat. You have 8 sets of teenage eyeballs on you looking for a reaction and you have seconds to respond. Quick, what is your response? Do you end the game? Do you give a lecture to a bunch of kids about a topic that their parents likely haven't discussed with them? Is penalizing the player while moving on with the game really such an outrageous solution? I am asking, as a DM is it? You aren't these kids' guardian. For the sake of argument let's say you pull your fictitious nephew aside after the session and explain why rape is bad, mmmkay, but in the moment what do you do?
If you are honest with yourself you'd see what an incredibly difficult position the DM was in, and likely want to extricate yourself from the situation as quickly as possible with the least amount of fallout possible.
If I were in that situation I'd wonder why I a grown man were hanging out and DM'ing for a group of young teenagers as that's kind of creepy/pathetic considering I have friends my own age.
While not relevant, thank you for making that point. That was an issue back then. He knew he was under scrutiny for hosting a game for teenagers, and so why, oh why, would he want to expound on rape during a game?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I need to go back to school and re-learn what I know about words.
Could be a good idea. I mean, you say (a) DMs should use in-game rape threats if they are appropriate then you say (b) you have never said other DMs should us in-game rape threats.
Manchu wrote: Would you use in-game rape threats as a DM? Would you recommend that DMs use in-game rape threats?
1) If it was appropriate. 2) See 1.
So:
Manchu: Would you use in-game rape threats as a DM?
DarkTraveler777: If it was appropriate.
Manchu: Would you recommend that DMs use in-game rape threats?
DarkTraveler777: If it was appropriate.
Please let me know if I have misinterpreted your comment "See 1."
I didn't say should. I am saying the DMcould, if appropriate. I am not advocating it unless it is the the only solution that will resonate with the player.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Because you are ignoring one of the main thrusts of my argument which is the response of the DM should be situational to the group.
I don't mean to ignore it. In fact, I think we should highlight it because it comes down to a very big difference between you and me:
You think it is sometimes appropriate for a DM to use in-game rape threats.
I think that is never appropriate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stanman wrote: If I were in that situation I'd wonder why I a grown man were hanging out and DM'ing for a group of young teenagers as that's kind of creepy/pathetic considering I have friends my own age.
Now that strikes me as a bit of a low blow. We don't know what the deal was. Maybe the nephew said, hey uncle how about you teach us how to play D&D. I would be okay teaching my nephew and his friends how to play D&D if I knew their parents were okay with it. I mean, you can't just assume this guy was creepy and pathetic just because he is DMing a game for some teenagers.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Because you are ignoring one of the main thrusts of my argument which is the response of the DM should be situational to the group.
I don't mean to ignore it. In fact, I think we should highlight it because it comes down to a very big difference between you and me:
You think it is sometimes appropriate for a DM to use in-game rape threats.
I think that is never appropriate.
Wonderful. Kudos to you. You are clearly a better human being than me, or the DM or anyone from my story. Better, oh Sith Lord?*
*Just so that isn't misconstrued as an attack, it is a play on the Sith only deal in absolutes quote.
And I am off to my second job. I will pick up any response tomorrow.
The sarcasm kind of falls flat when you consider the subject:
Manchu wrote: You think it is sometimes appropriate for a DM to use in-game rape threats.
I think that is never appropriate.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: *Just so that isn't misconstrued as an attack, it is a play on the Sith only deal in absolutes quote.
Don't worry dude, I understand this is a tricky subject and the medium itself can be an obstacle. I am not taking any of this personally and I also mean no personal offense to you. At the end of the day, this is just a storm of electrons. It's all discussion and in the realm of the intellect.
Manchu wrote: Now that strikes me as a bit of a low blow. We don't know what the deal was. Maybe the nephew said, hey uncle how about you teach us how to play D&D. I would be okay teaching my nephew and his friends how to play D&D if I knew their parents were okay with it. I mean, you can't just assume this guy was creepy and pathetic just because he is DMing a game for some teenagers.
And how long is that going to continue to go over well when the parents get wind of a game being run by an adult which includes violence, much less elements of sex and rape. I don't think too many parents would find a grown man talking about fantasy rape with a group of kids particularly appealing, especially if it's in the context of they themselves haven't even discussed sex with their own kids.
You might have good intentions of just entertaining the kids with a game but it can quickly head into major creeper territory as viewed by the parents or other people on the outside as they'll likely be getting any info second hand which always bodes so well....
Parents get mighty uppity even when discussion of sex is being presented in a strictly technical form like sex ed at schools, for some reason they lose their minds when it's injected into games and discussion of fantasy especially when it's done by strangers.
Can we not agree that subject matters that are possibly appropriate for adults are sometimes NOT appropriate for children? I'm pretty sure that rape fits that category.
Game of Thrones has plenty of rape in it, and yet it's pretty mainstream. An adult who includes rape in a game of D&D is just as guilty as an adult who allows their child to watch Game of Thrones, just that D&D has a bit of a nerdy stigma about it, whereas GoT is very much mainstream. The article feels like a hit piece.
What a horribly written article. I got through the first four paragraphs, and the only thing I could find that even closely resembled a thesis was that it's important to understand the history of mysogony and racism in gaming.
After thinking about it, while I would personally be uncomfortable with people in any D&D game I'm taking part in raping NPCs, I also realise that there are certain groups of people; both male and female, who have rape fantasies and really, what takes place between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home/etc is really their own business.
tl;dr not my cup of tea but if the entire party agrees and are adults, then I guess it's their own freedom to choose whether or not to describe rape in D&D sessions.
There's another youtube video titled "Farador D and D" that's a bit graphic to link here, but puts a spin on the rape conversation here. Just be warned, there is a bit of language and graphic content.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Did the people in the 90's saying video games will turn kids to mass murderers play video games?
Again, yes. Seriously, are you going to pretend you don't know anything about these?
I remain convinced, Hybrid, that you are a completely 100% aware of the nonsense you're spewing, proving beyond all shadow of a doubt that you are a monumental troll.
Oh, and "GJW". That's cute. You and Peregrine come up with that yourselves?
easysauce wrote: so now pretend characters (who might be roleplaying as the evilist evidoers) who may or may not be pretend raping people, which may or not even be man on woman rape, is misogynist?
If you need to oppose something, you just use that m-word. It's the modern "race card". It works even better if you can somehow imply they're transphobic as well.
easysauce wrote: At what point do we call a spade a spade and recognize when we are tilting at windmills?
Phallic imagery! See? More misogyny.
easysauce wrote: People play RPGs to be in a fantasy land, its odd to get so worked up over fantasy rape, and not fantasy murder/slavery/theivery/ect."
But the fragile minds of the players! Can't they see how they're becoming tools of the patriarchy by indulging in such fantasy?
I suspect "1980" is nearly 20 years before the average GWS customer was born.
Jesus, I feel old now.
It was 11 years before I was born (1991), I have NEVER played D&D nor had any particular interest in it until recently (I watch/listen to a lot of Acquisitions Incorporated). And yet I became aware of the stigma and moralising hysteria surrounding D&D by the time I was aged 10 or so, simply through media exposure (historical references in newspapers etc).
To not be aware of all the allegations of Satanism against D&D in the 80's is either monumental ignorance or blatant trolling. Given Hybrid's past behavior I'm leaning to the latter.
My parents are Christian...Once my Mom introduced me to Harry Potter by giving me book 1 "The Philosphers Stone". I enjoyed it so much that I borrowed my primary schools copy of book 2. But then my Mom became aware of the popular hysteria over the Harry Potter series and began to worry that Harry Potter would be a demonic influence (Magic and all that) so banned me from reading the book and enlisted the aid of my teacher (who attended our church and was a friend of my parents). I had to resort to hiding in the classroom during playtime and reading the book then. She also got me some BS evangelical Christian book about "Satan and Harry Potter".
True story.
My mom went from getting me interested in Harry Potter by gifting me the first book, to worrying about my immortal soul and getting my Christian teacher to spy on me in school to keep me pure. That was funny. Also I think I recall once my parents discussing magic with me, and I said I didn't believe in Witches and Demons. And they assured me that Witches and Demons do exist.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: My parents are Christian...Once my Mom introduced me to Harry Potter by giving me book 1 "The Philosphers Stone". I enjoyed it so much that I borrowed my primary schools copy of book 2. But then my Mom became aware of the popular hysteria over the Harry Potter series and began to worry that Harry Potter would be a demonic influence so banned me from reading the book and enlisted the aid of my teacher (who attended our church and was a friend of my parents). I had to resort to hiding in the classroom during playtime and reading the book then. She also got me some BS evangelical Christian book about "Satan and Harry Potter".
True story.
My mom went from getting me interested in Harry Potter by gifting me the first book, to worrying about my immortal soul. That was funny.
Suffice to say...I'm now an atheist.
And here is a perfect example f why I can never be christian .
I suspect "1980" is nearly 20 years before the average GWS customer was born.
Jesus, I feel old now.
That was my golden age of playing D and D. I often spoke with Tracy Hickman back during that time, when he managed a theatre in downtown Provo, and he had created some localy printed dungeons that he ran at the mall gamestore. One of my buds, Steve Marsh who had worked on the first Monster Manual, had worked with Gygax and was a regular in the campaigns we had. It was a great couple of years with nothing really to match those days since then for me.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: My parents are Christian...Once my Mom introduced me to Harry Potter by giving me book 1 "The Philosphers Stone". I enjoyed it so much that I borrowed my primary schools copy of book 2. But then my Mom became aware of the popular hysteria over the Harry Potter series and began to worry that Harry Potter would be a demonic influence so banned me from reading the book and enlisted the aid of my teacher (who attended our church and was a friend of my parents). I had to resort to hiding in the classroom during playtime and reading the book then. She also got me some BS evangelical Christian book about "Satan and Harry Potter".
True story.
My mom went from getting me interested in Harry Potter by gifting me the first book, to worrying about my immortal soul. That was funny.
Suffice to say...I'm now an atheist.
And here is a perfect example f why I can never be christian .
There was also a conversation once when I expressed my lack of belief in Demons, Magic and Witchcraft... and they responded with horror and assured me that Demons do exist and magic is Satanic...
Paradoxically my Dad is obsessed with Disney, Magic Kingdom and all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: And here is a perfect example f why I can never be christian .
I tried it once, when I chose to get baptized at 13. I quickly grew out of that phase after a year or two.
Many fundamentalists are Christians, not all Christians are fundamentalists.
I too was banned from role playing by my Christian father due to the fear it was demonic. I'm still Christian though. I recognize that like any other group of human beings there are some who have wonky ideas. I view those as reflective of the individually not the idea as a whole.
Manchu, yes, you're right. I misread that. But to then answer that question: What difference would that actually make to the discussion we're having right now? Seems like another big ol' smoke screen to me.
pretre wrote: Don't confuse fundamentalists with christians...
All fundamentalist Christians are Christians. Not all Christians are fundamentalist Christians.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Manchu, yes, you're right. I misread that. But to then answer that question: What difference would that actually make to the discussion we're having right now? Seems like another big ol' smoke screen to me.
You were the one who brought up the 80s and 90s stuff, so if you feel that it's off-topic then you have only yourself to blame.
Also, the point of the argument seems to have been that the "video games cause murder" and "D&D is satanic" claims were made by clueless morons who had never played any of the games they were talking about. For example, religious idiots described D&D as some kind of satanic ritual with real spells being cast, but anyone who had ever played D&D would know that rolling some dice and saying "I cast magic missile" has nothing to do with satanism (or any other real religion). But there's a key difference with modern criticism of sexism/racism/etc in gaming: it's coming from people who do play the games and have a stake in being part of the community. So your "same stuff, different decade" argument fails in a very important way.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Seems like another big ol' smoke screen to me.
I agree.
You know, the people who were so afraid of D&D and so opposed to it in the 80s, they are always portrayed as idiots but they weren't totally wrong. Sure, playing D&D doesn't make kids become Satanists or kill themselves or whatever superstitious nonsense. (The Satanist scare was a larger phenomenon in the US at the time, by the way.) But this idea of unfettered creativity and free thought would be really terrifying in the suburbs and rural areas of the US. In the 1980s, this was the last hold out of Nixon's Silent Majority -- and these people had become the vociferous, militant Christian Right under the spell of men like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. These people really felt like their way of life, their 1950s conservatism, was besieged and they were exactly right.
You could say that D&D was nothing to be scared of but I think that is kind of selling it short. In any case, people opposed it because it did scare them. They knew it had some kind of power or they would not have cared. The same is true to this day except now the people who oppose D&D, they don't want to just shut that power down but they also want to seize it for their own purposes, which have nothing to do with imagination or creativity. Honestly the joke is on them. The radicalism of D&D, whatever power it ever had, hasn't been a part of a D&D-labeled product since the early 90s (much less Paizo). Fifth Edition, with its corporate marketing values of inclusivity and tolerance, has proved D&D to be firmly mainstream and about as non-magical as Monopoly.
No, it's not. Rape is a story device to make a bad guy look even more bad, to stir up hatred against a certain NPC etc. Just like...murder. Which everyone seems to be fine with. Huh.
>> But...but...rape always involves women!
I wasn't aware of that! It starts with a really mechanical issue - unless a fantasy wizard somehow casts a dongalong spell on a lady who then proceeds to...ehem.
>> ohmygod yes, but the entire narrative is focused on rape!
Feel free to point me to such a story.
>> ermagehrd, women are only in RPGs to satisfy lower desires, victimization! VICTIMIZATIOOOOOON!
Bullcrap. What's the most common gender that gets slaughtered in RPGs? Men. Male goblins, male orcs, male bandits. Everyone is fine with it. Imagine an adventure where the group is to slaughter a tribe of Amazons. Oh, I can already hear the SJW howling from beyond the hills.
Sigvatr wrote: >> My GM totally creates sexist adventures!
Why are you still playing?
This is a great point. It also applies to D&D more generally in that you can add to and subtract from the rules and background elements however you see fit. If there is something troubling you about the published rules, change it (just as people used to ignore sexist character attributes). If the people you game with are misgynistic creeps, stop gaming with them.
You know, Peterson makes a lot of good points in his article that Trammell just ignores. Trammell concentrates on these sexist articles from the 70s as if they speak for what all RPGers were like in the 70s and even today. This is bull gak. As Peterson makes clear, women and men pushed back when those kind of articles were written. Here is a little poem written by a woman gamer in response to one of those sexists articles and criticizing Tim Kask for publishing it in Dragon magazine:
A verse for Len Lakofka, who’s earned the name of nerd,
For rules changes both chauvinist and patently absurd
And Kask, the man who published it, why earn your way to fame,
By publicly insulting all the players of the game?
Peterson actually studies the history of roleplaying rather than writing political manifestos masquerading as scholarly research.
Peregrine wrote: But there's a key difference with modern criticism of sexism/racism/etc in gaming: it's coming from people who do play the games and have a stake in being part of the community. So your "same stuff, different decade" argument fails in a very important way.
That doesn't add any weight to the correctness of their opinions, considering sexism/racism/etc in gaming is also disputed by people who play games and have a stake in being part of the community.
In other words "video games cause sexism/racism/etc" is an unproven statement.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: That doesn't add any weight to the correctness of their opinions, considering sexism/racism/etc in gaming is also disputed by people who play games and have a stake in being part of the community.
Of course it adds weight. Who has more credibility to criticize D&D: a religious lunatic who has never even opened the rulebook but will tell you all about how it's a satanic ritual to summon demons, or a D&D player who is unhappy about something they perceive as sexist and want it changed so that D&D is a better product for them? The former is an idiot speaking out of complete ignorance of the subject, the latter is a person who just has an opinion that you don't agree with.
In other words "video games cause sexism/racism/etc" is an unproven statement.
Nobody is making that argument. The actual claim is that video games/RPGs/etc have a lot of the same sexism/racism/etc that is present in society in general, and those elements reinforce existing sexist/racist/etc ideas. For example, nobody is going to suddenly learn about racism and join the KKK because they played a D&D game where orcs are evil, but the concept of having an entire race defined as inherently evil does reinforce real-world racist ideas that race determines who you are and some races are just inherently bad.
Peregrine wrote: Of course it adds weight. Who has more credibility to criticize D&D: a religious lunatic who has never even opened the rulebook but will tell you all about how it's a satanic ritual to summon demons, or a D&D player who is unhappy about something they perceive as sexist and want it changed so that D&D is a better product for them? The former is an idiot speaking out of complete ignorance of the subject, the latter is a person who just has an opinion that you don't agree with.
It doesn't add weight to the correctness of their opinion because experience does not gaurantee correctness of opinions. You can have vast knowledge of a subject and still be wrong about aspects of it. In other words, a D&D player of 5 years thinks an aspect is racist, another player of 5 years thinks it is not. Going solely by experience, who is right?
Nobody is making that argument. The actual claim is that video games/RPGs/etc have a lot of the same sexism/racism/etc that is present in society in general, and those elements reinforce existing sexist/racist/etc ideas. For example, nobody is going to suddenly learn about racism and join the KKK because they played a D&D game where orcs are evil, but the concept of having an entire race defined as inherently evil does reinforce real-world racist ideas that race determines who you are and some races are just inherently bad.
Sure, why not. Prove that video games enforce existing sexism/racism
(also, are you saying D&D caused Ferguson? )
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: That is some opinion I have never seen anyone holding. “Video games are influence by sexist premise and therefore contain sexist elements”, yep, seen that. But “video games will turn you into a sexist”? Never. Because it does not make any sense, especially when most of the critics play video games themselves.
Again, replace “video games” by “American culture”. Would you say “There is still some sexism in American culture” is the same as “Living in the U.S. will make you sexist”?
Same dealio for you, prove that video games enforce existing sexism/racism
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Using a GW example, would you say that a player wanting to make his faction OP is improving the game?
No. I would think he/she is wrong. I would not compare him or her to people trying to prove that playing Warhammer means you are a psychopathic satanist killer and Warhammer should be banned though, because those are two very, very different things.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: That is some opinion I have never seen anyone holding. “Video games are influence by sexist premise and therefore contain sexist elements”, yep, seen that. But “video games will turn you into a sexist”? Never. Because it does not make any sense, especially when most of the critics play video games themselves.
Again, replace “video games” by “American culture”. Would you say “There is still some sexism in American culture” is the same as “Living in the U.S. will make you sexist”?
Same dealio for you, prove that video games enforce existing sexism/racism
So, you are quoting me saying neither I nor anyone I know think video games “enforce” sexism, or “turn people into sexists”, or “is the only thing standing between turning everyone into Jesus hippies that love everyone equally and smoke tons of weed”, and you are asking me to prove what I just said I did not believe? It is the other way around. Real world problems are what creates problems in games, not the other way around.
Do you believe that there is some kind of magical protection that prevent real world problems from influencing games?
And just to know, if I give you an example of real-world problems getting into games, in that example also applies to other media like, say, movies, will you say “but it is the same in movies, why are you not attacking movies instead”?
Also -- you keep posting as if your experience with D&D is universal. Why?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: People in favour of gun control evidently missed that memo
Remember when S&W bowed to gun control nuts on trigger locks? Don't want to go too far off-topic here. The subversion tactic is no secret, either: you find that language throughout the post-modern manifesto genre (in which I include most contemporary writing on "inclusivity").
Subversion works in some instances. However if you look at gun control groups like MDA, the Brady Campaign, Everytown, etc. you will find that they are openly hostile to guns and gun owners - their supporters have even threatened violence towards gun owners, and endorse SWATing them
Also -- you keep posting as if your experience with D&D is universal. Why?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: People in favour of gun control evidently missed that memo
Remember when S&W bowed to gun control nuts on trigger locks? Don't want to go too far off-topic here. The subversion tactic is no secret, either: you find that language throughout the post-modern manifesto genre (in which I include most contemporary writing on "inclusivity").
Subversion works in some instances. However if you look at gun control groups like MDA, the Brady Campaign, Everytown, etc. you will find that they are openly hostile to guns and gun owners - their supporters have even threatened violence towards gun owners, and endorse SWATing them
Also -- you keep posting as if your experience with D&D is universal. Why?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: People in favour of gun control evidently missed that memo
Remember when S&W bowed to gun control nuts on trigger locks? Don't want to go too far off-topic here. The subversion tactic is no secret, either: you find that language throughout the post-modern manifesto genre (in which I include most contemporary writing on "inclusivity").
Subversion works in some instances. However if you look at gun control groups like MDA, the Brady Campaign, Everytown, etc. you will find that they are openly hostile to guns and gun owners - their supporters have even threatened violence towards gun owners, and endorse SWATing them
That's...amusingly ironic.
Yup.
"Gun owners are violent, and if they do not turn in their guns we'll assault them or have them killed"
Also -- you keep posting as if your experience with D&D is universal. Why?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: People in favour of gun control evidently missed that memo
Remember when S&W bowed to gun control nuts on trigger locks? Don't want to go too far off-topic here. The subversion tactic is no secret, either: you find that language throughout the post-modern manifesto genre (in which I include most contemporary writing on "inclusivity").
Subversion works in some instances. However if you look at gun control groups like MDA, the Brady Campaign, Everytown, etc. you will find that they are openly hostile to guns and gun owners - their supporters have even threatened violence towards gun owners, and endorse SWATing them
That's...amusingly ironic.
Yup.
"Gun owners are violent, and if they do not turn in their guns we'll assault them or have them killed"
Should be an interesting case study for the Stand Your Ground laws...
no, it's a much more sensible thread that essentially consists of two - a few people hurling arguments (many of which are either simply ignored by the other party or just are not valid) about how appropriate forced and or violent sexual activities are in the same game that usually consists of bloody murder in the name of SEEEEELAAAAAUGHTER!, uh, i mean JJEEUUUSSSTIIICEE!!
The answer being: whatever floats yer boat mikael, just make sure ya don' get caught.
no, that's not what I'm saying.
I''m saying, when it comes down to it, it depends on the situation. is the person trying to joke? (a joke about rape is still a joke, just as a racist joke is still a joke) is the person being completely serious and thinks that is what his character would do? in which case there is something wrong. tel me, diembowement, evisceration, decapitation, ll of these things happen all the time in Dnd, and that's the GOOD GUYS.
tell me, someone cutting a woman's head off, surely that is worse a crime then rpe? i am NOT SAYING RAPE IS OK, i am saying that when it comes dwon to it, who the feth cares if a person wants to be an donkey-cave. hell, if you really don't like what a person does than stop playing. esy as that. say "nope, that's not ok, I'm done" and leave. if an entire group ws suggesting the gang-rape of n elf it means, well it's not real. they aren't saying that they would actually want to rape a womn in real life. notice how it is clled a FANTASY game? fantasy definition: n. the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things.
imagining. not "going out and raping people because DnD said i only had to roll a twelve to penetrate."
Manchu wrote: You just made the "killing is worse than rape" argument.
So do you think a game about raping orcs is better than a game about killing them?
It almost looks like you are presenting a false dichotomy
Out of intellectual curiosity why is one considered worse than the other? I was under the impression from reading the comments from a variety of posters that rape in D&D was not an actual part of the game mechanics. but something that players either injected into the story or kept off scene and therefore not an integral part
see, this is a damned SELF-PERPETUATING CYCLE.
here's a way to think about it.
who does rape hurt? the victim. plus who ever has to look after any potential spawnings caused by said rape.
who is hurt by murder? the victim, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON THE VICTIM HAS EVER BEEN FRIENDS OR FAMILY WITH.
Manchu wrote: Do people think these two things are really equally acceptable in a RPG or should be?
(a) my character swings his sword at the orc
(b) my character forces the orc to do sex things with him
Really?
Well, if you interpret the sword as a metaphor, then yes, they equally acceptable.
Anyway, now that I got that out of my system, isn't the purpose of a RPG to role-play? How would a player role playing as a Viking raider act when stumbling across a frightened maiden? So yes, it is theoretically acceptable, provided it has the correct context. In practice, why would one want to?
Better = more acceptable, morally and socially speaking.
I don't know how to answer your question about what rape "will give." Do you mean, like XP and GP? I guess sure if that's what motivates you to play D&D.
This stuff may appear harmless, but as has been said it's insidious in it's goal of changing things from the inside. Not to mention the societal pressure around lately to conform to these standards. Equality is great, forced politicization of hobbies is not and it's happening a lot. There's some pushback finally though it seems with gamergate, Maher and Harris on Real Time and the last South Park episode all calling out the extreme left.
The huge fuss over rape but complete acceptance of murder really grinds my gears when murder is so much worse. It's strongest in America, but sadly a lot of the entertainment is made in America and it bleeds into the rest of the anglosphere very readily anyway.
Specifically regarding rape in RPGs, there shouldn't be a problem with it so long as it's handled according to the audience. If you're an adult GMing for a bunch of kids, you should probably ban it. Adults that want a more realistic world in my experience haven't shied away from rape being part of the setting, and when we played neutral and evil characters in Dark Sun - a very savage setting - it was handled "off stage" as mentioned. We knew it was going on, we didn't go into detail. I wouldn't judge people for reveling in it though if that's what the group wanted, RPGs are escapism, you do things that you can't do in real life. It's good to be bad!
Manchu wrote: Will anyone be brave enough to just answer the question?
Manchu wrote: So do you think a game about raping orcs is better than a game about killing them?
What would anyone have to gain by giving an answer to such a patiently loaded question, based on a false dichotomy, and then have to rationalize out for you exactly why in their opinion either;
- rape is preferable to murder
- murder is preferable to rape
Manchu wrote: Will anyone be brave enough to just answer the question?
Manchu wrote: So do you think a game about raping orcs is better than a game about killing them?
This might be a sidestep, but I find the concept behind games you can describe as "a game about X," where X is something that can be expressed within the limitations of the end of that sentence, excessively boring. I'm not (hero's name), (verb) of (noun). I'm (hero's name), a complicated character that's developed through great and terrible things happening around him in a world that has a lot things trying to shift in different directions, all at once. Things are more complicated than just "I always move forward and swing my sword". That's Gauntlet. A narrative is to be forged; Mono-thematic Candyland-like games would be relegated to a different time and audience, and the games my group play in are always a little more Game of Thrones and a little less WoW. As such, I cannot state that either of the options you offer sounds better than the other, because they both sound completely devoid of imagination and limited.
Of course, based upon the earlier posts in the thread, I'm sure that's your point.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: What would anyone have to gain by giving an answer to such a patiently loaded question, based on a false dichotomy, and then have to rationalize out for you exactly why in their opinion either; - rape is preferable to murder - murder is preferable to rape
If there is a false dichotomy, I am not the one who presented it. At least three or four posters have now made the argument that murder is worse than rape/rape is better than murder. So I would like to know -- when it comes to roleplaying games, is it better to play a game about killing orcs or is it better to play a game about raping orcs?
daedalus wrote: based upon the earlier posts in the thread, I'm sure that's your point.
Sort of. As I just mentioned, a lot of people are excusing rape in roleplaying games by arguing that real life murder is worse than real life rape. That is, their argument seems to be if it is okay to play a game about killing orcs then it is okay to play a game about raping orcs. And just following this line of argument to its logical conclusion, a game about raping orcs is actually better than a game about killing them.
But damned if it isn't hard to find one of them who will actually say it explicitly.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: What would anyone have to gain by giving an answer to such a patiently loaded question, based on a false dichotomy, and then have to rationalize out for you exactly why in their opinion either;
- rape is preferable to murder
- murder is preferable to rape
If there is a false dichotomy, I am not the one who presented it. At least three or four posters have now made the argument that murder is worse than rape/rape is better than murder. So I would like to know -- when it comes to roleplaying games, is it better to play a game about killing orcs or is it better to play a game about raping orcs?
Others may have entered it into the discussion, but you are the one who has taken that baton and ran it with zeal. You seem determined in your demand that members of the community answer a ridiculous question.
Sigvatr wrote: What's more interesting: how did you come up with said question?
You can review the last several pages of this thread at your convenience. I have also just explained it in the post above yours.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You seem determined in your demand that members of the community answer a ridiculous question.
As I just explained to you, the question itself is not ridiculous. The question rephrases the argument being made about rape and murder. If anything is ridiculous it is the notion that "murder is worse" arguments are relevant.
I can well understand why decent people would be hesitant to say they would rather rape orcs in D&D than kill orcs. But the same people keep posting about how killing is preferable to rape.
I played DnD a lot as a young 'un (14-19). Not once did the idea of raping an Orc even cross my mind. Having said that, every enemy I killed was a valid target. According to my GM anyway..
nomotog wrote: It is more socially acceptable to kill an Orc then to rape them. Rape is depicted as a crime more evil then murder.
Depicted by D&D you mean? Do you have a reference for that?
Also, in case the point has been diluted, my question is what YOU PERSONALLY find to be more morally and socially acceptable, not what some vague notion of society generally would hypothetically think.
I don't see how that changes the answer? The content of the game is fictional. The game with fictional orc rape should be just as acceptable as fictional orc murder. It is not, that is the problem.
nomotog wrote: It is more socially acceptable to kill an Orc then to rape them. Rape is depicted as a crime more evil then murder.
Depicted by D&D you mean? Do you have a reference for that?
Also, in case the point has been diluted, my question is what YOU PERSONALLY find to be more morally and socially acceptable, not what some vague notion of society generally would hypothetically think.
Depicted in general. The simple thing to do is point out people tend not to get too bothered by deceptions of killing, but they get very bothered by deceptions of rape and sexual assault. Society (at least the one I am apart of) has a lot of forms of more or less good killing. There are tons of justifications for killing someone. I can't think of any rape justifications that are accepted.
I do find murder more acceptable then rape, but that is asking if you would rather be punched in the face or punched in the gut. No option is a good one.
Cheesecat wrote: I would rather get raped than killed at least with rape I get to live after.
Okay. With that in mind, are you willing to answer my question above?
Well morally as in my own morals, a game about killing orcs is worse than a game about raping orcs. But socially, a game about raping orcs is probably worse than a game about killing orcs as people seem to be more comfortable with the idea of killing than rape in fictional universes and
other media. I will add that there are a few exceptions where I think killing is OK such as in self-defense, abortion, protecting others, etc.
nomotog wrote: I can't think of any rape justifications that are accepted.
"Murder is worse."
It's not a justification for any particular instance of rape but it seems to be the go-to excuse for depicting rape in games.
You got it the wrong way, whether intentional or not - that'll be up for debate.
The comparison is not used to justify rape. Rape is suddenly being taken out as the uber evil thing in RPGs whereas murder is generally accepted for...no reason. And, as stated above, murder / killing in RPGs is mostly targeted at one gender: males. Which suddenly seems to be ok. As stated above: imagine a story where the group slaughters a group of female bandits. SJW would be lighting up their torches in the blink of an eye.
I did not ask about whether orcs and actions done to orcs are fictional. I asked about which is more morally and socially accpetable:
- game about raping orcs
- game about killing orcs
Is neither a valid answer? What is my character's motivation? I mean, I want to say "game about killing orcs," because it's something I'm used to, but what if the orcs are doing their own thing in the village, having pleasant conversations about the weather?
Yonan wrote: The game with fictional orc rape should be just as acceptable as fictional orc murder.
How about a game with fictional pedophilia? Is that just as acceptable?
Yes. Such games exist in Japan and there's a viable argument for their existence reducing the real victims of paedophiles by giving them a harmless outlet.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I mean, I want to say "game about killing orcs," because it's something I'm used to, but what if the orcs are doing their own thing in the village, having pleasant conversations about the weather?
I think we can skip this sort of prevarication. Assume the orcs are the usual bad kind of orcs.
I don't really have a problem with killing orcs in D&D. I think that is different from raping orcs in D&D or committing sex acts with children in D&D. But you seem to think all of those things are equivalent.
So, again assuming "aren't we all? means you are okay with killing orcs in D&D, and given that you think fictional killing is the same as fictional rape and fictional pedophilia, does this also mean you are okay with raping orcs in D&D and committing sex acts with children in D&D?
Cheesecat wrote: Well morally as in my own morals, a game about killing orcs is worse than a game about raping orcs.
So you would rather play a game where your character rapes orcs than kills orcs?
What kind of games do you actually play, by the way?
Those NPC children are played by an adult game master. If that game master - and everyone present - is happy with that, good on them. It's not something I'd enjoy but I see it as morally similar in theory. In practice you'd get lynched.
Well morally as in my own morals, a game about killing orcs is worse than a game about raping orcs.
So you would rather play a game where your character rapes orcs than kills orcs?
Well, that's your morals then. I wouldn't care for either and to me, it's the same. The important thing is that you're playing with a group of people and if someone suddenly gets the idea to start sexually harassing children...uhm...
Sigvatr wrote: I don't get that post. Do I have to imagine you running out crying when we'd play D&D and the group is encountered by a group of ork bandits?
Perhaps there is a language barrier issue here?
I don't have a problem fighting and killing orcs in D&D.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I mean, I want to say "game about killing orcs," because it's something I'm used to, but what if the orcs are doing their own thing in the village, having pleasant conversations about the weather?
I think we can skip this sort of prevarication. Assume the orcs are the usual bad kind of orcs.
So then I may assume that the orcs are trying to rape me in the rape scenario? In that case, I would go with the killing. I don't want no orc to have a chance at raping me. That would be pretty silly.
Ah, gotcha. Thought we were talking about the murder as well.
I'd, personally, have an issue with raping them because it would be stupid. It leads to nothing, it has no point in the overarching story, it does not provide any humor (hopefully...) and it would be weird if someone on our table would suddenly say "Yo, I want to rape that orc lady!".
Killing Orcs simply makes sense. They are the generic evil in D&D and they provide loot and experience.
I don't think we're on the same point here, though. Both rape and murder are bad. SJW bringing the former up as the "ultimate evil", however, is...strange, because suddenly, murdering tons of people is okay. And worse: murder of the other gender. Totally okay all of a sudden. Why not enforce 50% of all victims to be female?
Cheesecat wrote: Well morally as in my own morals, a game about killing orcs is worse than a game about raping orcs.
So you would rather play a game where your character rapes orcs than kills orcs?
What kind of games do you actually play, by the way?
Well, I just realized I'm at odds with myself because I've played tons of characters who kill and I'm not that worried about it, but I would probably not be comfortable playing a character who rapes. So I guess in fictional universes I more OK with killing than rape, but in real life as far as I'm
Manchu wrote: Sort of. As I just mentioned, a lot of people are excusing rape in roleplaying games by arguing that real life murder is worse than real life rape. That is, their argument seems to be if it is okay to play a game about killing orcs then it is okay to play a game about raping orcs. And just following this line of argument to its logical conclusion, a game about raping orcs is actually better than a game about killing them.
But damned if it isn't hard to find one of them who will actually say it explicitly.
In that case, I still stick with neither, though I'm not sure I was the intended audience of the question to begin with. The entire nature of murdering orcs and not being glowing red EVIL is based upon the supposition that the orcs are inherently bad at some inherent and measurable level, and that you're, by some virtue of personal might, effectively endowed to be their judge, jury, and executioner. As killing things too evil to let live has real world basis in some (modern, even) societies, it's certainly easier to rationalize than rape. Absent of any true wrongdoing though, genocide is pretty freaking evil. To better anthropomorphize the orcs, imagine them something for which there have been dubious evil acts ascribed to them that they have committed against somebody, somewhere, maybe. Or so someone somewhere claimed once. That was a big point in a war that happened some 70 years ago.
Of course, rape is an unspeakably vile thing too. To hurt someone personally that much is something I liken to prolonged and severe torture, which is something I actually do see in our games. One of the guys will occasionally go off on "torture fetish" binges with captives. It gets uncomfortable and then we need to get on his case about it. It's a problem for the group.
I have little interest in playing a game that involves me murdering things, nor do I have any interest in playing a game that involves me raping things. I do have an interest in playing in a game where I supply justice in an appropriate fashion for crimes committed beyond simply the fact that something has tusks and is pissed at me for wandering into its home. As such, I'm okay with terrible things (murder, rape, etc) happening in a game within the form of a narrative so long as I'm the one destroying the source of it, and not the one involved in committing or abiding the committing of it.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So then I may assume that the orcs are trying to rape me in the rape scenario?
Uh?
Getting back to the original question -- which is better:
- RPG about killing/murdering orcs
OR
- RPG about raping orcs?
Really none of the qualifies you have brought up so far impact the meaning of the original question.
Sigvatr wrote: I don't think we're on the same point here, though.
I agree. I am not trying to make a point about men being evil or something. The issue is, people are saying that rape and killing (or murder if you prefer) are morally equivalent in RPGs or that killing is worse. And yet no one is really willing to say they would rather play a game about raping orcs than a game about killing orcs.
Two reasons why rape is arguably worse than murder in games:
1) Most "murder" in games isn't murder at all. Killing an enemy on the battlefield isn't murder, defending yourself from bandits isn't murder, etc. And even when it would be murder (for example, if you're playing as the bandits) it's usually just a means to an end, not something done just for the sake of murdering people. Rape, on the other hand, has no such justification. It doesn't accomplish anything besides making a character suffer and proving how Evil you are.
2) Everyone agrees that murder in real life is wrong. You don't have lawyers in court making arguments about how the victim was asking for it by wearing those clothes, or how they agree to violence in a martial arts context therefore they probably consented to being murdered. There isn't much reason to be concerned about what messages about murder we're presenting because nobody is going to change their opinion. But we do have those kinds of things with rape, people are constantly making up excuses for how it wasn't really all that bad or how it's all the victim's fault. So even if the crime itself isn't quite as bad we have a lot more reasons to care about how we present it.
And you know what else is amusing? On the very first page we had denials and claims that rape isn't really a thing in D&D and the FATAL crowd are an irrelevant minority that shouldn't be used to make the majority look bad, but here we are in an argument where people are proudly explaining how they think that there are good reasons to have rape in their D&D games.
Manchu wrote: Sort of. As I just mentioned, a lot of people are excusing rape in roleplaying games by arguing that real life murder is worse than real life rape. That is, their argument seems to be if it is okay to play a game about killing orcs then it is okay to play a game about raping orcs. And just following this line of argument to its logical conclusion, a game about raping orcs is actually better than a game about killing them.
But damned if it isn't hard to find one of them who will actually say it explicitly.
In that case, I still stick with neither, though I'm not sure I was the intended audience of the question to begin with. The entire nature of murdering orcs and not being glowing red EVIL is based upon the supposition that the orcs are inherently bad at some inherent and measurable level, and that you're, by some virtue of personal might, effectively endowed to be their judge, jury, and executioner. As killing things too evil to let live has real world basis in some (modern, even) societies, it's certainly easier to rationalize than rape. Absent of any true wrongdoing though, genocide is pretty freaking evil. To better anthropomorphize the orcs, imagine them something for which there have been dubious evil acts ascribed to them that they have committed against somebody, somewhere, maybe. Or so someone somewhere claimed once. That was a big point in a war that happened some 70 years ago.
Of course, rape is an unspeakably vile thing too. To hurt someone personally that much is something I liken to prolonged and severe torture, which is something I actually do see in our games. One of the guys will occasionally go off on "torture fetish" binges with captives. It gets uncomfortable and then we need to get on his case about it. It's a problem for the group.
I have little interest in playing a game that involves me murdering things, nor do I have any interest in playing a game that involves me raping things. I do have an interest in playing in a game where I supply justice in an appropriate fashion for crimes committed beyond simply the fact that something has tusks and is pissed at me for wandering into its home. As such, I'm okay with terrible things (murder, rape, etc) happening in a game within the form of a narrative so long as I'm the one destroying the source of it, and not the one involved in committing or abiding the committing of it.
Peregrine wrote: where people are proudly explaining how they think that there are good reasons to have rape in their D&D games.
OTOH I am having a hell of a time getting anyone to really come right out and say it. So there's the reality, I think: people already know rape doesn't belong in games. There is a different issue at play here because I highly doubt any of these guys actually think playing a game where you kill orcs is the same as playing a game where you rape orcs or rape kids.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So then I may assume that the orcs are trying to rape me in the rape scenario?
Uh?
Getting back to the original question -- which is better:
- RPG about killing/murdering orcs
OR
- RPG about raping orcs?
Really none of the qualifies you have brought up so far impact the meaning of the original question.
It does though. Details are important.
Without details, I guess I have to go for killing, provided the orcs are hostile. There has to be a very strange and specific series of circumstances in order to justify a scenario as odd and horrible as orc rape.
People you consider killing in these games to be okay because killing is considered heroic when done for a good cause. Most people would say people in my grandfather's generation who fought in WWII where heroic, freeing Europe from the Nazis even though that included killing a lot of people.
In the DND you play the hero out to save the world, or the nation, or a town. It is about going to Dungeons and heroically fighting and killing monsters such as Dragons.
Rape on the other hand is not seen as herioc, so therefore is not ok.
Now that said, I have seen pre-made settings for RGPs that contain evil characters raping people or participating in Eugenics, or other acts that people may find immoral. Rape could come up in an RPG, as long as it is done with some of level of taste it would be fine. Are most people who play DND in particular mature enough/willing to have that come up? Probably not.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: There has to be a very strange and specific series of circumstances in order to justify a scenario as odd and horrible as orc rape.
You know, whatever people do in their imaginary games is up to them.
All I am trying to show is, we all know that raping orcs in RPGs is creepy but killing orcs in RPGs is not. So the "murder is worse" angle is irrelevant.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: There has to be a very strange and specific series of circumstances in order to justify a scenario as odd and horrible as orc rape.
There shouldn't be ANY set of circumstances where rape is the answer or consequence.
Ideally, yes. But theoretically there could be. It depends on how sadistic the player would like his character to be.
Or how fethed up the DM wants the situation to be.
daedalus wrote: I have little interest in playing a game that involves me murdering things
I think you're being a bit precious with the word "murder" here. I mean, what kind of games do you play?
Depends on the DM. One of the DMs runs overly complicated intrigue games where some shadowy group has made an attempt to destabilize the current kingdom, and we try to keep them in check. The fear of compromising morality in the name of getting things done is a major theme of that game. Humans, daemons, and drow are a major opponent in that one.
Another one is one of the braindead "hack and slash" games. I don't care much for that one, but in that case, we do stuff like come upon a group of kobolds living in tunnels beneath the city, and rather than us fight them, I talked them down out of the fight, and we managed to secure peace for the time being. That REALLY surprised the DM the first time I tried it, but he let it work. Doesn't work every time, but I think it's reasonable.
I run a Ravenloft game every few months where players don't kill anything intelligent for any reason, shy of it having committed some terrible act of cruelty and being beyond punishment or hope for atonement otherwise.
The common theme here is that murdering orcs doesn't really happen without a reason beyond "we kick in the door and kill the orcs".
Blood Hawk wrote: Rape could come up in an RPG, as long as it is done with some of level of taste it would be fine.
Tasteful game rape?
Easy, for example the PCs are out looking for information about a powerful warlord and his army out on the frontier. The GM has NCPs, mention that the warlord and his band has been pillaging towns and has captured villagers and committed horrible atrocities upon them, I guess including rape. The PCs hear about all these atrocities but never actually witness them raping anyone. I mean I remember watching con air the movie years ago, there is a character on the plane, johnny 23, that has raped 23 women (or claims to have). He tries to rape one of the main characters at one point but is stopped. The movie talks about, deals with rape in a way that doesn't make people want to ban it from being sold.
Manchu wrote: OTOH I am having a hell of a time getting anyone to really come right out and say it. So there's the reality, I think: people already know rape doesn't belong in games. There is a different issue at play here because I highly doubt any of these guys actually think playing a game where you kill orcs is the same as playing a game where you rape orcs or rape kids.
In the contrary, it does belong there. Rape is a legit story device to make the evil guy look more evil. In this case, rape is the very same as him burning the local witch alive, slicing an innocent's throat in public, decapitating a character's SO etc. All of those are horrible acts (from a moral point of view) with the same intent.
It does not have to be the act. Imagine the group going into a village, finding a women crying in a hut, with tattered clothes, hushing away from any male PC trying to touch or speak to her.
Sigvatr wrote: Rape is a legit story device to make the evil guy look more evil.
I find that a rather trite reason to throw rape into a story.
with the same intent.
No they're not. Why would someone chose to rape? The actions a character performs reveals who they are. Adding in things because they're 'evil' is lazy writing. Nothing more than a very dark form of cartoon villainy.
Who dont think people should be allowed to role play as evil people.
further muddled by the so called "good people" being 100% ok with murdering every ork they meet, cause hey you get imaginary loot right?
but imaginary rape is bad, despite it causing imaginary fear in the other characters, or furthering the storey, establishing evil characer and so on...
heck, to most of the people up in arms over DND "rape" its also rape to pay for sex, so you had better not role play a drunken whoring dwarf either...
murder is worse then rape, our laws punish muderers much much worse then rapists to relect this, just because some people feel its worse, does not grant them the moral high ground to force this view on others who view murder as a far worse crime.
Some people come back from being raped and go on to lead normal happy lives,
no one comes back from murder to do the same... regardless of your opinion on severity, the facts prove one is more severe then the other.
You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion that rape is worse then murder is no more/less valid then someone's opinion that being gay is worse then being straight, that vanilla is better then chocolate, and so on.
Sigvatr wrote: Rape is a legit story device to make the evil guy look more evil.
I find that a rather trite reason to throw rape into a story.
with the same intent.
No they're not. Why would someone chose to rape? The actions a character performs reveals who they are. Adding in things because they're 'evil' is lazy writing. Nothing more than a very dark form of cartoon villainy.
So if I had a story where people went to a prison, I can have murderers, thieves, muggers, etc. in that prison but no rapists?
Easysause: The thing is, it has nothing to do with real life. Some people are trying to argue that it is. This is a game about combat. It is a major part of it. Rape is not. It i really not something you ant in a roleplaying game.
This conversation seems to be very fractured and people's comments about rape/killing/murder in one context are being used to make invalid points in a different contex.
Is there something wrong with off screen rape by NPCs? I have to say no. As examples above demonstrate it is part of the depiction of an evil foe to be defeated and/or innocents to be rescued. I think it would be odd if the group was fixating on this, but there isn't really anything wrong with that. Does anyone disagree?
I don't think that rape is really what is at issue here. The other concern is players wanting to do the raping or possibly the DM having the rape on screen in a graphic manner and dwelling on it rather then moving quickly past it. I don't think many here are argueing that is a good thing other than perhaps in a "whatever you and your friends want to do behind closed doors is none of my concern" type of thinking.
Somehow we drifted from saying that a GM using the hint that an out of line player may suffer the fate he imagined for another if he didn't move back into more acceptable territory got twisted into "you support a game about rape and think it is better than killing" which no one is arguing.
What some are saying is that the issue isn't as simple as rape is bad so it should never in any way be a part of the game. There is nuance and context to consider. These games have a host of disturbing imagery, ideas and actions taking place. A game about who can give out the most hugs and teddybears isn't really all that interesting. A fights against evil is, but it also means that evil stuff is happening.
Sigvatr wrote: Rape is a legit story device to make the evil guy look more evil.
I find that a rather trite reason to throw rape into a story.
with the same intent.
No they're not. Why would someone chose to rape? The actions a character performs reveals who they are. Adding in things because they're 'evil' is lazy writing. Nothing more than a very dark form of cartoon villainy.
So if I had a story where people went to a prison, I can have murderers, thieves, muggers, etc. in that prison but no rapists?
That's being rather specific. Specific enough to have no real meaning. Picking and choosing is not how you argue well.
Manchu wrote: OTOH I am having a hell of a time getting anyone to really come right out and say it. So there's the reality, I think: people already know rape doesn't belong in games. There is a different issue at play here because I highly doubt any of these guys actually think playing a game where you kill orcs is the same as playing a game where you rape orcs or rape kids.
In the contrary, it does belong there. Rape is a legit story device to make the evil guy look more evil. In this case, rape is the very same as him burning the local witch alive, slicing an innocent's throat in public, decapitating a character's SO etc. All of those are horrible acts (from a moral point of view) with the same intent.
It does not have to be the act. Imagine the group going into a village, finding a women crying in a hut, with tattered clothes, hushing away from any male PC trying to touch or speak to her.
One big difference being that your likely not going to have players at your table who are worried about being burned as a witch. Something you learn after you look at it Sexual assault is more common then people think. Like there is a very real chance that one of your players could have been a victim or had someone close to them be one. Also you mentioned many other acts that can quite evil without the real life baggage. Don't use rape. Use something else.
Sigvatr wrote: Rape is a legit story device to make the evil guy look more evil.
I find that a rather trite reason to throw rape into a story.
with the same intent.
No they're not. Why would someone chose to rape? The actions a character performs reveals who they are. Adding in things because they're 'evil' is lazy writing. Nothing more than a very dark form of cartoon villainy.
So if I had a story where people went to a prison, I can have murderers, thieves, muggers, etc. in that prison but no rapists?
That's being rather specific. Specific enough to have no real meaning. Picking and choosing is not how you argue well.
The point is that the context can matter, and in that context having rapists at a prison can be apporiate given the context. That is not a case of "lazy writing".
That said, don't anyone misunderstand what I have said, I don't think rape, or many other adult topics are appropriate for 99% of DND games out there. If I was a the DM of a game, and I was going in blind, I would probably not mention it alongside many other potential adult topics, or let it happen on screen. I just speaking generally here.
Edit: When I say "going in Blind" I mean I don't know some of the people I am playing with.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: There has to be a very strange and specific series of circumstances in order to justify a scenario as odd and horrible as orc rape.
You know, whatever people do in their imaginary games is up to them.
All I am trying to show is, we all know that raping orcs in RPGs is creepy but killing orcs in RPGs is not. So the "murder is worse" angle is irrelevant.
Honestly I've been in a few rpgs where rape has occured. Granted it was the we know it's happening but we aren't playing characters that are doing it ourselves and kind of breeze over it type of thing. I dunno, I regard it much like death. It'd be creepy if somebody started to go on and on about how exactly they flayed their flesh before tearing into the _____ with a _____ making a sickening squelch noise before blah blah blah. Rape, torture, and killing are all horrid things. Some might be worse, some less but they are all horrific. Nobody needs to listen to every nitty bitty gritty on it. That's just my opinion though.
(just posting because of my own stand on this whole issue)
Who dont think people should be allowed to role play as evil people.
No one's said that. AT ALL.
Most of my characters are lawful evil or neutral evil.
Just because I play evil characters I should think rape is a valid act for evil characters?
It's because you aren't playing chaotic evil good sir! In all seriousness, the 3x3 system is flawed unless we want to start claiming that in wars the standard soldier that often raped/pillaged/etc were all evil
You seem to be missing the nuanced difference between "lets add rape so everyone knows rapists are evil" and "adding rape so everyone knows rapists are evil is lazy writing." (That and the intent between different types of crimes should never be equated to the being the same thing).
LordofHats wrote: You seem to be missing the nuanced difference between "lets add rape so everyone knows rapists are evil" and "adding rape so everyone knows rapists are evil is lazy writing." (That and the intent between different types of crimes should never be equated to the being the same thing).
Sigvatr wrote: Rape is a legit story device to make the evil guy look more evil.
I find that a rather trite reason to throw rape into a story.
I don't see how this is any worse or cheaper than the villain executing someone on a balcony in plain sight.
Really, if anything, the biggest problem I see is that it's cliched and tropey. But so is pretty much every game I've ever played. I'm not sure you can avoid that altogether.
Who dont think people should be allowed to role play as evil people.
No one's said that. AT ALL.
Most of my characters are lawful evil or neutral evil.
Just because I play evil characters I should think rape is a valid act for evil characters?
yes... it makes sense that an evil character is capable of raping someone...
or that a good character could fall from grace and rape someone ...
or that a normal character could rape someone and that characters story arc is how he changes his ways and trys to make up for his/her sordid past with good deeds...
If you are willing to entertain the idea that a character can save the world in the best possible way, it makes sense to also entertain the idea character you are saving the world from is evil in the most evil of ways, and the nuances in between.
NY" goes, there is literally no difference between role playing a dwarf who likes ale and whores, who pays for said whores, and a dark elf character who just goes around raping people because thats what DE's do....
you seem to be ok with "pay a silver to have sex with a wench" even though that is rape ... but not with other forms of imaginary rape.
you seem to be drawing a line between rape, and "RAPE-RAPE" when such a line doesnt exist...
I could just as easily dismiss your fantasy murders as you living out murder fantasies, as opposed to simply accepting that murder is part of the story (why you murder that ork matters just as little as why you rape that ork)
easysauce wrote: NY" goes, there is literally no difference between role playing a dwarf who likes ale and whores, who pays for said whores, and a dark elf character who just goes around raping people because thats what DE's do....
...
WTF? Are you seriously claiming that two consenting adults agreeing to exchange sex for money and raping people just for fun are equivalent? If you honestly believe this then you have some serious problems.
you seem to be ok with "pay a silver to have sex with a wench" even though that is rape
No, it really isn't. Perhaps you should go find a dictionary and look at the definition of rape before you say absurd and offensive things like this?
I don't see how this is any worse or cheaper than the villain executing someone on a balcony in plain sight.
I would give the same response (assuming the the act is just a stand in for a giant blinking sign reading "bad guy here").
Part of why rape is maybe a little more egregious though is that it's so often portrayed so poorly in fiction. Rapists are usually just that. Rapists. Imagine all the great serial killers of fiction and how they get complex and often charming characterizations (to the point that people like the bad guy more than the hero). There's a motivation there. A psychology behind their actions. Then there's how rape often effects the victims; Its almost universally portrayed as reducing them to a sobbing ball of emotion, or empowering them to take action. The fact that they were just violated in a terrible way is either overemphasized or completely written off. Rape is reduced in these cases to a contrived plot device.
As a result, I get more annoyed at "lets have Evil McEvilPerson rape someone to show how evil they are" than "lets have Evil McEvilPerson kill someone to show how evil they are." Both are lazy writing, but the former I think is lazy writing compounded with a degree of immaturity.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Easysause: The thing is, it has nothing to do with real life. Some people are trying to argue that it is. This is a game about combat. It is a major part of it. Rape is not. It i really not something you ant in a roleplaying game.
yeah, its fantasy, and shouldnt matter *at all* in real life,
at least not MY dnd, we always felt that playing the role was far more fun/important and the best sessions were ones where say,
I role play as a diplomat and try to talk my way through everything without killing anyone,
or a thief who just sneaks around doing things, never getting into combat,
some people would argue that murder, torture, suffering, black magic, and so on also have no place in a role playing game, heck, why should you be allowed to be an evil character at all?
its like someone arguing that person x is a pervert because they look at three some porn and they have crossed the line, but person y is totally fine because they only look at one-some porn.
all the while ignoring multitudes of people decrying that anyone that looks at ANY porn is a pervert...
you are just drawing your line between "acceptable" and not in a different, arbitrary place, and trying to get others to move their lines to where you think it should be,
in the real world, where you draw the line between acceptable actions, and unacceptable ones, matters, it matters a whole lot.
easysauce wrote: you seem to be ok with "pay a silver to have sex with a wench" even though that is rape ... but not with other forms of imaginary rape.
you seem to be drawing a line between rape, and "RAPE-RAPE" when such a line doesnt exist...
Show me where I said any of that.
It's ok, I'll wait for you to not find me saying that anywhere.
out of my house or I'll beat you with a bat you 
.
.
