So recently my Sunday night DnD group was tasked with entering a town and going through quests until we learned enough to progress the story. One of the quests we did was to help an old Elf lady who's neighbors had become undead. We killed the undead and left the area with gold and directions to a town official that could help us.

We decided to spend the night recovering and re-grouping. During the night one of our party (Who has an insanity gauge that when it hit's a certain level he becomes "Possessed" by a demon thing that forces him to slake his "bloodlust". He's a level 6 elf fighter, and it's cringe of the worst sort, but the DM was ok with the mechanics and let it fly. So flash cut to the character, who is now in a "Blood frenzy", he makes his way to the old woman's house, and proceeds for the next 15 minutes,

I was specifically asked by the DM before hand if this would be a trigger, and I said yes. I was so taken aback I didn't think to even ask, HOW ARE YOU OK WITH THIS? But excused myself, and came back 15 minutes later, and it was over.

Should this be allowed? I am seriously considering leaving the group, as the member who did it is a close personal friend of the DM and I didn't want to stir up crap, but this is really bad fantasy role play. I mean, I don't play escapist fantasy roleplay to have terrible real world gak thrown in.

Am I being a dink about this and just need to relax? Or is this too edgy and gross for any DnD game? I'm seriously not ok with this sort of content, but don't want to lose my game that I've put time and effort into.

What say you all?

If you google "consent in d&d / RPG / gaming" there are numerous articles discussing it, as well as resources such as checklists.

It should only be done if everyone is informed well in advance and give 100% consent - if that's not happening you should walk away.

To venture forth with perhaps the most risque answer; Yes.

But that's an answer that I think has a heaping mountain of caveats the size of Strahd's ego because I think inserting rape and sex crimes into a story can come off a lot like blowing a baby's brains out to show how dark and gritty things are; it feels incredibly inauthentic, and like you're trying to establish the story's credentials through shock value rather than substance.

So like most things, you have to approach the story with an eye on the prize and ask yourself if the plot points you employ are really going to get the results you want.

That is a very academic discussion, and one that probably should include a player group because there are people who just aren't comfortable with that sort of stuff and it's not like you can't go dark by other means (arguably, means that are more effective and less cringy).

That is not what you're dealing with.

What you have, sir and/or madam, is an edgelord. Someone who mistakes shock value for depth and 'dark and edgy' for maturity. A Zack Snyder if you will (yeah I went there). This is just an insanely shallow character and I can't help but imagine the player isn't much better because I've never seen stuff like this go well.

And honestly that's strike one against your DM because how the feth do they not know this? This is literally 99% of the made up gak on rpghorrorstories and the 1% of it that probably isn't made up.That's strike two, because anyone who is social aware and has been around even a brief amount of time should have picked up that people who make these kinds of characters are fighting an uphill battle people smart enough to do them right would usually prefer to avoid the hassle (i.e. generally good players don't want to do this kind of crap with their character).

I don't think you're being a dick. Maybe there's more to this story I don't know for one reason or another and these two people aren't as cringy as it seems. As presented, this is literally what the front page of rpghorrorstories looks like on any given day.

It's the kind of situation a good DM and a healthy group avoids.

And to top it off, we have strike 3 which is that you'd apparently told the DM prior that this kind of play wasn't cool with you and apparently they both forgot and didn't read the room to notice you weren't cool with it.

Whether or not you leave is up to you. They do say no DnD is better than bad DnD, and I find that's generally true. Never stick around an uncomfortable play space just to play DnD. There are a thousand other spaces available for role playing games now. You got options.

In my experience, the answer to the question 'do I think talking to the group about my problem will result in anything being done' usually answers the should I stay/go question in itself.

I have not played D&D in a long time. I even participated in a evil campaign for a while. We got bored with it and went back to our previous campaign. There is no way I would condone that storyline in campaign I was playing in. I would be done with that group immediately if they said it's ok.

beast_gts wrote:
If you google "consent in d&d / RPG / gaming" there are numerous articles discussing it, as well as resources such as checklists.

It should only be done if everyone is informed well in advance and give 100% consent - if that's not happening you should walk away.

Absolutely and IMO that extends beyond D&D to media in general. Sexual violence is basically never handled well in any form of storytelling and is commonly used as an extremely lazy way to trigger an emotional response. If the audience is okay with that then so be it. I think it's tasteless, but I am not the thought police. It should at least be something that is discussed beforehand so that the audience/group is aware.

beast_gts wrote:
If you google "consent in d&d / RPG / gaming" there are numerous articles discussing it, as well as resources such as checklists.

It should only be done if everyone is informed well in advance and give 100% consent - if that's not happening you should walk away.

I would say it should go the opposite way. GM asking players if they are ok with some themes is going to spoil the story for those who are ok (they know what to expect). Also with so many things prople find problematic a checklist of them could be infinitely long. "You didn't warn me that there's going to be animal abuse in the story!!! Or swearing!!! Or slavery! Or..."

I think it's best if it's the person who has problems with some themes informing the others that they want to avoid them rather then expecting others to guess or ask about everything prior to the game and then becoming offended if they don't.

beast_gts wrote:
If you google "consent in d&d / RPG / gaming" there are numerous articles discussing it, as well as resources such as checklists.

It should only be done if everyone is informed well in advance and give 100% consent - if that's not happening you should walk away.

This is the correct answer.

Every social activity involving two or more people should, as a rule, only involve actions which all persons involved agreed to. There are obvious exceptions that someone could make like surprise parties (particularly if they wanted to argue in bad faith...), but generally, one should always make sure that, if their friends are about to partake in an activity that's supposed to be fun, whether their friends will actually find the activity fun.

This goes doubly for basically anything involving emotionally sensitive topics. For a non-sexual example, it would be a major scumbag to try and pressure someone to reveal personal secrets about themselves if they don't want to do so. However, if all participants on some level are okay with revealing these secrets under these conditions, the activity becomes fun instead. This is the entire idea behind "truth or dare."

I predict that some people may mention that the modern world is full of "snowflakes" which simply wish to run away from things that make them feel uncomfortable. If you believe this and actually do wish to have a conversation, remember that there's a difference between examining something because it's important and doing something because it's supposed to be fun. And that's all I gotta say about that.

+1 to Flipsiders point.

You could replace rape and sex crimes with almost any other story or structural aspect of DnD. In the end different groups have different interests and limit points when playing. Some groups won't want much if any combat, some might have one person who really can't do with deep social interactions and stories; some will have people who don't want rape/sex crimes etc...

The more extreme the action the more its on the DM to pause the fantasy (before or during) and make sure to sound out the individuals within the group to make sure everyone is happy and comfortable to continue with that line of play before continuing.

Now that might mean that someone leaves the room whilst something they aren't comfortable with happens; or it means the DM says "No you can't do that" to a player; yes even if it fits with the players character storyline.

Cyel wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
If you google "consent in d&d / RPG / gaming" there are numerous articles discussing it, as well as resources such as checklists.

It should only be done if everyone is informed well in advance and give 100% consent - if that's not happening you should walk away.

I would say it should go the opposite way. GM asking players if they are ok with some themes is going to spoil the story for those who are ok (they know what to expect). Also with so many things prople find problematic a checklist of them could be infinitely long. "You didn't warn me that there's going to be animal abuse in the story!!! Or swearing!!! Or slavery! Or..."

I think it's best if it's the person who has problems with some themes informing the others that they want to avoid them rather then expecting others to guess or ask about everything prior to the game and then becoming offended if they don't.

No. You don't get to ambush people with this crap and then say it's on them for not being psychic or opening up to random people about all their potential personal and deep seated issues. Or just basic morals.

Feth that noise, that's almost always completely unacceptable in any situation, certainly social ones, let alone for a fun game night.

If people are up for digging through trauma, it's only wih informed consent.

No, people should not be allowed to indulge themselves in rape fantasies.
If the DM asked you and then ignored your opinion in favour of their friend/the majority vote then honestly, just leave that group. There's nothing for you there.

So tonight is game night. And the character in question is at "Blood frenzy" again. So if this happens again, I'm telling the DM I'm not right for this group and walking away.

On the other hand, one of the characters has begun to find clues that would inform us of what this character has been doing in game. If we find out, I think I am well within my rights to flat out destroy this player's character.

Yes to both of those options Fezz. End his character then leave and never return.

One would assume such things are decided on a per-group-basis. If you specifically agreed with them to not do things like that, they should respect it. If they don't, leave the group. The whole game is based on a collaborative effort, so that's a fundamental requirement.

I would probably excuse myself from the group in this case. It might be possible to deal with these themes in a roleplaying game, but you said you didn't want to and really, that should be that. D&D is about killing monsters and taking their stuff at it's core, so it's always going to have some problematic themes for some people, but sexual violence is not part of that implied setting.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
...I was specifically asked by the DM before hand if this would be a trigger, and I said yes. I was so taken aback I didn't think to even ask, HOW ARE YOU OK WITH THIS? But excused myself, and came back 15 minutes later, and it was over.

Should this be allowed? I am seriously considering leaving the group, as the member who did it is a close personal friend of the DM and I didn't want to stir up crap, but this is really bad fantasy role play. I mean, I don't play escapist fantasy roleplay to have terrible real world gak thrown in.

Am I being a dink about this and just need to relax? Or is this too edgy and gross for any DnD game? I'm seriously not ok with this sort of content, but don't want to lose my game that I've put time and effort into.

What say you all?

If your group's doing things you're not comfortable with by popular vote rather than by unanimous consent you should absolutely find a different group. There is no excuse to override anyone in the group's comfort bar for any reason; if everyone else in the group are massive Game of Thrones fans and are happy using sex crimes for shock value and one person isn't either the shock-value people need to get used to dialing it back or you shouldn't all be in the same group.

That said I don't think making judgement calls on whether edgy and gross stuff should exist in any D&D group at all is reasonable. If your group were entirely composed of the aforementioned Game of Thrones fans happily using sex crimes for shock value in the privacy of their own game and not trying to override the comfort level of anyone in the group then that's what they find entertaining and there's no reason to tell them "no, don't, other people outside the game are uncomfortable that you exist." (If you try to do your edgy GoT-fan sex-crimes game in a public place, though, that constitutes imposing your comfort level on innocent passers-by and you may find the venue booting you out.)

I would no longer feel safe around such people and would immediately have nothing else to do with them.

That is a major warning to avoid that person, they sound very immature.

I don't understand how this could even be a question? I mean did this even add to the story, did it make the character more interesting and engaging? I'm guessing not, and that it made a few other people uncomfortable.

Personally I'd leave that group ASAP, the DM should not have allowed this.

However on the plus side, you know now who to avoid so they have helped you in a round about way.

Thing is, I learned last night, Everyone is ok with this, even the 16-18 year old girl in the game. The party leader was like yeah he does that some times and we have told him not to, but I don't think it's ever going to be a flat out prohibition. Worse, the DM flat out enabled this GoT BS by saying he's playing his character the way his character is written.

Bad DM, Bad group leader, just bad all around. I pieced out around the time the Barbarian tried to steal my literal tattoos of the claw. The ones inked into my body.

 LordofHats wrote:
This is literally 99% of the made up gak on rpghorrorstories and the 1% of it that probably isn't made up.

Anyone who believes RPGhorrorstories is 99% made up definitely has not been in too many groups composed just of random people that want to play DnD.

I thought for years that I hated DnD and RPG games in general until I figured out that you just need to start with socially functioning well adjusted human beings and get them interested in DnD, and not start with people who want to play DnD who don't have a group and hope that they're going to be socially functioning well adjusted human beings.

If you try to kick off a DnD campaign in any kind of public forum and sift through the character sheets you'll stop seeing the matrix. I don't even see the ones and zeroes anymore - i just see

-fetish
-fetish
-edgelord
-chaotic stupid
-fetish
-edgelord...

Depends on the players, the game, the theme. People have very different tollerence levels or themes they wish to explore for whatever reason and especially in a new or ad hoc group - this can bring up issues.

That being said no one should play in any game that makes them uncomfortable - sometimes putting that someone is uncomfortable across may be difficult? Also some people just won't get it!

I would probably excuse myself from the group in this case. It might be possible to deal with these themes in a roleplaying game, but you said you didn't want to and really, that should be that.

That seems to be the best advice.

If you are uncomfortable, and the group has no interest in changing, than there is nothing else to be said. It is over and the group is not for you.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Thing is, I learned last night, Everyone is ok with this, even the 16-18 year old girl in the game. The party leader was like yeah he does that some times and we have told him not to, but I don't think it's ever going to be a flat out prohibition. Worse, the DM flat out enabled this GoT BS by saying he's playing his character the way his character is written.

Bad DM, Bad group leader, just bad all around. I pieced out around the time the Barbarian tried to steal my literal tattoos of the claw. The ones inked into my body.

I never say this, but its warranted:

Yikes.

I would walk away and never look back. I would never play at a table with a group that allows people to play out their rape fantasies, and which is so seemingly so incapable of enforcing boundaries that they let a player get away with that gak even after telling them not to.

If there are groups that want to play that type of game, they are free to do so, but its not a group that I would play with, and they aren't people I would be friends with.

So the DM lets the character go in to a possessed state, but lets the player run the character?

I would insist on the events of the possessed state being under DM control and only revealed in the aftermath where they present a situation the characters have to deal with.

Not as some cringy fantasy a player wants to subject myself and the party too. I'm okay with dark themes in my games, sex, murder or otherwise.

As a DM I bring the consequences.

Details about stuff like that really shouldn't be covered.

That's a "Ok, whatever, Mr. Elf goes and satiates his blood lust. Moving on." kind of moment. An off camera moment. Not important enough to warrant any time wasted.

Players and DM should have a "session 0" to set the tone of the campaign. Some groups will have no issue with these subjects being breeched in the DnD game, others will.

I'll echo the others here, Fezzik. You're right to leave. Something like what's mentioned should only be done if EVERYONE at the table is okay with it-not just some.

So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

Jeez. Keep the recording, you may need to provide it as evidence one day...

I mean, as a plot point maybe, but only if was agreed beforehand that such conduct was okay. Otherwise as long as the group is on board with it and it doesn’t become too needlessly drawn out.

So I was invited to the group way late, like 50th session. This was started way back in Covid times. There may have been a "warning" but I was not present or even aware, and no warning was given before I "joined" the group. I should have known I guess when a female Rogue dressed in a people suit, with a thick new Jersey accent, wearing a belt of ears, and playing with a puppet made of bits of animal, was one of the party members. But I try to give every person the same 10 feet of rope. The shy player may blossum into a good bard, the overly murdery hobo might become the best paladin of servitude ever. But 50/50 hindsight and all that.

I am told the player themselves is a wonderful father and great friend, but I've never met them. I hope they find a happier path.

How could you even feel comfortable describing your sexual fetishes to a group of people for 15 minutes? That dude is sick.

There is a fairly famous comic about situations like this.

Even has 40k versions

 dracpanzer wrote:
So the DM lets the character go in to a possessed state, but lets the player run the character?

I would insist on the events of the possessed state being under DM control and only revealed in the aftermath where they present a situation the characters have to deal with.

Not as some cringy fantasy a player wants to subject myself and the party too. I'm okay with dark themes in my games, sex, murder or otherwise.

As a DM I bring the consequences.

This is the better way of handling it to be sure, especially if you are going to introduce rape and murder themes, etc. that way the DM bares responsibility for controlling the tone and can ensure its handled in a mature way.

So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

As in like, "first I hit her with a rusty venture, then a dirty sanchez, and blah blah blah"? Thats pretty fethed.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

Just to, in a small way, put the brakes on things a little. It was a 15min interaction and as far as you know it was both the sexual act and brutal murder. That could mean the greater part of the 15mins was their character rolling attacks against the occupants of the house and such. Just going by what you've said you've not actually confirmed that the 15mins was purely "sex fetish" stuff. It could be 13mins of general combat and then "and then roll to rape" at the end and done. Ergo no lengthily description or such.

I'm purely going by what you've said thus far of course and it might be totally different to what actually happened.

 Overread wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

Just to, in a small way, put the brakes on things a little. It was a 15min interaction and as far as you know it was both the sexual act and brutal murder. That could mean the greater part of the 15mins was their character rolling attacks against the occupants of the house and such. Just going by what you've said you've not actually confirmed that the 15mins was purely "sex fetish" stuff. It could be 13mins of general combat and then "and then roll to rape" at the end and done. Ergo no lengthily description or such.

I'm purely going by what you've said thus far of course and it might be totally different to what actually happened.

That is a fair point. But from the outset of "Who here has a problem with Rape?" to "It's over now you can turn your headphones back on" was 15 minutes. I don't care how long it takes to roll damage against one elderly human butler and an elderly widow who lives in the house, anything greater than zero is too much for me if the plan from the outset involves rape.

And I have received comments already on a facebook forum I posted on already regarding "This is adult DnD. If you don't like GoT go watch CareBears." When did nerdcore get so dark and edgy?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Overread wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

Just to, in a small way, put the brakes on things a little. It was a 15min interaction and as far as you know it was both the sexual act and brutal murder. That could mean the greater part of the 15mins was their character rolling attacks against the occupants of the house and such. Just going by what you've said you've not actually confirmed that the 15mins was purely "sex fetish" stuff. It could be 13mins of general combat and then "and then roll to rape" at the end and done. Ergo no lengthily description or such.

I'm purely going by what you've said thus far of course and it might be totally different to what actually happened.

That is a fair point. But from the outset of "Who here has a problem with Rape?" to "It's over now you can turn your headphones back on" was 15 minutes. I don't care how long it takes to roll damage against one elderly human butler and an elderly widow who lives in the house, anything greater than zero is too much for me if the plan from the outset involves rape.

And I have received comments already on a facebook forum I posted on already regarding "This is adult DnD. If you don't like GoT go watch CareBears." When did nerdcore get so dark and edgy?

It never got edgy it always was, its just that each group varies greatly. Some groups are going to be "edgy/dark" some will be silly, some will be childish. Some will focus heavily on combat, others will hardly have any and will instead focus on politics. Some groups use models some don't.

One of the biggest powers DnD has had over the years is the degree of flexibility it offers. You can build what the group likes and wants to play. Of course this goes hand in hand with situations where not all the group always agree. Now sometimes it might be a minor point and you just agree to disagree; other times it might be more major. That's really nothing inherently "wrong" with the group, its simply a reflection that perhaps the group and the type of game/characters that they play isn't for you.


That doesn't make any person in the group evil or such, it just means there's a difference and sometimes that difference is enough for you to step away and find another group. Or leave the current game and rejoin a different game later etc.. Heck I'm sure there are people out there who won't join groups who commit murder or steal or any other activities.



Also it sounds like this is a digital/remote playing group rather than one which meets in person which might well change some of the social dynamics compared to real life interactions. Dealing with people in a remote way can sometimes cause people to diss-associate more so than if they were sitting in the room in person.




In the end part of it is about defining what you are comfortable with and communicating that with the rest of the group. If they disagree then its time to part ways in a polite fashion. If they agree or are willing to adjust then perhaps its time to settle. This situation has clearly unsettled you (as evident in part by the way that its magnifying in your minds eye) so it sounds like its time to make a polite withdrawal from the group and join another.

 Overread wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Overread wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

Just to, in a small way, put the brakes on things a little. It was a 15min interaction and as far as you know it was both the sexual act and brutal murder. That could mean the greater part of the 15mins was their character rolling attacks against the occupants of the house and such. Just going by what you've said you've not actually confirmed that the 15mins was purely "sex fetish" stuff. It could be 13mins of general combat and then "and then roll to rape" at the end and done. Ergo no lengthily description or such.

I'm purely going by what you've said thus far of course and it might be totally different to what actually happened.

That is a fair point. But from the outset of "Who here has a problem with Rape?" to "It's over now you can turn your headphones back on" was 15 minutes. I don't care how long it takes to roll damage against one elderly human butler and an elderly widow who lives in the house, anything greater than zero is too much for me if the plan from the outset involves rape.

And I have received comments already on a facebook forum I posted on already regarding "This is adult DnD. If you don't like GoT go watch CareBears." When did nerdcore get so dark and edgy?

It never got edgy it always was, its just that each group varies greatly. Some groups are going to be "edgy/dark" some will be silly, some will be childish. Some will focus heavily on combat, others will hardly have any and will instead focus on politics. Some groups use models some don't.

One of the biggest powers DnD has had over the years is the degree of flexibility it offers. You can build what the group likes and wants to play. Of course this goes hand in hand with situations where not all the group always agree. Now sometimes it might be a minor point and you just agree to disagree; other times it might be more major. That's really nothing inherently "wrong" with the group, its simply a reflection that perhaps the group and the type of game/characters that they play isn't for you.


That doesn't make any person in the group evil or such, it just means there's a difference and sometimes that difference is enough for you to step away and find another group. Or leave the current game and rejoin a different game later etc.. Heck I'm sure there are people out there who won't join groups who commit murder or steal or any other activities.



Also it sounds like this is a digital/remote playing group rather than one which meets in person which might well change some of the social dynamics compared to real life interactions. Dealing with people in a remote way can sometimes cause people to diss-associate more so than if they were sitting in the room in person.




In the end part of it is about defining what you are comfortable with and communicating that with the rest of the group. If they disagree then its time to part ways in a polite fashion. If they agree or are willing to adjust then perhaps its time to settle. This situation has clearly unsettled you (as evident in part by the way that its magnifying in your minds eye) so it sounds like its time to make a polite withdrawal from the group and join another.

Some great points!

I think it's really insightful to point out that our very existence has changed how we now play DnD. I can't remember the last time I played DnD at an actual table with other humans and dice. That would easily solve this sort of situation. In the best possible scenario that is. But yes, one of the worst fallouts from Covid is that we've forgotten how to politely interact with others, especially in a closed environment. We now talk through computers, and that detachment fuels the feeling that we don't need to care about how others feel.

I wouldn't say it's anything new. Beloved classics like Vampire the Masquerade or Kult were purposfuly made to be extra-edgy.

Sometimes you want to be Mario, sometimes you enjoy playing as Kratos. One day you watch a new Pixar cartoon, another you may be in the mood for a Tarantino bloodbath. That's escapism for you. Doesn't mean you want to stomp on every mushroom and turtle IRL.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Overread wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

Just to, in a small way, put the brakes on things a little. It was a 15min interaction and as far as you know it was both the sexual act and brutal murder. That could mean the greater part of the 15mins was their character rolling attacks against the occupants of the house and such. Just going by what you've said you've not actually confirmed that the 15mins was purely "sex fetish" stuff. It could be 13mins of general combat and then "and then roll to rape" at the end and done. Ergo no lengthily description or such.

I'm purely going by what you've said thus far of course and it might be totally different to what actually happened.

That is a fair point. But from the outset of "Who here has a problem with Rape?" to "It's over now you can turn your headphones back on" was 15 minutes. I don't care how long it takes to roll damage against one elderly human butler and an elderly widow who lives in the house, anything greater than zero is too much for me if the plan from the outset involves rape.

And I have received comments already on a facebook forum I posted on already regarding "This is adult DnD. If you don't like GoT go watch CareBears." When did nerdcore get so dark and edgy?

For a long-ass time basically all nerd stuff was marketed towards one specific segment of the population only. But in recent years, as the demographics of how many people have how much money have shifted, you either restructure your business to go "wide" and appeal to the most people possible, or you restructure your business to go "tall" and be more expensive/boutique and specialize very heavily to a smaller number of customers.

People for whom products used to be solely marketed to their demographic and which are now marketed "wide" to everybody occasionally feel abandoned, and go seeking out alternative products explicitly designed to give them a concentrated version of what they used to get constant, low levels of when they were kind of the exclusive demographic.

Good examples of general industries going "wide" - movies, video games, comics, novels, social media

examples of industries going "tall" - Games Workshop, Lego, a lot of 'alternative' platforms to extremely popular platforms but catering explicitly to specific segments.

GW *was* going tall, now they are going wide.

No, GW has nothing to do with this. This is about Nerd core culture becomming chic and hip. Now with Stranger Things and Youtube Let's plays, not to mention Covid, and the insufferable Matt Mercer, everyone and their mother now knows about and is at least slightly interested in what before would have been a socially reprehensible act. Sitting in the basement and roleplaying. Now it's seen as cool and fun. Now you have everyone from GoT fans to 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight fans trying to shoehorn their personal kinks into DnD.

It's no more clear than the entire argument over Tasha's racial changes. You have the grognards who say no, orcs are evil because the Great Book (Written by the Great Man) says they are, and you have the Milenials who say no, that's racist and I want Ork/Drow Bard sex in my DnD now.

Finally you have the original nerds just hitting their 40s-50s, just trying to sit quietly and play dice and talk about swords and spells. I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD. Consensual or otherwise. DnD is at it's core about killing monsters and getting loot. And RPing. If you need to shoehorn in your personal kink fantasies, DnD isn't right for you. But I'm sure Adam and Eve have something for you.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD. Consensual or otherwise. DnD is at it's core about killing monsters and getting loot. And RPing. If you need to shoehorn in your personal kink fantasies, DnD isn't right for you. But I'm sure Adam and Eve have something for you.

There's a difference between sexual encounters and turning the D&D session into a sex RP. There's nothing wrong with letting characters have sexual encounters as long as everyone is on board with what's going on. Consent is what matters, not suggesting that Bards who seduce every person they meet need Jesus.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

This kind of cringey stuff is why I don't play D&D. Every store/group seems to have someone like this who doesn't understand social norms or personal hygiene. It was similar with MtG. I don't know why but these games are a magnet for people who have seemingly never left their basement other than to annoy everyone at D&D/FNM

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
No, GW has nothing to do with this. This is about Nerd core culture becomming chic and hip. Now with Stranger Things and Youtube Let's plays, not to mention Covid, and the insufferable Matt Mercer, everyone and their mother now knows about and is at least slightly interested in what before would have been a socially reprehensible act. Sitting in the basement and roleplaying. Now it's seen as cool and fun. Now you have everyone from GoT fans to 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight fans trying to shoehorn their personal kinks into DnD.

It's no more clear than the entire argument over Tasha's racial changes. You have the grognards who say no, orcs are evil because the Great Book (Written by the Great Man) says they are, and you have the Milenials who say no, that's racist and I want Ork/Drow Bard sex in my DnD now.

Finally you have the original nerds just hitting their 40s-50s, just trying to sit quietly and play dice and talk about swords and spells. I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD. Consensual or otherwise. DnD is at it's core about killing monsters and getting loot. And RPing. If you need to shoehorn in your personal kink fantasies, DnD isn't right for you. But I'm sure Adam and Eve have something for you.

...do you sincerely believe that the inclusion of mainstream audiences into nerd core culture is *increasing* the amount of sexualization present?

If so I just...really, fundamentally have to disagree with you 10,000%. The phenomenon I'm seeing is this:

-officially produced content from the companies reaching out to a wider audience becomes LESS geared towards sex

-alternative, unofficially produced content seeking to capture those angry at the decrease in sexualization become drastically more explicit.

When I was growing up, if there was a woman on the cover of a DND book or comic, odds were extremely good she was sporting a chainmail bikini and in a pose suggesting "Yes, I am fighting this monster, but I am aware you are behind me and there are a couple areas of my body I'd really like you to be able to view". Now, she's much more likely to be dressed more like the other male characters on the cover.

But if I go online and I'm looking to buy a 3d printed, unofficial dnd model for a female character I'm looking to play? Well, lets just say that before when I was grabbing metal minis off the rack there werent quite so many options if I was looking for "naked, and also with extra sets of sexual organs"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
GW *was* going tall, now they are going wide.

Games Workshop products in the 90s-early 00s were kids products. Marketed to teen boys/college age young adults.

That demographic now has WAY less money, and so the price tags go up, the target audience gets older, and the product is marketed to appear more 'luxurious.'

Textbook "tall" business practice. Peek in a lego store sometime for another prime example. Tons of lego sets now have 500$+ price tags, and the box design is just black, with a spotlight illuminating the fully assembled kit. That's not a childrens toy.

I think the issue of how to handle sex, in general, in role playing has been a discussion since the get go. You have a hobby that was originally mostly sweaty adolescent man children to a hobby that still has plenty of sweaty, adolescent man children. Not that male players are the only ones to inject cringe into the game.

At the end of the day, role playing is about just that... playing a role. And people are attracted to roles that allow them to feel things they normally don't. Classic dungeon crawlers let people feel physically powerful, more social campaigns let people feel politically powerful, etc. We've probably all been at a table with a person leaning hard into being the most powerful whatever in the game because they just needed to feel important. So, yeah, some sex stuff (or less offensive but almost as off putting the clear emotional/attention seeking stuff) is a natural consequence.

That said, nobody has to sit through that. It might be a one time thing, especially if you chat with the GM about it, but if that's what the group is okay with, and you're not... probably time to hit the old dusty trail.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Now you have everyone from GoT fans to 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight fans trying to shoehorn their personal kinks into DnD.

Man are you barking up the wrooooong tree. I hate to break this to you, but kink subculture has *always* very heavily overlapped D&D/RPG subculture. "Roleplay" is core to kink and practitioners of kink have long also been players of D&D and vice versa because *surprise* if you enjoy " roleplaying" you probably also enjoy roleplaying. Its the reason why things like Vampire the Masquerade (first published in 1991, well before any of the trends you indicated) exist. And if you've ever spent any amount of time around Rennys (i.e. Ren Faire performers)in the past 30-40 years you would definitely already know this.

I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD.

The artwork of scantily clad and occasionally partially/fully nude humanoid (and humanoid-adjacent) women in the original D&D publications by TSR, Gygax, et. al. would suggest otherwise.

FWIW I have played a lot of DnD with new players and people who are new to the hobby and veterans who were on a first name basis with Gary Gygax, etc. , etc.... and its *never* the new players who are inserting sex/sexually explicit or implicit material into the campaigns.

That demographic now has WAY less money, and so the price tags go up, the target audience gets older, and the product is marketed to appear more 'luxurious.'
Textbook "tall" business practice. Peek in a lego store sometime for another prime example. Tons of lego sets now have 500$+ price tags, and the box design is just black, with a spotlight illuminating the fully assembled kit. That's not a childrens toy.

Sure, but GW has substantially shifted its marketing and branding and product offerings over the past 3-4 years in order to appeal to women, people of color, LGBTQ+, etc. in order to expand its reach into new audiences. That is no longer tall, that is wide. This includes, of course, young adult novels marketed towards kids and early teens, licensed products like leggings and other women and queer-focused clothing options, etc. Tall business practices focus on existing customers and target demographics to the exclusion of others. GWs existing customer base and target demographic was straight white men aged ~15-35, which is not a demographic that generally buys womens leggings, scented candles, or young adult and childrens novels. Ergo, wide.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT - Hell, it occurs to me that Succubuses and Incubuses, which are very explicitly sex-demons, were included as enemies in the original/1st edition of the game, making their first appearance in *checks notes* the Eldritch Wizardry supplement published by Gygax and Blume in 1976, which was the third supplement ever produced for DnD, after Greyhawk and Blackmoor.

Oh, and then theres this article from Dragon Magazine issue #10 (the official zine published by TSR), published 1977: https://twitter.com/BruceCordell/status/1228440128957214723?force_isolation=true

It was written not by an anonymous contributor, but by Jon Pickens, who was one of the lead editors for TSR.

How you say "sex has no place in D&D" when its more or less been there from almost the very beginning - put there by the games very creators and founders no less - is beyond me. To be frank, the game would be better off without it IMO, but regardless its there - and its not because of nerd culture becoming cic and hip and cool and fun and causing "everyone and their mother" to start playing and bring their 50 Thrones of Twilight kinks into the game.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Man are you barking up the wrooooong tree. I hate to break this to you, but kink subculture has *always* very heavily overlapped D&D/RPG subculture. "Roleplay" is core to kink and practitioners of kink have long also been players of D&D and vice versa because *surprise* if you enjoy " roleplaying" you probably also enjoy roleplaying. Its the reason why things like Vampire the Masquerade (first published in 1991, well before any of the trends you indicated) exist. And if you've ever spent any amount of time around Rennys (i.e. Ren Faire performers)in the past 30-40 years you would definitely already know this.

I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD.

The artwork of scantily clad and occasionally partially/fully nude humanoid (and humanoid-adjacent) women in the original D&D publications by TSR, Gygax, et. al. would suggest otherwise.

FWIW I have played a lot of DnD with new players and people who are new to the hobby and veterans who were on a first name basis with Gary Gygax, etc. , etc.... and its *never* the new players who are inserting sex/sexually explicit or implicit material into the campaigns.

I think that when we look at the pre-internet era of TTRPGs, there was a lot of siloing. For many people, like myself, D&D in the 90s was done in my mom's basement with Mountain Dew, Cheetos, and few, if any, women around. Not shockingly, it was pretty light on sexual content. For other people, D&D in the 90s wasn't even D&D, it was White Wolf, and the overlap between it and the kink community was already forming.

I don't think the trend is that new TTPG players are more likely to insert sexual content into a session or campaign, but rather that fewer games are that stereotypical gorup of white guys. My last group was like that, and it shouldn't shock anybody that the only person to remotely flirt with romantic or sexual content was the hopelessly single dude, not the vanilla married dudes.

What has changed, and for the better, is the idea of consent/groundrules, where it's understood that sexual content, especially explicit or violent stuff, shouldn't be sprung on players.

chaos0xomega wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Now you have everyone from GoT fans to 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight fans trying to shoehorn their personal kinks into DnD.

Man are you barking up the wrooooong tree. I hate to break this to you, but kink subculture has *always* very heavily overlapped D&D/RPG subculture. "Roleplay" is core to kink and practitioners of kink have long also been players of D&D and vice versa because *surprise* if you enjoy " roleplaying" you probably also enjoy roleplaying. Its the reason why things like Vampire the Masquerade (first published in 1991, well before any of the trends you indicated) exist. And if you've ever spent any amount of time around Rennys (i.e. Ren Faire performers)in the past 30-40 years you would definitely already know this.

I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD.

The artwork of scantily clad and occasionally partially/fully nude humanoid (and humanoid-adjacent) women in the original D&D publications by TSR, Gygax, et. al. would suggest otherwise.

FWIW I have played a lot of DnD with new players and people who are new to the hobby and veterans who were on a first name basis with Gary Gygax, etc. , etc.... and its *never* the new players who are inserting sex/sexually explicit or implicit material into the campaigns.

That demographic now has WAY less money, and so the price tags go up, the target audience gets older, and the product is marketed to appear more 'luxurious.'
Textbook "tall" business practice. Peek in a lego store sometime for another prime example. Tons of lego sets now have 500$+ price tags, and the box design is just black, with a spotlight illuminating the fully assembled kit. That's not a childrens toy.

Sure, but GW has substantially shifted its marketing and branding and product offerings over the past 3-4 years in order to appeal to women, people of color, LGBTQ+, etc. in order to expand its reach into new audiences. That is no longer tall, that is wide. This includes, of course, young adult novels marketed towards kids and early teens, licensed products like leggings and other women and queer-focused clothing options, etc. Tall business practices focus on existing customers and target demographics to the exclusion of others. GWs existing customer base and target demographic was straight white men aged ~15-35, which is not a demographic that generally buys womens leggings, scented candles, or young adult and childrens novels. Ergo, wide.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT - Hell, it occurs to me that Succubuses and Incubuses, which are very explicitly sex-demons, were included as enemies in the original/1st edition of the game, making their first appearance in *checks notes* the Eldritch Wizardry supplement published by Gygax and Blume in 1976, which was the third supplement ever produced for DnD, after Greyhawk and Blackmoor.

Oh, and then theres this article from Dragon Magazine issue #10 (the official zine published by TSR), published 1977: https://twitter.com/BruceCordell/status/1228440128957214723?force_isolation=true

It was written not by an anonymous contributor, but by Jon Pickens, who was one of the lead editors for TSR.

How you say "sex has no place in D&D" when its more or less been there from almost the very beginning - put there by the games very creators and founders no less - is beyond me. To be frank, the game would be better off without it IMO, but regardless its there - and its not because of nerd culture becoming cic and hip and cool and fun and causing "everyone and their mother" to start playing and bring their 50 Thrones of Twilight kinks into the game.

Ok, I'll give you that kink and sex have been part of nerd culture for a while. Can we at least admit that violent sex kink has not been a part of DnD? I'm talking rape level. GoT level of non-consent.

I think succubi and inccubi fall directly under rape sex. They supernaturally drug you and then steal your life from you. There is very little actually consensual or romantic about what they do.

That being said, it doesn't matter. If people don't want it in their game it should be respected.

Wow, I don't think Monsters that are designed to be killed constitute themes of PC Rape RP in DnD. And I don't think you are correctly stating what a Succubus or an Incubus is.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, I don't think Monsters that are designed to be killed constitute themes of PC Rape RP in DnD. And I don't think you are correctly stating what a Succubus or an Incubus is.

An incubus is a demon in male form who, according to mythological and legendary traditions, lies upon sleeping women in order to engage in sexual activity with them.[1] Its female counterpart is a succubus. Salacious tales of incubi and succubi have been told for many centuries in traditional societies. Some traditions hold that repeated sexual activity with an incubus or succubus may result in the deterioration of health, an impaired mental state, or even death.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubus

Even the Forgotten Realms wiki description for them involves the fact their very nature is built around sexual assault.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, I don't think Monsters that are designed to be killed constitute themes of PC Rape RP in DnD. And I don't think you are correctly stating what a Succubus or an Incubus is.

I don't know what you want man. Those things are very specifically sex demons. They tend to have supernatural powers that lull and seduce victims so that they are helpless against their sexual assaults. And then, through the sexual acts, steal the life force of their victims to sustain themselves.

Their very existence is a date rape drug. And their sexual assaults is their version of hunting for sustenance. At least, in every version of fiction where I have seen a succubus or inccubus. It's possible that in some other fiction somebody has used the name to represent some other kind of creature. But I mean... at that point it's a succubus in name only.


Also, just a side note. Xenomorphs are themes of sexual assault and rape. A face huger literally impregnates you against your will. Big Chap (The titular alien in Alien) is called "Kane's son" by Ash. https://www.alien-rpg.com/ there is the RPG for it.


https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/succubus

Charm. One humanoid the fiend can see within 30 feet of it must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom saving throw or be magically charmed for 1 day. The charmed target obeys the fiend's verbal or telepathic commands. If the target suffers any harm or receives a suicidal command, it can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect on a success. If the target successfully saves against the effect, or if the effect on it ends, the target is immune to this fiend's Charm for the next 24 hours.

The fiend can have only one target charmed at a time. If it charms another, the effect on the previous target ends.

Draining Kiss. The fiend kisses a creature charmed by it or a willing creature. The target must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw against this magic, taking 32 (5d10 + 5) psychic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The target's hit point maximum is reduced by an amount equal to the damage taken. This reduction lasts until the target finishes a long rest. The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0.

Charm them so they cannot protest or fight back. Kiss them while "drugged" and steal their life.

As a frequent DM, I early on decided not to include succubi or incubi. I think as demonic entities they are okay and if you can create and interesting story then fine. When I create vicious people or monsters the stuff they do is usually off screen or referred to. Town's are massacred, people brutally killed, the suggestion is there but there's no real need for detail.

It's a game of imagination after all.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Now you have everyone from GoT fans to 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight fans trying to shoehorn their personal kinks into DnD.

Man are you barking up the wrooooong tree. I hate to break this to you, but kink subculture has *always* very heavily overlapped D&D/RPG subculture. "Roleplay" is core to kink and practitioners of kink have long also been players of D&D and vice versa because *surprise* if you enjoy " roleplaying" you probably also enjoy roleplaying. Its the reason why things like Vampire the Masquerade (first published in 1991, well before any of the trends you indicated) exist. And if you've ever spent any amount of time around Rennys (i.e. Ren Faire performers)in the past 30-40 years you would definitely already know this.

I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD.

The artwork of scantily clad and occasionally partially/fully nude humanoid (and humanoid-adjacent) women in the original D&D publications by TSR, Gygax, et. al. would suggest otherwise.

FWIW I have played a lot of DnD with new players and people who are new to the hobby and veterans who were on a first name basis with Gary Gygax, etc. , etc.... and its *never* the new players who are inserting sex/sexually explicit or implicit material into the campaigns.

That demographic now has WAY less money, and so the price tags go up, the target audience gets older, and the product is marketed to appear more 'luxurious.'
Textbook "tall" business practice. Peek in a lego store sometime for another prime example. Tons of lego sets now have 500$+ price tags, and the box design is just black, with a spotlight illuminating the fully assembled kit. That's not a childrens toy.

Sure, but GW has substantially shifted its marketing and branding and product offerings over the past 3-4 years in order to appeal to women, people of color, LGBTQ+, etc. in order to expand its reach into new audiences. That is no longer tall, that is wide. This includes, of course, young adult novels marketed towards kids and early teens, licensed products like leggings and other women and queer-focused clothing options, etc. Tall business practices focus on existing customers and target demographics to the exclusion of others. GWs existing customer base and target demographic was straight white men aged ~15-35, which is not a demographic that generally buys womens leggings, scented candles, or young adult and childrens novels. Ergo, wide.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT - Hell, it occurs to me that Succubuses and Incubuses, which are very explicitly sex-demons, were included as enemies in the original/1st edition of the game, making their first appearance in *checks notes* the Eldritch Wizardry supplement published by Gygax and Blume in 1976, which was the third supplement ever produced for DnD, after Greyhawk and Blackmoor.

Oh, and then theres this article from Dragon Magazine issue #10 (the official zine published by TSR), published 1977: https://twitter.com/BruceCordell/status/1228440128957214723?force_isolation=true

It was written not by an anonymous contributor, but by Jon Pickens, who was one of the lead editors for TSR.

How you say "sex has no place in D&D" when its more or less been there from almost the very beginning - put there by the games very creators and founders no less - is beyond me. To be frank, the game would be better off without it IMO, but regardless its there - and its not because of nerd culture becoming cic and hip and cool and fun and causing "everyone and their mother" to start playing and bring their 50 Thrones of Twilight kinks into the game.

Ok, I'll give you that kink and sex have been part of nerd culture for a while. Can we at least admit that violent sex kink has not been a part of DnD? I'm talking rape level. GoT level of non-consent.

No. We can't. Because irate and non-con was part of Gygax's vision for the game.

From the fairly innocuous random prostitute table in the DMG, to the entire write up of the drow which was rape/non-con turned on its head, with evil black elf women dominating men. Yes, including sexually.

While this is a creepy conversation, it isn't a new one. You can find some really bad takes on the subject (and women in general) in early issues of Dragon magazine. In the 20s and 30s, iirc, around the time they introduced the anti paladin. So late 1970s/ early 80s at the latest

If RPG is about people impersonating adult characters and having interactions and building relations with each other I can't see how romance and sex can be left out of the game completely - it will make some interactions and relations weird and artificial.

I have never played D&D much because for me it fits more some dungeon crawling board game than actual roleplaying, but sex featured naturally in a lot of games I had. My longest WFRP campaign was actually about my girlfriend at the time playing Bianka, a nymphomaniac noblewoman. She was inspired by Kushiel's Dart novels at the time and with intrigue at court being the focus of her adventures it just clicked perfectly (intrigue and seduction go hand in hand). I was GMing the campaign and the other player character was a road warden, Matias, who in the course of the campaign became Bianka's beloved. Mirroring Phedre and Joscelin from "Kushiel's..." they had this interesting relationship along the lines of "You are the love of my life, but I have my peculiar needs and you have to accept me as I am". Very cool, deep, emotional story, not to mention this...complicated relationship between Bianka and her arch-enemy, Slaaneshi champion, Lysander, based on Sigvald.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also remember from my LARPing days that mechanics for sex were quite common, so that players could indicate being intimate with each other without the need for roleplaying an intercourse (which would be seriously awkward!!!).

I remember for example that stroking the other player's hair was such a substitute. Subtle but funny also, the ratio of men and women larping was always about 50-50 and I know the girls really appreciated these solutions as most of them were into larping for drama, intrigue, and roleplaying relations and emotions rather then running around with a rubber sword. Having fake-sex as a mechanic added another dimension to explore.

If this is a group which you have enjoyed belonging to for some time and this behaviour is new then fight to preserve your group. Continue to state your unease with this new direction. If this is a group you recently joined, on the other hand, then I guess you just learned that this group is not for you. You stated your objections and they disregarded them. Cut your losses and move on. Past-times should not give you stomach churn.

As an aside, if a character is doing something terrible "off-stage" under possession then I guess it could be an interesting part of a campaign, especially if they are not initially aware that it is them who is doing these crimes?

As a teenage AD&Der in the early/mid80s our characters couldn't really be Evil in terms of doing evil acts. You could be a NE Assassin, but in a teenage cheesy dark-anti-hero-Batman way where you only assassinated bad people etc. Being evil to good/innocent people wasn't our thing. Other groups might have been different with different tolerances.

Anyhoo - suggest that the OP moves on and finds a new group of like-minded players.

No. Absolutely not.

Next topic.

I am starting a group in January, and have to say that doing (or allowing) something of this nature would never, EVER, cross my mind. As you note, I play games to escape, have fun, and maybe have a thrilling adventure to boot.

Anything that might trigger someone (e.g., racism, sexual trauma/violence, even violence against children/youth as we are all new-ish parents) would not ever even enter my mind as something I'd want anything near my campaign.

Sorry you experienced this with your game group

Cyel wrote:
If RPG is about people impersonating adult characters and having interactions and building relations with each other I can't see how romance and sex can be left out of the game completely - it will make some interactions and relations weird and artificial.

In the same way that you can have adult movies that are rated pg13 or tv shows that can air during the day time.

 Lance845 wrote:

Cyel wrote:
If RPG is about people impersonating adult characters and having interactions and building relations with each other I can't see how romance and sex can be left out of the game completely - it will make some interactions and relations weird and artificial.

In the same way that you can have adult movies that are rated pg13 or tv shows that can air during the day time.

Unlike a TV show an RPG session isn't entirely scripted, though. If player characters decide to have an intimate relationship GM shouldn't stomp their feet saying "You can't! Why? Because I say so, that's why!" any more than in any other situation when players want to expand their own story the way they want. Such an artificial constraint would make players lose agency in their own story, which in my opinion is unacceptable in a narrative game revolving around lifelike freedom of choice.

Yeah, no. F That. I'm not letting two characters dominate the game with their RP lovemaking. They can fade to black that crap and talk about it after.

Rape has no place in DnD. I don't care what monsters you include. Trying to advocate for allowing players to literally rape is wrong, and dumb.

Cyel wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Cyel wrote:
If RPG is about people impersonating adult characters and having interactions and building relations with each other I can't see how romance and sex can be left out of the game completely - it will make some interactions and relations weird and artificial.

In the same way that you can have adult movies that are rated pg13 or tv shows that can air during the day time.

Unlike a TV show an RPG session isn't entirely scripted, though. If player characters decide to have an intimate relationship GM shouldn't stomp their feet saying "You can't! Why? Because I say so, that's why!" any more than in any other situation when players want to expand their own story the way they want. Such an artificial constraint would make players lose agency in their own story, which in my opinion is unacceptable in a narrative game revolving around lifelike freedom of choice.

An RPG session isn't entirely scripted, but most DMs will have a script and structure for the evenings adventure. Ranging from very open ended at one end of the scale; through to preconstructed adventures or even fully worked out structures.
Yes a good DM reacts to their party and allows deviation from "the plan". However the concept of DnD is not that there is total freedom to do whatever you want. The concept is for the group (players and dm) to come together to play a roleplay game. Within that structure what is and isn't allowed; what is and isn't the focus; what they do and how they do it are all compromises that the group comes together to make to achieve the single goal.


So some games will have rape and pillaging and dark gritty edgy things; some will have loads of romancing scenes; some might be built around combat; others might have lots of politics and not much combat; etc..... There is NO one hat fits all definition for what should be in a game. Instead each setup is unique and adapts to the player and dm group.

I definitely agree with that. I was just opposed to the strict stance of "love and sex have no place in RPGs by definition!" and in particular the hypocrytical approach of "Lovemaking, bleargh!!! Killing is fine, though."

As with every social interaction, communication and compromise will lead to nicely formed groups of people with similar expectations having fun together.

Look, I'm not saying you can't "seduce the dragon", but just don't ask the party to literally wait while you drone on for 15 minutes of you pre-prepared speech about how you start at the tail, and end up at the mouth. I'm not giving you d6 inspiration, I'm "ok you seduce the dragon"-ing that crap and moving on. If that "ruins your experience" then I would say your experience was never about playing a game with friends, it was about living out your sex fantasy with a spotlight for 15 minutes.

I didnt say it has no place. I said it was possible to rp adults with potential romantic interests and such without it being R or X rated.

If someone at your table isn't comfortable you don't get the trample on their good time because you want to describe your sexual encounters.

You are fully capable of rping a realistic adult without upping the rating for that content. Just like tv and movies do. It doesn't diminish your ability to rp a realistic adult by not describing when your horny or how often your character has a spank.

I think we all agree what happened to the OP is not the way things should be done..... at all. If it does not work for the OP, they can either engage with their fellow players to try and set the appropriate group boundaries or leave the group.

Now, the bigger question about if these things should be "allowed" in D&D is a very different question that we are trying to engage with as well.

The sub-bullet being, if this were to be "allowed" in D&D, how should it be handled?

The obvious answer is, on a table-by-table basis with group consent.

Someone suggested it earlier and I think it's a great idea:

A Checklist -

What are your triggers, what subjects affect you negatively/positively?

Rape
Racism
Politics
Slavery
Torture
Murder
Gore
Violence
Sex
etc?

The checklist and session zeros are always a great idea.

I would say Yes, but very much so only if the entire group is ok with it.

Role-playing games, by their nature, should take into account the entire table of players. If you are all ok with horrendous stuff like the above, go for it. If anybody at the table isn't ok with it, then its a big fat no.

Personally, I am fine with such things being portrayed in the setting around the players. I would personally draw the line at rape-y things being done by and/or to the players. IE: I'm fine if the players witness such an awful act within the context of the story. I would not be ok with a player going "I go rape this NPC/PC/etc..."

I think that stuff of a sexual nature is one thing in dnd best kept "off-screen". I don't mind if it happens or if it is discussed, but I don't want a narration. I played a massively horny monk who got it on with multiple npcs, but it all happened off-screen aside from the initial seduction rolls and rp banter. Basically, keep it PG13 when it comes to sexy stuff.

 Polonius wrote:
For many people, like myself, D&D in the 90s was done in my mom's basement with Mountain Dew, Cheetos, and few, if any, women around. Not shockingly, it was pretty light on sexual content.

You mean, when Book of Vile Darkness (which among others, had a section on sexual nature of evil) and Book of Erotic Fantasy (120 page sourcebook devoted solely to subject) came out? Because I remember it differently, it was pretty much peak of male gaze and ignoring consent, inclusivity and diversity were only starting to gain steam a few years after that. And that's just considering core D&D, comics and art were even harder (you could get away with picturing all female characters completely nude as long as they had painted on token bra and thong, everything else was fair game). I don't know, maybe it looked differently in USA, but I wouldn't say sexual content back then here was 'light'. Sure, it was mostly stuff targeted at thirsty teens and rarely anything mature and/or well though out, but it was there. People were just more likely to shrug and fail to notice it.

And then you have fantasy literature from that period, where so many had rape either going on screen, or in backstory of characters to give them cheap drama (seriously, someone counted and in top 30 books of Fantasy reddit only 2-3 had no rape at all) so I wonder where multiple people in this thread got the idea it was some innocent, children friendly era. You couldn't throw a stone to not hit something sexual back then, no matter where you looked, RPG games, comics, books, movies, everything pretty much. Some people were just less aware and sensitivies more likely to be ignored or unvoiced.

 Lance845 wrote:

Cyel wrote:
If RPG is about people impersonating adult characters and having interactions and building relations with each other I can't see how romance and sex can be left out of the game completely - it will make some interactions and relations weird and artificial.

In the same way that you can have adult movies that are rated pg13 or tv shows that can air during the day time.

You know how US-centric this sentence is? In vast majority of countries, mass shooting of schools and similar (that is completely fine on US television) ranks above someone showing tits or butt in age ranking and day time TV is more likely to show the latter, not the former. Hell, I remember being shown movie based on school lecture in class which included pair of actors bathing nude in river - no covering anything. That was in elementary school, it had 12+ age rating. US puritanism and censorship of the topic is aberration, not the norm, and in my experience produces warped view of the world that makes healthy relationships and/or discussion of the topic harder. Burying head in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist won't make it go away, if anything it will create problems where no one else has any.

It's important to note age, influences and such can vary a lot within a country let alone between countries. Two people can both have DnD experiences in the same year that are vastly different. If they are early or first impressions they will shape that person's perception of "what DnD is".

One might be playing all mature games with lots of sexy things happening; another might be more akin to a Saturday morning cartoon with a heavy lean on combat but otherwise nothing "risky".

If their play groups then keep reinforcing those styles for a while it becomes the standard norm for them. If years later "things change" it might not be that anything changed within the hobby itself at large; but that that person is now interacting with a different group.


It's more marked in something like DnD than in, say, 40K; because DnD is by its very structure very open as to what happens being left up to the players. Meanwhile something like 40K has a much more rigid set of rules and approaches. Of course there's variation even in 40K, but its not typically as drastic a difference.


Edit - also don't forget the internet! Go back 20 years or so and the internet was very new, very niche and even what was on it was niche. You didn't have big social media influencers and such and a lot of geeky things were much more limited in scope. As a result a persons sphere of influence was very localised and the potential to "dive deeper" was there but not always as easily not freely accessed. Today you can hop online and google and social media can expose you to a VAST wealth of diversity within any hobby.
Of course the flipside is big influencers tend to gravitate toward similar themes os there is also some standardising that happens too; but in general there is far more media out there now than ever before. Far more easy exposure to it and far more easy access.

 Irbis wrote:


You know how US-centric this sentence is? In vast majority of countries, mass shooting of schools and similar (that is completely fine on US television) ranks above someone showing tits or butt in age ranking and day time TV is more likely to show the latter, not the former. Hell, I remember being shown movie based on school lecture in class which included pair of actors bathing nude in river - no covering anything. That was in elementary school, it had 12+ age rating. US puritanism and censorship of the topic is aberration, not the norm, and in my experience produces warped view of the world that makes healthy relationships and/or discussion of the topic harder. Burying head in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist won't make it go away, if anything it will create problems where no one else has any.

It reminded me of one discussion on a Warmachine forum about a similar topic where I used a Louis Royo picture to illustrate some point. The mods censored this picture, but the funny thing is they explained it was because of the naked breasts with nipples and all and not because the lady in question held a severed head dripping with blood XD

I commented on it asking whether anyone would rather have their children see more nipples or more severed heads in their lives

As for D&D, I'm hardly an expert, I have much more experience with low fantasy WFRP where you more often die of pneumonia or killed by peasants you've just helped because you have fur boots and the winter is coming, rather than being eaten by a dragon. It's much more relatable and compelling to me. In a setting inspired by middle ages a threat of being violated is a very real one to any female character, whether they are a peasant woman gathering berries alone or a noble girl married against her will. As much a part of the harsh reality of life in these times as malnourishment, typhoid or frostbite.

The point wasn't what should or should not be shown/played. The point was it's possible to rp a realistic adult without dipping into sex.

I don't care if sex is rped if everyone at the table is comfortable. Someone made a point that limiting it prevented them from playing an actual person. I explained that it didn't.

I'll never forget the best DM advice I was ever given.
You are the god of your world, you made it.
If you wanted to say that sexual assault isn't a thing in your world, that no one has ever conceived of it, you can.

All in all, this is why you vet players or only play with those you trust

 Lance845 wrote:

Their very existence is a date rape drug. And their sexual assaults is their version of hunting for sustenance. At least, in every version of fiction where I have seen a succubus or inccubus. It's possible that in some other fiction somebody has used the name to represent some other kind of creature. But I mean... at that point it's a succubus in name only.

I mean.... Drukhari, but yeah "in name only" in that case.

Also, just a side note. Xenomorphs are themes of sexual assault and rape. A face huger literally impregnates you against your will. Big Chap (The titular alien in Alien) is called "Kane's son" by Ash. https://www.alien-rpg.com/ there is the RPG for it.

Yep. And VERY deliberately so. It was a core concept behind their design and the writing behind it. Definitely not coincidental or a case of "reading to much into things".

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would say Yes, but very much so only if the entire group is ok with it.

Role-playing games, by their nature, should take into account the entire table of players. If you are all ok with horrendous stuff like the above, go for it. If anybody at the table isn't ok with it, then its a big fat no.

Personally, I am fine with such things being portrayed in the setting around the players. I would personally draw the line at rape-y things being done by and/or to the players. IE: I'm fine if the players witness such an awful act within the context of the story. I would not be ok with a player going "I go rape this NPC/PC/etc..."

Once had an player do that.
HE aint allowed in the star wars campaing im making.

There are massive differences between sex, violence, gore, etc. I really don't understand why people constantly conflate sex with violence and then go, "Well, why can't we show sex to kids?"

They're not comparable at all. It's like saying if kids can watch violence then they should be able to smoke or drink. They're not related.

There's this taboo around sexuality and sexual health that is just weird to me considering that from the youngest age possible parents try to place their children into relationships either real or fictional.
How many times have you been asked "Ohhh is he/she your boy/girlfriend?" or "When are you going to get a boy/girlfriend?". There is a continuing societal narrative that opposite sexes/genders can't be real friends because obviously, they want to get together and make babies. Likewise, single friends of the same sex/gender often get jokes made about how they're secretly gay and if you don't have a partner you're seen as weird (although this is changing to a degree).
Yet despite all of this sexuality and sexual health are taboo topics that you aren't supposed to talk about. Why should sex be banned from D&D when it's all anyone in the real world seems to push on everyone else?

trexmeyer wrote:
There are massive differences between sex, violence, gore, etc. I really don't understand why people constantly conflate sex with violence and then go, "Well, why can't we show sex to kids?"

They're not comparable at all. It's like saying if kids can watch violence then they should be able to smoke or drink. They're not related.

Of course they are different - I guess people in general would like their children to have plenty of sex in their adult lives and as little violence as possible.

The comparison comes from the fact that the choice of things children are allowed to watch (or play) seems to indicate something directly opposite which is some unexplainable hypocrisy.

Regarding the OP, that is absoultely not acceptable - not because of the content, but because you had already told the DM that it wasn't ok, and hte DM did it anyway.

Was it necessary? I'd say no. It would have been adequately horrifying if the player lost control and "just" brutally murdered everyone in the house. The rest that was added doesn't actually add to anything - no-one can reasonably say that it's ok that they only murdered them, so the crime could have stopped there.

Should it be allowed in DnD? There's no rules to stop you, but that doesn't mean it has an acceptable place by default. This sort of thing needs to be addressed before it comes up, as it sounds like it was before the DM decided to ignore your response. Blood and fighting and even swearing is something you might expect "by default" in dnd, and then darker themes like torture or murder again can be anticipated by the players, but in a game which is inherantly supposed to be fun for everyone, bringing rape into it without making sure that's ok is an absolute no go.


So my view is that it shouldn't be a part of DnD unless people agree that it's ok, rather than it should be unless they say otherwise. You shouldn't have to say "no rape please" before a game, that should be the default setting IMO.

I would say that in the setting, under the DMs control and it happens "off screen" then maybe as that is more controlled? Maybe. Again as long as people around the table are comfortable with it.

Should a player be able to sexually assault either NPCs or other PCs? Absolutely not. You have millions of options and can create your own character and do all sorts of things. And what you want to do is be a rapist? Really? That says everything about the person.

At the end of the day, adults can do whatever they want. If everybody has a good time, then that's all that matters.

Personally, though, I struggle to think of a situation where I want to be around anybody roleplaying any form of explicit sexual act, much less sexual violence.

Also, when it comes to "allowing" things like this... who would stop you? It's not like D&D has an overarching police department that comes and arrests you when you're "playing wrong."

It is up to each group to decide what is and is not allowed, and to respect each player's (and DM's!) personal boundaries. Everything is allowed, and nothing is required. Work with your group to find what works for you, and what doesn't.

The same way we stop people hitting people when their dice say 1 instead of 20. We don't tolerate it. We make a collective decision as adults to consciously prohibit and prevent this sort of behavior in games.

We don't spend money on companies that promote sexual violence.

We don't allow players at tables that promote it.

We don't run stories/adventures that promote it.

We simply stop promoting it's inclusion in games.

How do we stop sexual violence being portrayed in a kids game? We simply stop.

How we allow it is whataboutisms and "Well this seems really complicated, I'm just not going to honestly engage" style arguments.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The same way we stop people hitting people when their dice say 1 instead of 20. We don't tolerate it. We make a collective decision as adults to consciously prohibit and prevent this sort of behavior in games.

We don't spend money on companies that promote sexual violence.

We don't allow players at tables that promote it.

We don't run stories/adventures that promote it.

We simply stop promoting it's inclusion in games.

How do we stop sexual violence being portrayed in a kids game? We simply stop.

How we allow it is whataboutisms and "Well this seems really complicated, I'm just not going to honestly engage" style arguments.

D&D is hardly a "kid's game". It CAN be, yes, but it's a game for all ages. That means adults, too. That means adults get to decide what kind of game they want.

I respect and defend your right to not be subjected to unwanted, non-consensual sexual content. The second you say that I have to follow the same rules you do, you and I are at odds.

Let me have my game, which may or may not contain sexual material as I and my group decide, and you can have yours.

 Octopoid wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The same way we stop people hitting people when their dice say 1 instead of 20. We don't tolerate it. We make a collective decision as adults to consciously prohibit and prevent this sort of behavior in games.

We don't spend money on companies that promote sexual violence.

We don't allow players at tables that promote it.

We don't run stories/adventures that promote it.

We simply stop promoting it's inclusion in games.

How do we stop sexual violence being portrayed in a kids game? We simply stop.

How we allow it is whataboutisms and "Well this seems really complicated, I'm just not going to honestly engage" style arguments.

D&D is hardly a "kid's game". It CAN be, yes, but it's a game for all ages. That means adults, too. That means adults get to decide what kind of game they want.

I respect and defend your right to not be subjected to unwanted, non-consensual sexual content. The second you say that I have to follow the same rules you do, you and I are at odds.

Let me have my game, which may or may not contain sexual material as I and my group decide, and you can have yours.

So can you please explain to me what purpose you have in wanting Rape to be a part of your game?

I feel like this is just internet posturing about "Muh freedums!"

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


So can you please explain to me what purpose you have in wanting Rape to be a part of your game?

I feel like this is just internet posturing about "Muh freedums!"

So, you didn't READ my post, then. I didn't say I wanted rape to be a part of my game. I DO however want the ability to include it if my group decides they want to.

This is a simple argument: If you don't like it, don't do it. Don't tell other people what they can and can't do.

 Octopoid wrote:
This is a simple argument: If you don't like it, don't do it. Don't tell other people what they can and can't do.

What happens when what you do affects others, even if they don't partake themselves? For example, someone at the table triggered by sexual assault?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
This is a simple argument: If you don't like it, don't do it. Don't tell other people what they can and can't do.

What happens when what you do affects others, even if they don't partake themselves? For example, someone at the table triggered by sexual assault?

That complicates the argument slightly, but it's still the same basic premise. Have a Session 0, discuss limits and boundaries, RESPECT those limits and boundaries, and if someone else in your group isn't, replace them. If that's the whole rest of the group, then so be it. But don't tell them they can't have that kind of game if they want to do so without you present. That's where your decision also impacts theirs, and where your personal responsibility is not to make a blanket statement that, "X is wrong because I don't like it and you can't ever do it," but instead to remove yourself from a situation that is toxic for you.

Talk first, like an adult, and if that doesn't solve the problem, remove yourself from that environment.

Rape, abuse, and other such things should not be part of a normal D&D game, in my opinion. If you want to include them, make 100% sure that everyone at the table is okay with it-and it should be presented as unequivocally bad.

I made a mistake, as a DM, of including spousal abuse as a way to portray how crappy that area was. It seriously affected one of my players, and I still feel regret for doing that.

That doesn’t mean you can never include it-but it does mean you need to have care and understanding with it.

Your table, as said before, Fezzik, is obviously not using care. They aren’t respecting you, and you’d be way better off leaving.

As for just including sexual elements… again, make sure everyone at the table is okay with it, but that’s much easier to include, to me. If you’re playing at a table with adults and your PC decides to go to the brothel for a good time, most tables shouldn’t include any major details, but some tables would be fine with that. So long as everyone is comfortable, respected, and having fun, that’s what matters.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So long as everyone is comfortable, respected, and having fun, that’s what matters.

This. I regret that I have but one Exalt to give.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The same way we stop people hitting people when their dice say 1 instead of 20. We don't tolerate it. We make a collective decision as adults to consciously prohibit and prevent this sort of behavior in games.

We don't spend money on companies that promote sexual violence.

We don't allow players at tables that promote it.

We don't run stories/adventures that promote it.

We simply stop promoting it's inclusion in games.

How do we stop sexual violence being portrayed in a kids game? We simply stop.

How we allow it is whataboutisms and "Well this seems really complicated, I'm just not going to honestly engage" style arguments.

What makes you NOT have the same attitude towards regular violence? You know, chopping limbs off with an axe or burning people alive with fireballs? Is "promotion" of such behaviour in stories / adventures / games fine?

Can you pinpoint the root cause of such double standards in your reasoning?

Different cultural norms around sexual violence and non sexual violence, clearly?

 Da Boss wrote:
Different cultural norms around sexual violence and non sexual violence, clearly?

It's been interesting to me to look at the average westerner - let's even narrow it down and say "American" - and see how they react to being exposed to sexuality vs. violence.

Hmmm.

Hello, This is an interesting topic. I dont entirely agree with the OP. I think that all themes CAN have a place in a story.

Let me first give a little background on myself. Please note, I do not consider myself a sexual deviant who has dark fantasies about rape or murder or what not. I am a 45 year old american male. I am married, and have been for 23 years. I have 2 college age children, a daughter (21) and a son (19). I have lived overseas, In both Indonesia and Venezuela. And have played RPGS since I was about 10 years old. I have been in a regular RPG group that meets every week for the last 7 years. Though we did switch to on-line for a while during the heart of Covid.


To the topic. I know people have strong opinions when it comes to sexual assault. More so that actual assualt or even murder. But all of these things are bad things... but most dont have a propblem with simulated violence or killing. As an american, its ingrained that violence is acceptable, but nudity on tv in forbidden. As an aside, In indonesia they would censor out kissing on public tv, but killing and even profanity was perfectly fine.

I view rpgs like a movie or book. I am telling a story. That story may have dark themes. These arent things that are being romanticized but are there to emphasize the horrors or are things to be overcome... to further the story. Look at movies and shows that would be considered part of fantasy culture. Game or Thrones was mentioned. The Witcher is another. Highlander has a rape scene. Now... the key here, is its not actually shown. Its implied. The audience knows it happens, and later the villain repeats it to the hero. But its not shown. Does it make the story something that celebrates rape? I dont think it does, but maybe to some?

My point is, is your story something for all audiences or is there a rating to it that should exclude some from viewing/participating? I have run games with my kids and certainly wouldnt include something like that. But I have also run games for adults and stuff like that sometimes fits with the story. I have also run stories for my friend's wives and they were all interested more in picking up random people at the pub than following the overall story.

I think love/sex etc is fine in rpgs. No, i dont feel the need to act out the scene with my guy friends, But I have had players fall in love, get married, get betrayed, have kids, etc... just like you would find in stories, And role-playing is just telling a story. In our starwars game, one of the players was confronted by an older Female officer. He choose to seduce her... Now he has to live with the ridicule of being teased as a Grandma chaser... but it made a fun episode in the story.

But also playing alignments should be important. If your demon possessed player is raping and killing... that is an evil act. Even if he (she) is doing it unintentionally, the party, if it is predominately good, should stop her. Otherwise you are accessories... and just as bad.

If you find the types of stories being told not to your liking, then absolutely you dont belong. just like if you dont like movies about rape or sex then you should not watch those. I think if you are joining an existing group, YOU should ask the Story Teller and players, what kind of stories do you guys tell? if the answer is stuff you dont like or feel comfortable with, then its up to you to continue or not. In this case because it is explicit and not implied they probably should have warned you. But I dont think the content is necessarily wrong or bad. Its just not for you... and from the sounds of most of the comments, not for a lot of you. Would I have a problem with the character or player? Probably not... but I normally play good guys, so would definitely in the spirit of the story try to stop it... either trying to end the curse or by ending the character. Both sound like interesting stories.

 Octopoid wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Different cultural norms around sexual violence and non sexual violence, clearly?

It's been interesting to me to look at the average westerner - let's even narrow it down and say "American" - and see how they react to being exposed to sexuality vs. violence.

Hmmm.

That's an ignorant statement. Different cultural norms exist around sex and violence in every culture. If you think the American viewpoint is somehow uniquely stupid than you are probably unaware of...I don't know...pretty much every single culture in the world outside of the arrogant ones that somehow think they're superior because T&A doesn't "bother" them.

trexmeyer wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Different cultural norms around sexual violence and non sexual violence, clearly?

It's been interesting to me to look at the average westerner - let's even narrow it down and say "American" - and see how they react to being exposed to sexuality vs. violence.

Hmmm.

That's an ignorant statement. Different cultural norms exist around sex and violence in every culture. If you think the American viewpoint is somehow uniquely stupid than you are probably unaware of...I don't know...pretty much every single culture in the world outside of the arrogant ones that somehow think they're superior because T&A doesn't "bother" them.

I don’t think they’re saying America is UNIQUELY stupid. Just stupid in general. Because… yeah, the US view on violence as compared to sex is pretty dumb.

I will say "American" views on sexuality are deeply antiquated, and rooted in misogynistic and perverted ideas of purity and social structures brought on by the church (See: Group of hysterical virgins). But that doesn't mean non-consensual sexual deviancy is some how a freedom that should be allowed or "accurately portrayed". DnD is not, I repeat, NOT an accurate representation of normal life. Nothing in Fantasy Role playing needs mimic real life. The overwhelming majority of people roleplay fantasy to act out a feeling or idea that they wish they were capable of, ie Super Strong Barbarian, or sexy Elven Archer with cool Wolf as a friend, or Kung-fu master that can heal people by touching them. It's escapism. Not realism. No one expects to pay taxes or have to take bathroom breaks while in a dungeon, because the day-to-day reality of life is not fun, versus creating an idea, and running it out with a group of other friends.

Also, please stop equating American Sexual Morality to how rape should or should not be allowed in DnD. They are two vastly different problems.

 JNAProductions wrote:

trexmeyer wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Different cultural norms around sexual violence and non sexual violence, clearly?

It's been interesting to me to look at the average westerner - let's even narrow it down and say "American" - and see how they react to being exposed to sexuality vs. violence.

Hmmm.

That's an ignorant statement. Different cultural norms exist around sex and violence in every culture. If you think the American viewpoint is somehow uniquely stupid than you are probably unaware of...I don't know...pretty much every single culture in the world outside of the arrogant ones that somehow think they're superior because T&A doesn't "bother" them.

I don’t think they’re saying America is UNIQUELY stupid. Just stupid in general. Because… yeah, the US view on violence as compared to sex is pretty dumb.

How is it dumb? Why are they even being compared other than the fact sex, drug use, language, and violence are loosely grouped together in ratings systems?

What is even being compared? Violence and sexual content are such a wide spectrum that even saying "violence compared to sex" is pointless because that could encompass anything from a topless woman to 4K HD DP+ on one hand versus some hands being thrown to real life combat footage of soldiers being blown literally to pieces.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
DnD is not, I repeat, NOT an accurate representation of normal life. Nothing in Fantasy Role playing needs mimic real life.

...

Sigh.

I'll just throw out the shrine to Bahamut then. Shame. It's real electrum!

Cyel wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The same way we stop people hitting people when their dice say 1 instead of 20. We don't tolerate it. We make a collective decision as adults to consciously prohibit and prevent this sort of behavior in games.

We don't spend money on companies that promote sexual violence.

We don't allow players at tables that promote it.

We don't run stories/adventures that promote it.

We simply stop promoting it's inclusion in games.

How do we stop sexual violence being portrayed in a kids game? We simply stop.

How we allow it is whataboutisms and "Well this seems really complicated, I'm just not going to honestly engage" style arguments.

What makes you NOT have the same attitude towards regular violence? You know, chopping limbs off with an axe or burning people alive with fireballs? Is "promotion" of such behaviour in stories / adventures / games fine?

Can you pinpoint the root cause of such double standards in your reasoning?

No one at the table has had limbs chopped off or burned alive from a fireball? The statistics for people who have suffered from sexual violence are _very_ high. And sitting across the table from someone who has isn't always obvious.

So its less of a double standard as an actual real-world problem that shouldn't be normalized and has lots of 'hidden' victims in every day plain sight. Axe murderers and fireball-tossers are much, much more rare and nonexistent, respectively.

----

tl;dr; it isn't the same, and stop acting as a proponent for normalizing rape by complaining about 'double standards' that don't exist.

Voss wrote:

Cyel wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The same way we stop people hitting people when their dice say 1 instead of 20. We don't tolerate it. We make a collective decision as adults to consciously prohibit and prevent this sort of behavior in games.

We don't spend money on companies that promote sexual violence.

We don't allow players at tables that promote it.

We don't run stories/adventures that promote it.

We simply stop promoting it's inclusion in games.

How do we stop sexual violence being portrayed in a kids game? We simply stop.

How we allow it is whataboutisms and "Well this seems really complicated, I'm just not going to honestly engage" style arguments.

What makes you NOT have the same attitude towards regular violence? You know, chopping limbs off with an axe or burning people alive with fireballs? Is "promotion" of such behaviour in stories / adventures / games fine?

Can you pinpoint the root cause of such double standards in your reasoning?

No one at the table has had limbs chopped off or burned alive from a fireball? The statistics for people who have suffered from sexual violence are _very_ high. And sitting across the table from someone who has isn't always obvious.

So its less of a double standard as an actual real-world problem that shouldn't be normalized and has lots of 'hidden' victims in every day plain sight. Axe murderers and fireball-tossers are much, much more rare and nonexistent, respectively.

----

tl;dr; it isn't the same, and stop acting as a proponent for normalizing rape by complaining about 'double standards' that don't exist.

I actually don’t disagree with you… well not fully. Sure axe murdered and fireballs may not have happened to someone you know. But murders in general are more common (or at least more commonly reported), as is assault, being robbed, etc. As well as people having suffered from drug abuse or been effected by someone who has. No one is saying rape is good. But if you are drawing a line as to which bad thing can be portrayed and which can’t… it seems off. In most games you play the “hero”x whatever that means to you and your group. Killing is part of the game, murder is not. Just like you don’t expect the heroes to go around raping innocents you wouldn’t expect them to murder them either.

But if the big bad raped your friend Tony, the blacksmith… that emphasizes that he is a bad guy as much as him murdering 20 nuns does…

As I stated, Highlander had a rape scene. Should the movie be banned because rape is bad? I am not saying let’s make rape an acceptable thing to just do in games. What I am saying is it is part of our world and should be allowed to be included in stories. But you should have conversations between all parties before introducing things like that in the story.

The sheer "whataboutism" is alarming in this thread. I thought the internet had some weird stuff on it, but we've actually discovered rape apologists.

"We can't ban rape, what about all the violent actions in killing Goblins" is a dumb as nuts argument. I'm sorry. But even on a long walk of excuses, and irrelevant searching of the monster manual for particular creatures, it doesn't change that fact that including rape as a callable action is a completely undefendable position, and I judge everyone who tries to make that argument. You cannot justify with any shred of decency allowing a player at the table to commit rape. I don't care how much of the Cure you listen to, or how much of an edgelord you are on Reddit.

Your point of view is if something is bad, and you don’t like it, then it has no place in an rpg. But other things that are bad and you are ok with are fine.

No one in this thread has condoned rape. Which you seem to be confusing. What has been said is it is bad, but just like other bad things, it’s ok to talk about them. If we just ban talking about things because someone doesn’t like it, will thst make it all better?

In your own example you did not like something that others at your table were ok with. So your soliciting wasn’t, ok this isn’t the place for me… your solution was “let me try and cancel this”.

That seems to be a common approach now. Instead of actually responding to any thing others of differing views said… you chose to call them edgelords who condone rape… blah blah…

Anyway. I think this conversation is probably pointless. I will ask, and have no doubt you will not answer and call me another name, but… since you find one heinous act acceptable but another not in the stories you partake in… which do you think your family would find worse happen to you? Both are horrible horrible things… but if you were murdered, you are gone forever. Not just that but those that depend on you suffer as well. Forever… it’s s permanent thing. But it is ok to have that in a game because some how wish fulfillment?

I'd also like to say, I'm not talking about sexual violence when it comes to American culture being weird.

I'm talking just sex in general. Murder can be shown plenty in PG-13 movies, but female nipples can't be.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd also like to say, I'm not talking about sexual violence when it comes to American culture being weird.

I'm talking just sex in general. Murder can be shown plenty in PG-13 movies, but female nipples can't be.

That might be a conversation for another day. I'm plenty happy to raise my brow and be 'wtf is this' about America's weird hang-ups where sex is concerned, but generally speaking American attitudes about something like 'I've been possessed by a demon must now roleplay my character murder raping an old woman and everyone in sight' aren't that out of step with the rest of the world.

 Octopoid wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Different cultural norms around sexual violence and non sexual violence, clearly?

It's been interesting to me to look at the average westerner - let's even narrow it down and say "American" - and see how they react to being exposed to sexuality vs. violence.

Hmmm.

It's more what is most likely to be a trauma someone at the table has actually experienced. It's very unlikely people playing the game have witnessed someone being decapitated or staked through the heart or killed with an axe irl. You know what % of people have suffered some form of sexual abuse?

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem

Every 68 seconds another American is sexually assaulted.1
1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed, 2.8% attempted).4
About 3% of American men—or 1 in 33—have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.4
From 2009-2013, Child Protective Services agencies substantiated, or found strong evidence to indicate that, 63,000 children a year were victims of sexual abuse.5
A majority of child victims are 12-17. Of victims under the age of 18: 34% of victims of sexual assault and rape are under age 12, and 66% of victims of sexual assault and rape are age 12-17.6

Sexual abuse is just flat out likely to be something someone at the table has either experienced themselves or someone close to them has. fething nobody is suffering from watching someone get murdered with an axe.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd also like to say, I'm not talking about sexual violence when it comes to American culture being weird.

I'm talking just sex in general. Murder can be shown plenty in PG-13 movies, but female nipples can't be.

What do female nipples contribute to a story?

 Smokestack wrote:

Voss wrote:

Cyel wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The same way we stop people hitting people when their dice say 1 instead of 20. We don't tolerate it. We make a collective decision as adults to consciously prohibit and prevent this sort of behavior in games.

We don't spend money on companies that promote sexual violence.

We don't allow players at tables that promote it.

We don't run stories/adventures that promote it.

We simply stop promoting it's inclusion in games.

How do we stop sexual violence being portrayed in a kids game? We simply stop.

How we allow it is whataboutisms and "Well this seems really complicated, I'm just not going to honestly engage" style arguments.

What makes you NOT have the same attitude towards regular violence? You know, chopping limbs off with an axe or burning people alive with fireballs? Is "promotion" of such behaviour in stories / adventures / games fine?

Can you pinpoint the root cause of such double standards in your reasoning?

No one at the table has had limbs chopped off or burned alive from a fireball? The statistics for people who have suffered from sexual violence are _very_ high. And sitting across the table from someone who has isn't always obvious.

So its less of a double standard as an actual real-world problem that shouldn't be normalized and has lots of 'hidden' victims in every day plain sight. Axe murderers and fireball-tossers are much, much more rare and nonexistent, respectively.

----

tl;dr; it isn't the same, and stop acting as a proponent for normalizing rape by complaining about 'double standards' that don't exist.

I actually don’t disagree with you… well not fully. Sure axe murdered and fireballs may not have happened to someone you know. But murders in general are more common (or at least more commonly reported), as is assault, being robbed, etc. As well as people having suffered from drug abuse or been effected by someone who has. No one is saying rape is good. But if you are drawing a line as to which bad thing can be portrayed and which can’t… it seems off. In most games you play the “hero”x whatever that means to you and your group. Killing is part of the game, murder is not. Just like you don’t expect the heroes to go around raping innocents you wouldn’t expect them to murder them either.

Ok... so no one is saying rape is good (which is absolutely the bare minimum as its a wildly undefensible position to take). But I'm confused as to why murder isn't expected, but not having rape involves drawing a line that 'seems off'

But if the big bad raped your friend Tony, the blacksmith… that emphasizes that he is a bad guy as much as him murdering 20 nuns does…

As an unrelated aside, I'd rather not have one dimensional one note bad guys, that don't need to be justified in either fashion.

As I stated, Highlander had a rape scene. Should the movie be banned because rape is bad? I am not saying let’s make rape an acceptable thing to just do in games. What I am saying is it is part of our world and should be allowed to be included in stories.

I don't see the connection. (not) sorry, I just don't. Highlander has the obvious evil villain do off screen bad things as part of a passive entertainment with an R rating. (in other words, the audience is warned, doesn't see it, and its very obviously part of 'why this guy absolutely deserves to get his head chopped off with no moral issues for the protagonist.') Its also a very 80s 'macho BS' movie with all sorts of the typical sins that are much less socially acceptable today (like McCloud and the crappy cop's pissing match that is mostly just homophobic insults), so holding it up as some sort of lasting standard is weird.

But its still quite different to ~4-6 people sitting around a table involved in participating in weird fetishy fake rapes just for the... shock? satisfaction? what? of being a creepy jackhole around other people. It isn't a matter of 'not allowing it in stories.' Its not waving your inner monster around at other people in a setting where they no reason to expect it.

On the subject of allowing it in stories- there are ways to handle it that's cathartic, meaningful ways of dealing with the trauma that's good for the author and/or victims. And qualified psychologists might just do that in a well-supervised RP session. But that clearly isn't what anyone's discussing. And there are obvious differences between books and films aimed at helping deal with trauma and the creepy fetishy crap. And any random D&D related session that happens to include itis going to lean hard toward the latter, and that's really not OK.

But you should have conversations between all parties before introducing things like that in the story.

That is, again, a bare-minimum given. But there is all this weird twisty language about trying to justify... something vague... about having it but not having it but having it. That is what's getting to me, because its part of the normalizing aspect again. 'These things just happen' is a conversation I've had with a teenage girl in college, and I really don't ever want to have it again. Or seeing people handwave it away like its nothing, which is the usual response when it comes to trials, investigations and just random office talk.
If it gets brought up in a D&D game, I don't see any reason at all not to break out the 'what the is wrong with you people.'

Voss, you make some very good points. I will say the only thing throwing me off here is Fezzick’s stance on the line.

The fact that the player is possessed by a demon and suddenly murders innocents. This is perfectly acceptable and a good time at the table. But when the character has her peepee out suddenly it went from a fun game to “wtf is wrong with you”

Personally, the murdering innocents part is just as bad. But OP is only concerned with the second part. “Stabbing a goblin isn’t a big deal” sure, but if you see the goblin naked first (ok, yes wierd) then it’s now unforgivable. OP also states that love, sex etc and other real world things “have no place in D&D”. I am thinking that his way of playing D&D is just as a murder simulator. Is that “healthy”?

Op also admits that he has no idea what was said during this scene as he coveted his ears and closed his eyes, but just assumed it was 15 minutes of pure rape description. In reality it was probably just them discussing how to get murder simulator guy out of their group.

I will stop arguing though. To sum up. I think rape is bad. I think murder is bad. I think drug abuse is bad. They all happen. Stories should be told about it. Not in a positive way, but not all stories are positive. If you only play D&D so you can “live out your murder fantasies “ then that’s on you. (Not aimed at you Voss)

I think one thing that rape and/or sexual abuse is something that people can encounter in real life


The second thing is that DnD is well advertised and known to be a combat game at its core (you don't have to play that way but its there). It's not known as a sexual game and, as several have noted, its even got a "childish" connection/side to it in that most don't assume sexual events to take place during the game as standard.



So its very possible that people who are triggered by violence don't even turn up to DnD games in the first place. They aren't attracted to it from the outset so it creates a space where violence/battle is accepted. However there's no sexual element on the surface so people who have had bad experiences in life can walk into a DnD game thinking its a safe space for them to engage with. At which point when something like what the OP experienced, comes along its more of a shock to the system.


That's just one additional take on the situation and why people might overlook some things and not others within the context of DnD even though we can all agree that rape, murder, violence and such are all horrible horrible things in reality.

 Smokestack wrote:
Voss, you make some very good points. I will say the only thing throwing me off here is Fezzick’s stance on the line.

The fact that the player is possessed by a demon and suddenly murders innocents. This is perfectly acceptable and a good time at the table. But when the character has her peepee out suddenly it went from a fun game to “wtf is wrong with you”

Personally, the murdering innocents part is just as bad. But OP is only concerned with the second part. “Stabbing a goblin isn’t a big deal” sure, but if you see the goblin naked first (ok, yes wierd) then it’s now unforgivable. OP also states that love, sex etc and other real world things “have no place in D&D”. I am thinking that his way of playing D&D is just as a murder simulator. Is that “healthy”?

Op also admits that he has no idea what was said during this scene as he coveted his ears and closed his eyes, but just assumed it was 15 minutes of pure rape description. In reality it was probably just them discussing how to get murder simulator guy out of their group.

I will stop arguing though. To sum up. I think rape is bad. I think murder is bad. I think drug abuse is bad. They all happen. Stories should be told about it. Not in a positive way, but not all stories are positive. If you only play D&D so you can “live out your murder fantasies “ then that’s on you. (Not aimed at you Voss)

You obviously are arguing from bad faith now. "Has her pee pee come out"? WTF is wrong with you? Seriously, you are in a really awful place emotionally, and should seek help from a therapist if you can't honestly consider the impact of your words, and the feelings of others. Also, the bit about I don't know what happened is also false, I didn't "Hide in a safe place" I made the choice not to engage if that subject matter was going to be part of the game. And then after the game everyone was still talking about it, so it wasn't hard to piece together what occurred. Not to mention the fact that the next quest that was being setup was to find the murderer in the town that did this heinous thing, and we were all basically rolling investigation and insight checks against the player.

Also, please stop acusing me of things you know nothing about. This claim that I am afraid of sex or nudity is completely without merit. I'm a happily married person with a child. You know how that happens? Consent between two rational adult storks.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Smokestack wrote:
Voss, you make some very good points. I will say the only thing throwing me off here is Fezzick’s stance on the line.

The fact that the player is possessed by a demon and suddenly murders innocents. This is perfectly acceptable and a good time at the table. But when the character has her peepee out suddenly it went from a fun game to “wtf is wrong with you”

Personally, the murdering innocents part is just as bad. But OP is only concerned with the second part. “Stabbing a goblin isn’t a big deal” sure, but if you see the goblin naked first (ok, yes wierd) then it’s now unforgivable. OP also states that love, sex etc and other real world things “have no place in D&D”. I am thinking that his way of playing D&D is just as a murder simulator. Is that “healthy”?

Op also admits that he has no idea what was said during this scene as he coveted his ears and closed his eyes, but just assumed it was 15 minutes of pure rape description. In reality it was probably just them discussing how to get murder simulator guy out of their group.

I will stop arguing though. To sum up. I think rape is bad. I think murder is bad. I think drug abuse is bad. They all happen. Stories should be told about it. Not in a positive way, but not all stories are positive. If you only play D&D so you can “live out your murder fantasies “ then that’s on you. (Not aimed at you Voss)

You obviously are arguing from bad faith now. "Has her pee pee come out"? WTF is wrong with you? Seriously, you are in a really awful place emotionally, and should seek help from a therapist if you can't honestly consider the impact of your words, and the feelings of others. Also, the bit about I don't know what happened is also false, I didn't "Hide in a safe place" I made the choice not to engage if that subject matter was going to be part of the game. And then after the game everyone was still talking about it, so it wasn't hard to piece together what occurred. Not to mention the fact that the next quest that was being setup was to find the murderer in the town that did this heinous thing, and we were all basically rolling investigation and insight checks against the player.

Also, please stop acusing me of things you know nothing about. This claim that I am afraid of sex or nudity is completely without merit. I'm a happily married person with a child. You know how that happens? Consent between two rational adult storks.

Please stop accusing you of things I know nothing about. However I being called an edge lord who condones rape and listens to the cure, and needs therapy… but I am arguing on bad faith. you don’t ever actually list any valid arguments. You just hurl bs insults. Voss has some good points. So I will concede to his points… but you, murder simulator guy… you just sound awful. Your sole argument of wtf and seek therapy speaks volumes. And if you have such a problem with the group and yet came back, then you are part of the problem.

All OP needs to know is, that is they sit down at the table with that same group it COULD happen again. They have voiced their concerns and the group has chosen to continue on their course.

Therefore, the OP must either continue to "fight the battle" with the group OR they can leave the group. There really is only two choices on this one; fight or flight.




Off-topic: I hope some folks in this thread never, ever try to play Monsterhearts.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Someone suggested it earlier and I think it's a great idea:

A Checklist -

What are your triggers, what subjects affect you negatively/positively?

Rape
Racism
Politics
Slavery
Torture
Murder
Gore
Violence
Sex
etc?

I check yes to everything EXCEPT politics. Racism? Yes. Slavery? Yes, 100% cool with me. Violence? Bring it on.

But anything that is NOT THAT and DOES involve politics is a hard stop trigger and you the GM MUST fade to black.

Talking about the taxation policy in a local village? I'm out. Zoning regulations in dungeon design? Leave a little to the imagination bro. You may only refer to beureaucrats as "The B Word" if they must appear in game.

You: "You arrive in the local village and receive a missive from the local Alderma-"

Me: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So recently my Sunday night DnD group was tasked with entering a town and going through quests until we learned enough to progress the story. One of the quests we did was to help an old Elf lady who's neighbors had become undead. We killed the undead and left the area with gold and directions to a town official that could help us.

We decided to spend the night recovering and re-grouping. During the night one of our party (Who has an insanity gauge that when it hit's a certain level he becomes "Possessed" by a demon thing that forces him to slake his "bloodlust". He's a level 6 elf fighter, and it's cringe of the worst sort, but the DM was ok with the mechanics and let it fly. So flash cut to the character, who is now in a "Blood frenzy", he makes his way to the old woman's house, and proceeds for the next 15 minutes,

Spoiler:

to rape and brutally murder her and everyone in the house

I was specifically asked by the DM before hand if this would be a trigger, and I said yes. I was so taken aback I didn't think to even ask, HOW ARE YOU OK WITH THIS? But excused myself, and came back 15 minutes later, and it was over.

Should this be allowed? I am seriously considering leaving the group, as the member who did it is a close personal friend of the DM and I didn't want to stir up crap, but this is really bad fantasy role play. I mean, I don't play escapist fantasy roleplay to have terrible real world gak thrown in.

Am I being a dink about this and just need to relax? Or is this too edgy and gross for any DnD game? I'm seriously not ok with this sort of content, but don't want to lose my game that I've put time and effort into.

What say you all?

I think you have a dink as a DM.

The premise sounds ridiculous, leaving a big gaping hole in the game group. Now you have just removed all limits in a "Roll Playing" game. It's breaking the first cardinal rule of D and D and turning the game into a living cliché.

You should leave that group, if that is a standard fare with that group. It runs along the well quoted, "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD."

I mean, damn... What's next...

It's allowed, but any DM worth their salt would have steered that situation away from a whole new level of shitshow.

You should leave that group for no other reason then- That's the best they can come up with. If that's the best, you are wasting your time with that group of losers.

 the_scotsman wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Someone suggested it earlier and I think it's a great idea:

A Checklist -

What are your triggers, what subjects affect you negatively/positively?

Rape
Racism
Politics
Slavery
Torture
Murder
Gore
Violence
Sex
etc?

I check yes to everything EXCEPT politics. Racism? Yes. Slavery? Yes, 100% cool with me. Violence? Bring it on.

But anything that is NOT THAT and DOES involve politics is a hard stop trigger and you the GM MUST fade to black.

Talking about the taxation policy in a local village? I'm out. Zoning regulations in dungeon design? Leave a little to the imagination bro. You may only refer to beureaucrats as "The B Word" if they must appear in game.

You: "You arrive in the local village and receive a missive from the local Alderma-"

Me: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

I get your jest, and thank you for pointing out the weakness in my unspecific list.

How about no "real world out of game politics"?

I've actually had members in games try and pick fights with NPC Druids they actually called "Communist/Socialist".

How about leave real world political battles in the real world? I understand your character thinks helping the poor is the mark of a weak society, but he's the quest giver and I didn't plan for you to start a capitalist utopia in this small 30 person Druidic enclave in the woods. Can I just skip to the battle against the snakes and oozes now?

So this is my perspective - I know people play DnD for different reasons, as a tactics game, as a social heavy roleplay, as a power fantasy, etc.

To me it's a constructive way to spend a few hours with my friends, enjoying catching up with them on their latest news, having food, drinks etc. It's a nerdy equivalent of having people over "for the game".

So my group is generally against PCs being absolute gakheads. Torture, rape, that kinda stuff sure we can have the villains be doing it off screen without the sort of gratuitous jacking off about it the OP encountered in their group. But it's stuff the bads do to be more bad, not something the PCs do to try to be edgy.

The bottom line for me is my gaming is about enjoyment.

Can you have a mature story where the protagonist is a horrible person? Sure, after all someone wrote Lolita.

Is that something I want to deal with every Saturday? No

Does that make me somehow 'less mature'? Lol hell no.

Relatedly, Paizo has unilaterally banned all references to (fictional) slavery in Pathfinder going forward with no in-setting explanation.

I haven’t heard that they have taken a similar stance on (fictional) rape.

 Manchu wrote:
Relatedly, Paizo has unilaterally banned all references to (fictional) slavery in Pathfinder going forward with no in-setting explanation.

I haven’t heard that they have taken a similar stance on (fictional) rape.

That is a very male move to make.

That's just in their published material though right? It's not like they're coming after you if you have slavers in your games.

Honestly its more likely that rape just doesn't happen to begin so there's no need for a mandate/policy. Whilst Slavery is a fairly common thing in a lot of fantasy settings to the point where people just don't think of it being a trigger or anything. Heck Conan starts out being a slave for a good chunk of his origin story; Anakin Skywalker is a slave; Sparticus is a slave etc...


So yeah I could see them needing a memo "no slavery now" and not needing a "no rape" one.



It would be like Toy Story having a "no plastic toys" memo and not having a "no rape" memo. One is a very common thing that requires a memo to remind and is a major change; the other is just never going to happen in a film so they don't need to remind everyone.

 Manchu wrote:
Relatedly, Paizo has unilaterally banned all references to (fictional) slavery in Pathfinder going forward with no in-setting explanation.

It's a weird thing to do IMO. How are you supposed to fight the bad guys or play as the bad guys if doing bad things is cancelled out of the setting?

Yeah, I really don't think Slavery and Rape disclaimers are needed. It's a culturally expected norm not to be a chud. We need to be better about self-policing though, and calling out bad behavior when we see it.

 Da Boss wrote:
That's just in their published material though right? It's not like they're coming after you if you have slavers in your games.

Well, kind of. A big part of the criticism that catalyzed the change was complaints that organized play participants could not appeal to any rules if they felt uncomfortable with slavery appearing in Pathfinder Society games. So now there is redress for those people

 Overread wrote:
So yeah I could see them needing a memo "no slavery now" and not needing a "no rape" one.

Yes; again, part of the catalyzing criticism was a complaint that slavery references are endemic to Pathfinder adventures. Now, so far as I can recall, I don’t know that there are a lot of references to rape. “Rape culture” on the other hand? Well, perhaps we will see that argument (continue to) develop ...

Cyel wrote:
How are you supposed to fight the bad guys or play as the bad guys if doing bad things is cancelled out of the setting?

It’s puzzling. Even in fantasy settings built from the ground up as intentional extensions of IRL liberal progressive politics (e.g., Blue Rose) the bad guys are allowed to be slavers. I suppose the issue was, Pathfinder tends to edgy, superficial “world of grays” morality in which slavery was a little too taken for granted? (See also, “rape culture” above.)

Slavery makes so much sense economically for cultures with no morals against it (or even specific "morals for it" in many cases). It was so widespread in the real world for a reason so it makes for something very believable in a fantasy setting.

I start wondering what evil things are the evil guys allowed to do nowadays in imaginary stories? The list seems to be getting shorter.

Cyel wrote:
Slavery makes so much sense economically for cultures with no morals against it (or even specific "morals for it" in many cases). It was so widespread in the real world for a reason so it makes for something very believable in a fantasy setting.

I start wondering what evil things are the evil guys allowed to do nowadays in imaginary stories? The list seems to be getting shorter.

Whatever works for your table. If your table is okay with slavery, or rape, or torture, or whatever other heinous acts you can imagine, then that's fine.

But for other tables, it wouldn't be acceptable. And for a company like Paizo, it's better to be cautious about what's done than just throw it all in.

Cyel wrote:
Slavery makes so much sense economically for cultures with no morals against it (or even specific "morals for it" in many cases). It was so widespread in the real world for a reason so it makes for something very believable in a fantasy setting.

I start wondering what evil things are the evil guys allowed to do nowadays in imaginary stories? The list seems to be getting shorter.

No, it doesn't. This post on Reddit covers it fairly well: https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/ix0n41/slavery_is_a_lot_more_complex_than_authors/?sort=controversial

To add to that. There are situations where human hand dexterity outstrips whatever may be technologically possible as well and that might make it economically valuable.

Slavery is a really good way to mark "the bad guys" as "the bad guys". I don't see a problem, you're gonna be killing the slavers and liberating the slaves right? It's not like any game assumes the PCs are the slavers?

I guess in TTRPG it's fine to have lazier storytelling or worldbuilding, but it doesn't necessarily work in every single setting. It's been traditionally used that way and in some cases it makes plenty of sense, such as with Ilithids.

Or slavers, generally? No? Is this a controversial opinion now?

Slavers = Bad Guys is pretty obvious storytelling for sure, I dunno that I'd say lazy as it seems to have negative connotations. D&D is about fighting and killing people, and generally that requires people the PCs don't mind fighting and killing. So if you have intelligent enemies, making them really obviously bad guys is a good way to do that, and making someone a slaver is a really obvious cue to know that someone is a bad guy.

Seems obvious to me.

And yet you could have a setting based on Rome where if you are Roman, slavery and owning slaves is, within setting, not a bad thing.

Generally players bring fairly contemporary morals into their games and see slavery as totally unacceptable.

I mean if you want to have a roman style game also knock yourself out I guess? I'm not gonna come round your house and put a stop to it or anything. But generally the use of slavers in D&D has been to denote baddies. There's an entire series of modules about fighting slavers and many adventures that involve liberating slaves from evil masters.

I'm not pro banning anything from games anyway, seems kinda silly to me. I've always found corporation organised play to be fairly insipid and so it's not been a big part of my experience, but I guess this might be more of an issue for those who rely on it. But if you're gonna play in games organised by a corporation then they get to set the tone to an extent and I can see excluding stuff if they want. That's always been the case since these games were created, the companies often decided what to include or not based on various cultural mores or pressures. Look at the change in the names of Demons and Devils for example to try to quiet down the Satanic Panic. Doesn't stop any of us from doing our own thing at our tables.

 Da Boss wrote:
Generally players bring fairly contemporary morals into their games and see slavery as totally unacceptable.

I mean if you want to have a roman style game also knock yourself out I guess? I'm not gonna come round your house and put a stop to it or anything. But generally the use of slavers in D&D has been to denote baddies. There's an entire series of modules about fighting slavers and many adventures that involve liberating slaves from evil masters.

Indeed. It seems a little silly to remove such story potential. You'd think the snowflakes being triggered would be ok with slavers as bad guys to take out and thus wouldn't get triggered.

If the company wanted to just cover their butts they should just have said they will never portray any slaver characters in a positive light and ensure they are villains.

Banning all mentions of slavery outright without any in-setting explanation seems less about being thoughtful and reflective, or even just virtue signaling, and more about being pissed off that woke gadflies are criticizing you on twitter. It feels like a temper tantrum.

Similarly, the endless commentary about the hypothetical situations in which rape might figure into table top gaming is far, far worse than any actual time that has actually happened. The internet only “happens” insofar as users engage with each other; therefore, its content is inherently metareferential. The hobby becomes talking about a hobby. The issue becomes how one talks about the issues.

Always beware of anyone on the internet who evokes “the community.”

trexmeyer wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Slavery makes so much sense economically for cultures with no morals against it (or even specific "morals for it" in many cases). It was so widespread in the real world for a reason so it makes for something very believable in a fantasy setting.

I start wondering what evil things are the evil guys allowed to do nowadays in imaginary stories? The list seems to be getting shorter.

No, it doesn't. This post on Reddit covers it fairly well: https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/ix0n41/slavery_is_a_lot_more_complex_than_authors/?sort=controversial

To add to that. There are situations where human hand dexterity outstrips whatever may be technologically possible as well and that might make it economically valuable.

On the other hand, a setting where magic and enchanted magical constructs are available/common it might become increasingly silly and ridiculous to insist that medieval human norms like slavery, racism based on human skin color, and institutional sexism must still exist Or Else It Isnt Realistic.

*cut to a bunch of chained up fantasy race individuals, scything away in a field*

"New on the chain-gang, huh? Well, let me tell you the deal: you're a slave now, and we're in charge of scything the grain in this one field. Our master has to clothe us, feed us, and hope none of us develop any kind of natural magical inclination because boy oh boy would we kill the HELL out of him if we got even the remotest chance. The master's other 9,567 fields are scythed plowed and tended by one (1) unthinking unfeeling immortal golem designed for that purpose who will never rebel and never needs sustenance or shelter - its name is "Cotton Gin Times One Million" for some reason. Oh, and the master also has another 12,345 fields that he paid a wizard to bless with a fertility spell, they grow three times as fast and when they reach full maturity they actually scythe themselves.

Anyway here's your pointed implement, let's hope the master walks too close to us one day!

Oh, also, I see you have a slightly darker than normal skin tone and you are a human woman - we do look down on you racially, in this world where vastly weaker, explicitly subhuman creatures like Kobolds exist which do have human speech and language but are explicitly incapable of human levels of intelligence and morality. At some point we've been meaning to construct the egalitarian society that would probably naturally result from having such things around to be afraid of, but until then I guess lets just hope no women or racial minorities find powerful artifacts or come into extremely potent magical powers and decide to seek vengeance on us!"

And next week I've heard that the local king will be hiring Golems to perform military duties and protect the kingdom. As a result wild monsters, roaming bandits, rogue lords and all will be taken care of by the Golem Legion. Adventurers and Adventuring will be banned as they will be deemed non-essential.

Praise be to Slaanesh as we enter our new hedonistic future as Golems service all our needs; as magic ensures equality and justice for all. Praise be to pleasure, to excess, to the debauchery of a hedonistic lifestyle as golems, magic and free rights to all allow society to enter a golden age of perfection.

Peasant: The enslaved immigrating races have taken all the jobs!

Overlord: Silly peasant. You were replaced by a golem.

 the_scotsman wrote:
medieval human norms like slavery, racism based on human skin color, and institutional sexism

Just a quick note, those are modern rather than medieval norms.

EDIT - And the reason it’s worth pointing out is because these issues belong to us, and our times, rather than to some era that has irretrievably passed away. That’s why they remain controversial to us (as opposed to, say, veneration of saints’ bones).

Racism and sexism are good to bring up in this context. Should these also be banned? WotC has already dispensed with racial alignment. Good Drow, for example, are no longer the exception to the rule.

 Manchu wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
medieval human norms like slavery, racism based on human skin color, and institutional sexism

Just a quick note, those are modern rather than medieval norms.

Did slavery even really exist in medieval Europe? Being a peasant would've sucked, but it's not literally slavery.

Being a peasant pretty often did not suck at all. It’s in no way comparable to being a slave. About a quarter of the population was enslaved during classical antiquity; by the middle ages, slavery was virtually eradicated in Western Europe. Of course, it made a giant come back during the birth of modernity in the transatlantic trade (although more so in the New World than Europe). The renaissance of slavery is intimately connected to our modern way of defining a person.

Vikings owned slaves (called thralls), traded in slaves, mostly coming from the Britush Isles and Baltic coast. England at that time (mid-middle ages) from what I know also had slavery -either in the form of captured local enemies (Welsh, Irish etc) or people just going into slavery voluntarily due to poverty (better be a slave than die of starvation). I can see how similar stuff was happening in other parts of Europe ~900's.

Slavery was present in most cultures but often you have the ability to leave and enter mainstream society as well - for instance you could earn money and buy yourself out - the Chatel slavery system is even worse than this as you normalyl have no way out. You would also have people from all races as slaves during the classical and earlier period. Later it tended to be one race enslaving another - although some like the Barbary pirates traided in all colours.

Some of the various fuedal systems were very close to slavery except in name. Indentured servants were also not far from this state.

Jesus this is taking a far turn from Rape and sex crime. We are now discussing "fuedal slavery/indentured servitude" and tossing out terms like "Woke" and "lefties". By a Mod of all things.

How about we stop with the Tucker Carlson arguments and "Just asking questions" style, and actually make a definitive statement.

I personally believe the common person is too rock cold stupid to accurately or intelligently roleplay non-consentual sex crimes, or issues of slavery. I feel that until we as a society can actually agree that women and people of color have a distinctly different experience in life, than their white male counterparts, then we have no business using their suffering as the narrative for a game marketed to children.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Jesus this is taking a far turn from Rape and sex crime. We are now discussing "fuedal slavery/indentured servitude" and tossing out terms like "Woke" and "lefties". By a Mod of all things.

How about we stop with the Tucker Carlson arguments and "Just asking questions" style, and actually make a definitive statement.

I personally believe the common person is too rock cold stupid to accurately or intelligently roleplay non-consentual sex crimes, or issues of slavery. I feel that until we as a society can actually agree that women and people of color have a distinctly different experience in life, than their white male counterparts, then we have no business using their suffering as the narrative for a game marketed to children.

I don't see how your last sentence has anything to do with slavery in a fantasy setting or why you out white males specifically. You do realize white men were enslaved as well in the past? It's not exclusively in the purview of other races. I find it bizarre so many people like to hold "straight white men" as some weird archetype of evil, especially since the logical conclusion for intersectionality is that the greatest minority is the individual, but they somehow dodge that and try to set up oppression hiearchy that conveniently ignores that since then you would have to treat each person on an individual basis rather than their race and sex, and we can't have that

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Jesus this is taking a far turn from Rape and sex crime. We are now discussing "fuedal slavery/indentured servitude" and tossing out terms like "Woke" and "lefties". By a Mod of all things.

How about we stop with the Tucker Carlson arguments and "Just asking questions" style, and actually make a definitive statement.

I personally believe the common person is too rock cold stupid to accurately or intelligently roleplay non-consentual sex crimes, or issues of slavery. I feel that until we as a society can actually agree that women and people of color have a distinctly different experience in life, than their white male counterparts, then we have no business using their suffering as the narrative for a game marketed to children.

Well, considering the Dakka mods can't even figure which side of the "Nazis are bad" trollapalooza to ban I can't say I'm really surprised.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
the common person is too rock cold stupid to accurately or intelligently roleplay non-consentual sex crimes, or issues of slavery

Would you consider yourself a common or uncommon person? If the latter, are you saying that you are capable of responsibly incorporating rape and slavery into your D&D sessions? If so, can you explain to us how this should be done? Sincerely, a common person.

It's a very American thing to equate slavery to African slave trade and instantly think of people of colour. Slavery wasn't a racism related thing for most of it's (thankfully mostly over) time. Why look for slaves on another continent if you had perfectly good prospective slaves in a rival neighbouring village or even your own one?

It's just another historical trope that gives fantasy settings their medieval vibe, alongside things like public executions, cattle raids, indentured servitude, arranged marriages, catastrophic epidemies, hostility towards strangers, forest bandits, religious wars...the list goes on. Get rid of all the nasty things and you no longer have medieval fantasy, you get... I don't even know what. Tellytubies?

The modern world seems infinitely more horrific to me than the medieval one. In a lot of ways, fantasy settings are inherently idyllic as an escape from real life. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they are traditionally laden with medieval allusions. It’s a strong characteristic of the Romantic movement in the arts to idealize the middle ages (and not without a basis in reality).

In my games, the setting is like what you’d see in BBC’s Cadfael: a prosperous peasantry served by an artisan class and lightly governed by nobles. Slavers are more likely to appear than slavery itself — with the people looking on evil races like orcs something like, to use your example, Saxons might have looked at roving Viking heathens. Rape has never appeared in my games and I don’t really see much of a need for it.

I'm definitely more into low fantasy stuff, mostly played gritty Warhammer in my RPG-intensive days with adventures like being kids on the wrong side of the religious schism in the Empire and getting killed by the knights of the Blazing Sun for travelling with Hussite pilgrims.

I loved LotR when I read it as a 10y.old kid 30 years ago but only when I read the Witcher a few years later I felt how compelling and relatable and thought-provoking fantasy can be.

What do you mean by “low fantasy”? It’s not really a matter of cynicism.

 Manchu wrote:
What do you mean by “low fantasy”? It’s not really a matter of cynicism.

Careful - there are legions of pages where people try and work out the difference between low and high fantasy. Even worse for Warhammer groups because Old World was at once low and high depending on what angle you viewed it at and on how you define low and high.



In VERY general terms "low" fantasy typically means a setting where there are limited to no elements that are not present in our real world. So things like magic, non-natural creatures, dwarves etc... Often the two can be intertwined in the same setting, for example Game of Thrones has a world setting that at one point was "high", which then transitioned toward increasing "low" during the start of the books and then transitioned again back toward "high" as the story progressed.

Alongside low and high you've a concept of reality, which we must remember is not "real" reality but rather the romantic/school education/TV perception of old times that the common person has. Ergo some factual elements, intermixed with exaggeration and perhaps 10-20 years behind the actual study of the age in question. Often with a mashing of whole segments into one time period - eg "the Romans" the "medieval period" the "Egyptians" are, for many people, thought of mentally as one generation, when in actuality they spanned many generations and had great variety both over the span of time and the span of territory that they covered.

So low is often generally seen as copying/fitting that structure more so than high, this is often because low has no elves or magic so you don't get golems walking down the streets thus the story is seen (if not actually) to have realistic elements and depictions.


Cadfiel could even fit into "low" fantasy as it has a few tiny elements of mystical belief within it here and there, even if the actual story shows that its nothing of the sort.



On the subject of Warhammer Old World, just to touch on it, many who see it as a low fantasy setting tend to do so because way back when it started most armies were fairly "basic" in appearance. Spearmen, archers, cavalry were the core of most armies. Most were using sword and spear and bow. Yes you had dragons, but the majority of many armies was core infantry style battles. Magic was present but it wasn't "showy", a wizard was all robes and staff. Yes even though it had orks and lizardmen the perception was "low". It also played into the fact that most armies were using real looking weapons so that leaned into the "realistic" elements that seep in which sometimes gets used by people to describe "low" fantasy.

Of course if you read the lore you saw that mages were throwing out huge spells; that magic was VERY powerful and that the setting had insane extremes way outside of low fantasy. In part the setting developed more and more into high, especially in the lore, but the actual models and style took time to catch up. By the time you hit AoS we've got wizard models balancing on rocks; dragons that are huge and more "fantasy" than the "old school serpents" and the portrayal of the setting in marketing and more is 100% leaning on the high end.

Are you saying topics like rape and slavery are more commonly featured in low rather than high fantasy?

Neither - what elements comprise a story is based purely upon the authors desires as a writer in what kind of story they write. Even if they write a very low magic, historically accurate representation of Rome they can tone down, overlook or focus on regions and characters where slavery hardly appears

My first contact with Warhammer was with Rpg rather than the wargame, and Rpg leaned strongly towards low fantasy with characters being regular people, more likely to die of a disease or go insane than meet a dragon or a mage more powerful than a hedge witch.

New 4th ed. WFRP rulebook really captures this gritty, dark, desperate feel of the Warhammer world.

Oh yes I'd forgotten the RPG (which is mostly because I never got involved with it or really know what it was back then). Again another great example of how the setting could easily be seen as very low magic. Indeed even in many of the books those living in big urban areas of the Empire might well have zero to little concept of Chaos or Orks or anything really. A mage might sweep through the upper reaches of town but they won't be casting spells or anything. So very much low-fantasy


Heck they don't even believe in the UnderHive.

Yup, a starting mage in WFRP can do such amazing things like lighting a candle from a small distance or protecting himself from the rain Most of his usefulness for the party comes from the fact that he can read& write which is a rare skill

Cyel wrote:
Yup, a starting mage in WFRP can do such amazing things like lighting a candle from a small distance or protecting himself from the rain Most of his usefulness for the party comes from the fact that he can read& write which is a rare skill

That reminds me of a totally random thing I saw once talking about how reading and writing in ancient times was more common than we thought. However there were "grades" of reading and writing. So it was more like the common person wasn't incapable of reading or writing, just that their level of understanding was exceptionally basic. So they might be able to do a simple "fence stick" mark for counting or sign their name with an X or such. They understood the concept of reading and writing, but they couldn't write an essay or read a complex document; nor read the Bible (as originally that was in Latin or a form of it).

 Manchu wrote:
The modern world seems infinitely more horrific to me than the medieval one.

Yeah I'm sure you would have loved the Black Death, cholera, typhoid, dysentery, diphtheria, polio, TB, getting forced to work in the same job as your parents with no chance at any other life, getting conscripted to fight in a war because your Lord decided they want a bit more land, dying at the age of about 35 if you were lucky enough to make it past childhood, dying because you lost your hand in an accident and there was no real medicine to heal it, dying because you had a bad crop and there are no stores because agriculture is garbage.
I'm also sure you wouldn't miss electricity, clean water, a sewage system, modern medicine, and indoor heating. The modern world has serious problems but pretending the middle ages were better is just flat out wrong. At best you're dealing with social issues like racism, bigotry or watching democracy fall apart in front of you instead of immediate danger like those I listed above.

Every single one of those dangers still exists and modernity has merely stifled them, inequitably and unjustly, at the cost of exploitation and alienation that has found its ultimate expression in bureaucratic mass murder and global environmental devastation. Your whiggish history doesn’t touch me in the slightest.

It's probably not going to go anywhere good if we get into the "what was the worst time/place to be alive" game.


Considering the thread has generally had the very same responses all through (talk and mediate with your group and if you don't fit them leave) and we are now drifting into multiple separate topics - it might be time to move on/lock

What’s interesting to me is how an idyllic escapist world, created through medieval allusion, apparently needs to be intruded by modern-themed horror. Perhaps the idyllic world is deemed worthy of saving, unlike the real one? Perhaps the idyllic world is simply under attack for being idyllic?

Answering the title without having read the whole thread…
But yes, of course it should be ”allowed”, people should be allowed to do whatever they want in their gaming sessions.

But i wouldnt want to play in a group who enjoy going into details of things such as torture or rape. I get no joy from it and wouldnt fit in any group who does.

Its a sign of disrespect however to first ask if its okay, get no for an answer and still go ahead with it.

Maybe an idyllic world doesn't easily offer powerful emotional investment and tough moral choices (which are the heart and soul of a worthy RPG) but a harsher, more realistic world does?

 Manchu wrote:
Every single one of those dangers still exists and modernity has merely stifled them, inequitably and unjustly, at the cost of exploitation and alienation that has found its ultimate expression in bureaucratic mass murder and global environmental devastation. Your whiggish history doesn’t touch me in the slightest.

I agree that we're at the point now where the thread has deviated heavily from the OP's question and should be locked, but I have to ask. Do you genuinely believe that global living conditions are actually worse now than they were at any point in the past?

I think every era has its own problems and that we do not live and have not lived through history on a conveyor belt inevitably carrying us to Better Times.

To Cyel’s point above, the insertion of modern horror into idyllic escapist settings probably shows that we are all aware of this, at least subconsciously, and grappling with the disappointment of the promised utopia never arriving by invading a gentler world with our troubles and frenzies.

 Manchu wrote:
I think every era has its own problems and that we do not live and have not lived through history on a conveyor belt inevitably carrying us to Better Times.

I can agree with that.

Going by usual "common sense and decency". The first time that possessed player tried that sort of gak, close friend/companion or not, the rest of the party would have banded together and outright killed him or died trying.

And no, they wouldn't have resurrected him after that either. Not unless they had a cure that 100% would remove his possession.

So, unless everyone else was alignment Chaotic Evil, then the player wouldn't have been allowed to pull this sort of gak because he would be killed by the rest of his companions no questions asked.

You just don't get to hide behind some "possessed" nonsense excuse. A good alignment simply won't condone such actions in a party no matter what drivel is used as an excuse.

Just for clarification, I was not there at the point of character creation, but I think this was a DM comprimise. You get this super awesome magic bow of supreme damage (tm) but it bears a terrible sppppoooooookey curse, yada yada yada, smash cut to ranged fighter is now a blood thirsty psychopath. Not a bad DM comprimise, but I would have stopped when the player took it too far.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Not a bad DM comprimise, but I would have stopped when the player took it too far.

That strikes me as a very balanced conclusion, honestly.

I have deleted some posts that veer way off into contemporary American political discussion. I realize this topic touches on real-world issues but posters should try to more closely relate those points to the topic of what is/isn’t appropriate in fantasy roleplaying. Thanks!

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Just for clarification, I was not there at the point of character creation, but I think this was a DM comprimise. You get this super awesome magic bow of supreme damage (tm) but it bears a terrible sppppoooooookey curse, yada yada yada, smash cut to ranged fighter is now a blood thirsty psychopath. Not a bad DM comprimise, but I would have stopped when the player took it too far.

What was the point of it all anyway? So that the player can roleplay being a psycopath muderer and rapist? ... Plus the DM doesn't seem interested in treating this rationally either. In which world would a psycopath be allowed to go around killing and raping people in a city? He would have been found out, and captured , and tried and executed long ago. If not by the city, then by other adventurers or mercenaries. It sounds like he just went psycho at times. So, there is no attempted to cover up. No sneakiness about it. He just goes nuts, pick a random place and starts a rampage.

He might get away with it once. But multiple times in a city? Defies belief. And none of the rest of the party roleplays how they deal with it based on their alignment? Is the entire party evil align? Like imagine if you are neutral good, or lawful neutral. And you know that one of your companions in your party does this. What kind of misguided sense of loyalty will permit you to put up with this ? At the very list, you will actively work as an informant with the city or other mercenaries in order to catch and take this guy down.

By now, he has done this several times? And he got away with it each time? Does he revert into a sane person and intelligently "cleans" up all the dead bodies and blood and then leaves stealthily?

1) He should have been caught and brought to justice by now. Saying he hasn't is basically dumbing down and making the entire city too weak. If this is a DnD world, then cities there are used to dealing with at least up to mid level adventurers. Saying he gets away with this from lv 1 to 6 defies belief. And this is considered capital crimes, serial killer even. So, the city would spend the resources to investigate this and capture the person very seriously. No country or city I know of irl treats serial killers with kids gloves.

2) The actions of the entire party with him is in contrary to their alignment. And all of them should now suffer the consequences of misplaying their alignment. Condoning such evil acts by doing absolutely nothing while being aware of it makes the entire party culpable.

3) That none of them even covertly worked to take this guy down also defies belief. All it takes is for you to privately take the DM aside. Tell him "I am going to secretly inform the city authorities. And give them all the relevant information on when and how the guy goes nuts". The next time he pulls this crap, he will walk into some random houses, and instead of finding a family to rape/murder, he will be faced with an entire team of the city guard backed up with magic, that will take him down if not kill him outright. And this is perfectly in alignment with any good/neutral aligned character that does not condone such evil acts.

4) If none of the party knows about this. Then why was there even a need to roleplay this out with the entire part watching? He might as well privately roll whatever he wants with the DM so that the rest of the party doesn't know. Letting the entire part see this seems to imply everyone knows, and then its on the group to do something about this. (Or at least inform the city guards).

5) A lot of DMs treat their players with kids gloves and let them get away with stuff. But you have to draw a line somewhere. Robbing a merchant does not come with zero consequences. A tavern brawl is probably easily smoothed away, but murdering someone in cold blood is not. Serious crimes happening in a city warrant a serious response logically. The player doesn't "get away" with it just because he is a player.

Slow the judgement train there Mr. Toppumhat. I (my character) was not present when this "occurred", nor was any of the party. The party had gone to sleep at an inn, and while we were all out, The character in question's meter hit go time, and they woke up, went back, and did their crazy gak.

None of us knew about it in character until after it had occurred, and one of our party started to investigate, but didn't learn anything before two of the younger players pulled us into a fight with something else.

There are literally a hundred ways this all could have been dealt with or "discovered" in game by the players, but I felt like the DM was covering for the fighter, and didn't want interparty conflict, so they just kept the story moving. All bad DM decisions. Thankfully I left the group, and no longer have this problem. But I wanted to post the experience here and get perspective on if I was a prude, or if this was actually over the line.

The responses have been, illuminating.

So basically, the DM indulged in and gave in to the players. He had a good friend who wanted to roleplay murder and rape of innocents while hiding under the guise of "I was possessed, so I wasn't in control of my actions, so its not my fault, its not really me". And the DM indulged him.

1). Like I said, given this wasn't known by the group, he didn't even need to have the person roll out this part of the encounter in front of the entire group. In fact, it should be handled privately. This was basically indulging in the guy's fetish because it obviously wouldn't have been fun if just he did that.

2). Again like I said, if you made a proper "logical" world. There are consequences to such actions. The said player doesn't get to walk away and blame it on being possessed. Given he got possessed several times, he should have been caught by now (even if his party was unaware). Such "rampages" are hard to hide and obscure. Too much evidence left behind. And this is a magic world we are talking about. Lots of spells available that can find out what happened and pin point the guilty one, not to mention actual physical evidence. Justice should have caught up to him a long time ago. Again, the DM indulged in the player and just let him get away with it.

Probably best that you left the group. Given the way the DM indulged this player. Things wouldn't have changed.

Using rape and murder as a plot device/story hook is different from indulging in a person's private fetish. You can make a villain seem even more evil and monstrous by having his evil acts impact on your players. It adds more emotional impact when they finally face him in battle and take him down. But its all on how the DM handles such things. And having the players indulge in it never adds to the story. Its just giving in to their fetish.

Now, I bet there has always been groups of players out there who decided to heck it and just murder and loot everyone around them instead of trying to get long with NPCs. But again, its how the DM handles such outbreaks of childishness. Because unless you were playing a evil character to begin with, such actions are just the real person wanting to indulge in a murder spree because he can get away with it (since its just a DnD roleplay game).

Murderhobo is a meme for a reason.

I can honestly say, with the exception of Straahd, (which tends to invite edgier folks) I've never had rape even come up at a table. If the player had just murdered the old lady and was like, I'm insane. I would have been like, alright, these bracelets are for our mutual safety, and I need you to talk to this cleric over here. When the player/DM started talking about sexual violence, I was like, how do you expect us as the people around the table to still be okay with playing with you? Did you expect us to be like, Cool Rape dude! Here's d12 inspiration! I am betting it didn't even cross his mind that we would not be okay with it.

Yeah, better not to play with people who don't consider the feelings and emotions of others.

I am glad you left that group.

So, the rub is I left the group, but am still close friends with my military friend who happens to be the BF of the DM. He wants me to join another group they are putting together, and I am unsure how to express my truth regarding their games, and my personal comfort levels.

The game will be a new Cyberpunk Table top spinoff, which I am already hinky about considering the tones and subject content of the game is essentially drugs and sex 24/7 with spashes of GTA5 level murder sprees.

Just say that you enjoy RPG games greatly, but that their style of storytelling and gameplay is very different to how you like to play.


No confrontation, no awkwardness or anything. Just the straight up honest answer that what they want and what you want are different and that that is ok.

To quote the doctor from Ted Lasso:

The Truth will set you free, but first it'll piss you off.

I think different people play tabletop RPG for different reasons. Some want to be a hero and kill monsters, do quests and have fun that way. This group of people the OP is talking about seem to view RPGs as a form of escapism. Where they are free to do whatever they want without fear of repuccusions because its just a game. It sort of like playing GTA. nobody plays GTA to be an upstanding citizen. lol

If your escapist fantasies involves rape, you should self report to a police department. Or a Hospital before you hurt someone.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If your escapist fantasies involves rape, you should self report to a police department. Or a Hospital before you hurt someone.

I mean... No?

Fezzik, can you honestly tell me you've never thought "God, I'd like to punch this guy out," but didn't do it? I highly doubt you can. You've probably thought worse-I hope you never acted on any of those impulses, but everyone has those moments where they think something terrible. If you don't act on them, understand that they're wrong, and keep it strictly to fantasy, then what's the issue?

And again, I certainly agree that them doing it at the table, with you there, is wholly inappropriate because you obviously wanted no part of it. But simply thinking bad thoughts doesn't make you a bad person.

A gut reaction or intrusive thought isn't the same thing as an escapist fantasy.

There is a distinct difference between having a reactionary thought and doing said action. People have bad thoughts but when you act on them it becomes a problem.
Accidents happen but you don't accidently commit your character to sexually assaulting someone in an RPG.

 Gert wrote:
There is a distinct difference between having a reactionary thought and doing said action. People have bad thoughts but when you act on them it becomes a problem.
Accidents happen but you don't accidently commit your character to sexually assaulting someone in an RPG.

I guess I don't view it as inherently different from play-acting an assault fantasy with a significant other-it's only a problem if any of the parties aren't consenting.

Which, again-Fezzik wasn't cool with it, so someone should've noticed he wasn't comfortable and put a stop to it. But if everyone there was okay with it and knew it was just fantasy... I don't see words that no one is bothered by as particularly harmful.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Gert wrote:
There is a distinct difference between having a reactionary thought and doing said action. People have bad thoughts but when you act on them it becomes a problem.
Accidents happen but you don't accidently commit your character to sexually assaulting someone in an RPG.

I guess I don't view it as inherently different from play-acting an assault fantasy with a significant other-it's only a problem if any of the parties aren't consenting.

Which, again-Fezzik wasn't cool with it, so someone should've noticed he wasn't comfortable and put a stop to it. But if everyone there was okay with it and knew it was just fantasy... I don't see words that no one is bothered by as particularly harmful.

I agree with this.

When nobody was actually assaulted, the issue is consent.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If your escapist fantasies involves rape, you should self report to a police department. Or a Hospital before you hurt someone.

But escapist fantasies about crushing skulls with a hammer or slitting throats with a dagger are good fun and deserve no such treatment?

You can chop a goblin's limbs off in fountains of gore or strangle him with a garotte but gods forbid you slap him on his buttocks or grab his groin, you sick sicko!

On the topic of escapist fantasies involving rape (a scientific paper, googled with a site:edu tag, don't worry) this may surprise you. Start at the bottom of page 27: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D3192%26context%3Dgc_etds&ved=2ahUKEwjMo5_NwY31AhUQrYsKHR_qCYgQFnoECCcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0iHUOBqr1DeAq5OtV0Hqmn

Cyel wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If your escapist fantasies involves rape, you should self report to a police department. Or a Hospital before you hurt someone.

But escapist fantasies about crushing skulls with a hammer or slitting throats with a dagger are good fun and deserve no such treatment?

You can chop a goblin's limbs off in fountains of gore or strangle him with a garotte but gods forbid you slap him on his buttocks or grab his groin, you sick sicko!

On the topic of escapist fantasies involving rape (a scientific paper, googled with a site:edu tag, don't worry) this may surprise you. Start at the bottom of page 27: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D3192%26context%3Dgc_etds&ved=2ahUKEwjMo5_NwY31AhUQrYsKHR_qCYgQFnoECCcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0iHUOBqr1DeAq5OtV0Hqmn

Yeah, not clicking that link.

And please stop with the whataboutism for violence vs Sex, insinuating I'm some prudish virgin that is afraid of sex. Also, You have no idea how I play my character(s) or how I like my fantasy. My current character is just a monk who heals people and abhors violence and is essentially vegan. His main motivation was teaching kids. But sure, whatever you assume.

Yeah, why click this paper and learn how scientific research shows plenty of women fantasise about sexual assault too if you can just live in your own cognitive dissonance free imaginary world of self-apppointed morals.

Anyway. For some, escapism is an outlet, and its fine because they do not actually commit such crimes. And we can't accuse or look down upon these people because its a harmless outlet. Nobody actually really got hurt. Otherwise, the millions of people who actually play games (be it RPGs, or Grand Theft Auto) where they kill or commit crimes would all be guilty, which is obviously not the case.

However, once a person crosses the line and actually commits such a crime. Its no longer a fetish or just a fantasy, and instead its a crime that can land them in jail or worse.

I think its fine that you walked away and didn't want to participate anymore. Because you have a right to what level of role playing you want to indulge in, and that sort of roleplay wasn't for you. Does this mean that "possessed" person is a sick individual who is on a one way track to committing an actual serious crime? Well, not necessarily.

I would put it this way. Not every single serial killer or rapist has played RPGs before. But neither is every RPG player who roleplayed a rapist or a murderer an actual one in real life.

BTW, if he is ever involved in future in an investigation into a serial murder or rape case, this would for sure raise the suspicion on him...

Cyel wrote:
Yeah, why click this paper and learn how scientific research shows plenty of women fantasise about sexual assault too if you can just live in your own cognitive dissonance free imaginary world of self-apppointed morals.

I highlighted the problem with your argument. Also you misspelled fantasize. Like for instance, you likely fantasize about a woman ever taking you seriously.

I didn't misspell anything, proper Queen's English has "fantasise" as the correct form. I don't care if some newish country is trying to come up with its own version of an existing language changing some letters to feel unique but please don't pretend it's the default form.

I linked the scientific paper to show, that your implication that only the "perpetrator" has fun in a submission fantasy role-play is blatantly false, as it's nothing new that it's in the top of female sexual fantasies (my wife who has studied sexuology was actually surprised that it's apparently breaking news for someone). There's a reason "safe words" exist because just saying "no, please stop!" is part of the experience.

So, your comment that two or more consenting adults who want to incorporate, or even base their RPG or even LARP exerience on adult themes, including submission fantasies must immediately stop and "go to hospital before they hurt someone" is just laughable. But yeah, I know, how can you feel morally superior if you don't come up with an imaginary explanation that what other people are doing is wrong. It's like satanic panic all over again...

If everyone at the table is okay with violent content, then go nuts.

If everyone at the table is okay with sexually explicit content, go nuts.

If someone at the table *isn't* on board for violent content, then don't do it.

If someone at the table *isn't* on board for sexual content, then don't do it.

However, many of the core mechanics for D&D are based around combat mechanics. That's not to say that other kinds of game can't be played, but mechanically, combat and violence (not necessarily gratuitous violence at that) are incentivised in D&D. Therefore, it's a little bit disingenuous to say that "why do you have a problem with sex but not with violence in D&D" when:
1. D&D is incentivised towards combat.
2. It's still a matter of consent. If the group is fine with violence but not something else, they're allowed to be.

I'd also like to mention that it's also totally fine to say at the table "okay, can we dial back the violence please?". This could be a case of the GM and players omitting certain descriptions of events, not having ridiculous scenes of mass carnage, not killing certain NPCs, or changing all moments where something hits 0 HP to them losing their nerve and fleeing, or falling unconscious.

The bottom line is that people have different standards, and we should respect those standards if people are made uncomfortable.

All of which is pretty much self-explanatory. It's a collaborative effort after all, so consent is the most fundamental prerequsite for the whole thing. It baffles me that any of this would even warrant discussion.

Sgt Smudge got it right. I also don't think a single person in this thread advocated staying in a situation that makes one uneasy or uncomfortable (or causing someone to be in such a situation on purpose).

It's only the notion that certain themes should be banned from all games everywhere on principle that provoked a debate.

Cyel wrote:

It's only the notion that certain themes should be banned from all games everywhere on principle that provoked a debate.

I'm sure gaming interpol would be super happy to enforce that.

XD

Cyel wrote:
Sgt Smudge got it right. I also don't think a single person in this thread advocated staying in a situation that makes one uneasy or uncomfortable (or causing someone to be in such a situation on purpose).

It's only the notion that certain themes should be banned from all games everywhere on principle that provoked a debate.

Exactly that.

Session 0 is one of the most important things in DnD, which is where you should set expectations.

But also, this OP could go on rpghorrorstories. Players who go to "I am crazy and I must Rape" are usually kind of gakky people to deal with anyways.

 Gert wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The modern world seems infinitely more horrific to me than the medieval one.

Yeah I'm sure you would have loved the Black Death, cholera, typhoid, dysentery, diphtheria, polio, TB, getting forced to work in the same job as your parents with no chance at any other life, getting conscripted to fight in a war because your Lord decided they want a bit more land, dying at the age of about 35 if you were lucky enough to make it past childhood, dying because you lost your hand in an accident and there was no real medicine to heal it, dying because you had a bad crop and there are no stores because agriculture is garbage.
I'm also sure you wouldn't miss electricity, clean water, a sewage system, modern medicine, and indoor heating. The modern world has serious problems but pretending the middle ages were better is just flat out wrong. At best you're dealing with social issues like racism, bigotry or watching democracy fall apart in front of you instead of immediate danger like those I listed above.

The fall apart of democracy leads to everyone not in the ingroup is rounded up and mass murdered though, so, that's a pretty intense worry for those of us not lilywhite and straighter then an arrow.

Cyel wrote:
Maybe an idyllic world doesn't easily offer powerful emotional investment and tough moral choices (which are the heart and soul of a worthy RPG) but a harsher, more realistic world does?

A lot of people don't want tough moral choices. They want a dungeon filled with monsters and loot to collect. It's not my preferred style, but there's nothing wrong with them being interested in playing the game for the joy of the systems and not the story.

So, again, lessons learned. Session zero got skipped because of real world situations, and even if we did have it, I doubt the player in question would have been like, "I like to murder and occasionally deal in some rapey shenanigans."

If I had known. Glad I left the group. I also think DnD has taken a hit recently. Covid fatigue has ruined a lot of people's ability to be cordial, thoughtful, and sociable. They just do things now, because there is a zoom screen seperating us. If this was a live in person game, I think the person in question would have acted differently, possibly out of fear of judgement.

Whoops wrong tab. my mistake!