Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Two points to be made.

1. There was less wrong with rape in a medieval and ancient culture.
When the Vikings carry off women what do you think they will do with them. Rape however is more than just a violation, and less, it was a way of finding a wife and building a tribe, not (only) a means of nasty R&R.
In many ancient and medieval cultures carrying off a wife was acceptable, to the victor go the spoils. Some of those wifes because slaves other full on wives.
I am not going to defend the practice as nuice, but I am going to defend the practice as part of ancient society, if you dont want your womenfolk carried off win battles. Also that bneing said rape was still rape, in cultures that carries off wves taking the daughter of a fellow barbarian, or his wife was a serious crime, and to be avenged. Once a women was part of the tribal unit they had rights, so casual rape was not in any way acceptable, even to cultures that carried off women from other cultures as standard plunder. Take the Vikings again they carried off a lot of wives and bondswomen, but to rape one would be a serious offense and you would have to pay her geld or pay in blood. Other cultures with similar practices like the Hebrews, Babylonians and Romans had very similar laws.

2. D&D is not a medieval or ancient culture, its a modern progressive culture with medieval technology.
D&D universes tend to be more gender equal than our own. For a start women that the same statlines, when they should take a Strength penalty, possibly also a Dex penalty. This would not expect to apply to non humans unless they were biologically similar to humans. Second there appears to be few if any gender limits to advancement. When you add all this together D&D may expect to be far more progressive towards womens rights in other areas.
Would the barbarian horde listen? Probably not.

How are half orcs made? I get the strong impression they are rape children. A number of half elves are likely similar, and some definitively are including the Dragonlance character Tanis.
Drow culture entrenches forced breeding of captives, and the whole slave society is prepetuated on rape, though of lesser races. Rape of Drow would be a different matter, and Drow are a highly matriarchial society also.


in all you cant really divorce rape from D&D, its steeped into the system background even at a core rules level.
Also a subset of evil characters can rape. The best way to handle this would be off stage.

Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women."
GM - Nods <Scene ends>
GM - Asks ofther players what they are doing.....
GM - "All that is left is the charred remains iof the foundations, the village is gone, Your Aniti paladin has had his fill, what is he to do next."

Take everything sordid offstage. The Antipaladin is now a marauder and a rapist and a despoiler of villages, and probably was already. Titles we would be adorning any anti pialadin or Warhammer Champion of Chaos.
Looking at Warhammer a moment. We don't get butthurt about playing Slaaneshi armies, and what do you think those guys do for R&R. The background has made is abundantly clear since the 80's that some Warhammer factions just are not nice, and that rape and debauchery are everyday actions to them.
Its ok to have all this in the system, but it occurs offstage.

I use the word offstage because highly controversial scenes have long been settled this way. Going back to the notation in Greek tragedy Medea will not kill her children on stage. Ancient stage direction long since taken as standard. When Anakin kills the younglings it happens off camera, when TE Lawrence calls 'No quarter' it happens off camera. There are exceptions, even to the cardinal rule of infanticide: Magda Goebbels kills her children on camera in all on screen depictions of the Feurer bunker because the object lesson overrides the objection to infanticide, aided by the fact that the children as sleeping.

Exeprtion again exists fro media intentionally made to shock or arouse, but D&D sessions and Warhammer games are not intended for that type of media.

All in all there is an issue but the linked article in the OP doesnt do justice to it.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
"Its impossible to describe male on female penetrative sex as anything other than the violent colonization of the female body by patriarchy."

A lovely quote from a professor during a gender & ethnicity class. It was at that point which I realized the magnitude of the insanity that follows the natural extension of ideological hyper-leftism.

That being said, any DM that doesn't say "way a minute, thats really fethed up" if their players decided to engage in fantasy rape is really not being a decent human being. No, "I'm playing an evil character" doesn't matter or count.

In ancient times Frazzled played DnD. Frazzled never ever ever heard anything like that.

"But I'm evil"
DM Frazzled: "So am I. A lightning bolt comes out of the sky and kills you. Now get the out of my house or I'll beat you with a bat you ."

The 80's: D&D will turn our kids to Satan!!!
The 90's/00's: Video games will turn our kids into school-shooting mass murderers!!!
Theh 10's: D&D/video games will turn our kids into instruments of the patriarchy!!!

Same song. Different words.

These people are not worth worrying about. They are pitiable.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why racist, though? I'm not white and I've never felt discriminated against.

Then clearly you've internalised racism.

At least, that's what these nut bars would have you believe.

Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women."
GM - Nods <Scene ends>
GM - Asks ofther players what they are doing.....
GM - "All that is left is the charred remains iof the foundations, the village is gone, Your Aniti paladin has had his fill, what is he to do next."

How it should be handled.
Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women."
GM: "Get out of my house you sick freak."

Alternatively:
Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women."
Wife walks by and absentmindedly pops Anti-paladin in the back of the head.

People that this are why we can't have nice conversations about gender equality

 Frazzled wrote:

Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women."
GM - Nods <Scene ends>
GM - Asks ofther players what they are doing.....
GM - "All that is left is the charred remains iof the foundations, the village is gone, Your Aniti paladin has had his fill, what is he to do next."

How it should be handled.
Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women."
GM: "Get out of my house you sick freak."

Alternatively:
Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women."
Wife walks by and absentmindedly pops Anti-paladin in the back of the head.

Do you play 40K or Warhammer Frazzie.
Would you refuse to play a guy who plays Slaaneshi armies?
What do you think they do for R&R?
Slaaneshi debauchery has never really been disguised, especially in Warhammer as opposed to 40K as the former is on a more personal level.

Systemic rape happens. In D%&D and Warhammer both its kept to the background.
Yuan-Ti breeding pits are rape camps, as the the ones operated by the Drow. Yuan-0Ti are covered even in computer games and the breeding pits are covered in th games for example Storm of Zehir. Its ok, because its underdescribed and while its obvious what is going on if you think about it you arent shown it, the characters just mash a whole lot of snakemen in their lair.

I wouldnt want to GM an evil campaign, but you can do one just just gloss over the sick stuff. You can also mask activities by remaining. Despoiling means to rape, pillage and destroy, its a paxckage deal. You could ask the player if he wants to despoil the village, if so clock off the hours and roll 1d4 for the number of eyewitness survivors who escape. T?hen move on, you don't have to and frankly shouldnt dwell on it.

Frankly the anti-alaldin analogy is unnecesasary this is more likely to happen in a narrative Warhammer campaign. If someone plays Slaaneshi or Darik Elves in particular despoiling will be a major activity. It puts an emphasis on why you are fighting.

Some people want to turn everything into an issue.

Do you play 40K or Warhammer Frazzie.

Yep, well used to mostly. I like tanks now...

Would you refuse to play a guy who plays Slaaneshi armies?

Nope because I'm playing toysoldiers. his toy soldiers aren't busy ing donkeys on the gaming table. They're blowing me off the table

What do you think they do for R&R?
Pro-tip they're not real.

Systemic rape happens. In D%&D and Warhammer both its kept to the background.

It didn't happen in role playing in DnD when I played it. Admittedly back then we used animal skins to keep track of our characters and had to occasionally take a break to fight off the errant cave bear. if this is something that occurs in DnD now its definitely a new thing, or something only weirdoes play acted.

Yuan-Ti breeding pits are rape camps, as the the ones operated by the Drow. Yuan-0Ti are covered even in computer games and the breeding pits are covered in th games for example Storm of Zehir. Its ok, because its underdescribed and while its obvious what is going on if you think about it you arent shown it, the characters just mash a whole lot of snakemen in their lair.

I'll be honest when I say I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I wouldnt want to GM an evil campaign, but you can do one just just gloss over the sick stuff. You can also mask activities by remaining. Despoiling means to rape, pillage and destroy, its a paxckage deal. You could ask the player if he wants to despoil the village, if so clock off the hours and roll 1d4 for the number of eyewitness survivors who escape. T?hen move on, you don't have to and frankly shouldnt dwell on it.

Again, WTF are you talking about? We killed orks and dragons when I played DnD. And ate a lot of chips.

 cincydooley wrote:
Upper body strength of women? Musta missed that one.

How is this, in any way, pertinent to anything being discussed in the thread?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Two points to be made.

1. There was less wrong with rape in a medieval and ancient culture.
When the Vikings carry off women what do you think they will do with them. Rape however is more than just a violation, and less, it was a way of finding a wife and building a tribe, not (only) a means of nasty R&R.
In many ancient and medieval cultures carrying off a wife was acceptable, to the victor go the spoils. Some of those wifes because slaves other full on wives.
I am not going to defend the practice as nuice, but I am going to defend the practice as part of ancient society, if you dont want your womenfolk carried off win battles. Also that bneing said rape was still rape, in cultures that carries off wves taking the daughter of a fellow barbarian, or his wife was a serious crime, and to be avenged. Once a women was part of the tribal unit they had rights, so casual rape was not in any way acceptable, even to cultures that carried off women from other cultures as standard plunder. Take the Vikings again they carried off a lot of wives and bondswomen, but to rape one would be a serious offense and you would have to pay her geld or pay in blood. Other cultures with similar practices like the Hebrews, Babylonians and Romans had very similar laws.

2. D&D is not a medieval or ancient culture, its a modern progressive culture with medieval technology.
D&D universes tend to be more gender equal than our own. For a start women that the same statlines, when they should take a Strength penalty, possibly also a Dex penalty. This would not expect to apply to non humans unless they were biologically similar to humans. Second there appears to be few if any gender limits to advancement. When you add all this together D&D may expect to be far more progressive towards womens rights in other areas.
Would the barbarian horde listen? Probably not.

How are half orcs made? I get the strong impression they are rape children. A number of half elves are likely similar, and some definitively are including the Dragonlance character Tanis.
Drow culture entrenches forced breeding of captives, and the whole slave society is prepetuated on rape, though of lesser races. Rape of Drow would be a different matter, and Drow are a highly matriarchial society also.


in all you cant really divorce rape from D&D, its steeped into the system background even at a core rules level.
Also a subset of evil characters can rape. The best way to handle this would be off stage.

Anti-paladin - "I round up the villagers, burn the homes, slughter their menfolk and rape the women."
GM - Nods <Scene ends>
GM - Asks ofther players what they are doing.....
GM - "All that is left is the charred remains iof the foundations, the village is gone, Your Aniti paladin has had his fill, what is he to do next."

Take everything sordid offstage. The Antipaladin is now a marauder and a rapist and a despoiler of villages, and probably was already. Titles we would be adorning any anti pialadin or Warhammer Champion of Chaos.
Looking at Warhammer a moment. We don't get butthurt about playing Slaaneshi armies, and what do you think those guys do for R&R. The background has made is abundantly clear since the 80's that some Warhammer factions just are not nice, and that rape and debauchery are everyday actions to them.
Its ok to have all this in the system, but it occurs offstage.

I use the word offstage because highly controversial scenes have long been settled this way. Going back to the notation in Greek tragedy Medea will not kill her children on stage. Ancient stage direction long since taken as standard. When Anakin kills the younglings it happens off camera, when TE Lawrence calls 'No quarter' it happens off camera. There are exceptions, even to the cardinal rule of infanticide: Magda Goebbels kills her children on camera in all on screen depictions of the Feurer bunker because the object lesson overrides the objection to infanticide, aided by the fact that the children as sleeping.

Exeprtion again exists fro media intentionally made to shock or arouse, but D&D sessions and Warhammer games are not intended for that type of media.

All in all there is an issue but the linked article in the OP doesnt do justice to it.

I agree with all of this, right up to the implication that players shouldn't be castigated for engaging in fantasy rape.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Upper body strength of women? Musta missed that one.

How is this, in any way, pertinent to anything being discussed in the thread?

You should probably read all the posts in the thread. I was responding to another poster.

From Manchu:

Witness on Dakka Dakka the countless arguments over the upper body strength of women.

 chromedog wrote:
Yes, it happens.

At a con I attended (many years ago, D&D was still a TSR product and still in 2nd ed) I heard a tale that in one of the D&D games a party raped and killed a dryad then resurrected her and did it again - with the DM chortling along with the all male group.

Now, ordinarily, I'd have not lent much credence to that story - except I knew two of the players, and they HAD done similar things in other games run at my club.

They were one of the reasons rpg players had such a bad rep at cons back then (miniature gamers were tame in comparison).

I only played in 2 D&D campaigns ever so I'm not very well versed in how these things are supposed to happen, but that is some weirdo gak that was going on there, the campaigns that I was involved in usually consisted in killing baddies and getting mad loots, not re-enacting someone's sick rape-murder-rape fantasy!

Agreed. Its a game not real life. Else we'd be swimming in E-Bola and Isis would be randomly beheading player characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
Yes, it happens.

At a con I attended (many years ago, D&D was still a TSR product and still in 2nd ed) I heard a tale that in one of the D&D games a party raped and killed a dryad then resurrected her and did it again - with the DM chortling along with the all male group.

Now, ordinarily, I'd have not lent much credence to that story - except I knew two of the players, and they HAD done similar things in other games run at my club.

They were one of the reasons rpg players had such a bad rep at cons back then (miniature gamers were tame in comparison).

I only played in 2 D&D campaigns ever so I'm not very well versed in how these things are supposed to happen, but that is some weirdo gak that was going on there, the campaigns that I was involved in usually consisted in killing baddies and getting mad loots, not re-enacting someone's sick rape-murder-rape fantasy!

Exactly.

So spending hours on imaginary murder and wholesale genocide is perfectly fine. Spending a sentence suggesting imaginary rape is wrong, apparently. I wonder if this is some American/Christian "sex bad/violence good" thing, or if it's something else.

Our games don't contain rape (other than that one time a succubus got the better of me), but I personally don't care or judge other people for it if their games do. We're classy people and our poor DM gets uncomfortable even talking about sex. I generally leave judgement of what people do in private groups behind closed doors to conservatives and liberals. Besides, it's periodically accurate, and things like half-orcs stop making sense without it.

I don't even know if I would mind it that much if it did come up in a game. I mean, some creature is known to do what is generally regarded as the most vile, terrible thing something can do, worse than wiping out civilizations of things simply for what they are even, well, that will only make my judgement and destruction of said horrible creature that much more appropriate and swift.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
Yes, it happens.

At a con I attended (many years ago, D&D was still a TSR product and still in 2nd ed) I heard a tale that in one of the D&D games a party raped and killed a dryad then resurrected her and did it again - with the DM chortling along with the all male group.

Now, ordinarily, I'd have not lent much credence to that story - except I knew two of the players, and they HAD done similar things in other games run at my club.

They were one of the reasons rpg players had such a bad rep at cons back then (miniature gamers were tame in comparison).

I only played in 2 D&D campaigns ever so I'm not very well versed in how these things are supposed to happen, but that is some weirdo gak that was going on there, the campaigns that I was involved in usually consisted in killing baddies and getting mad loots, not re-enacting someone's sick rape-murder-rape fantasy!

Okay, yeah, this is what I'd consider on the creepy side.

To me, it's more one of those things where if it's not graphically described, yeah, I get it, this is a terrible thing/person we're dealing with here. Bunch of Orcs kill all the men of a village and take the noncombatants as slaves? Well, we better hurry before things get really bad. If it's one of the players or it gets into detail, then it becomes a little fethed up.

PhantomViper wrote:

I only played in 2 D&D campaigns ever so I'm not very well versed in how these things are supposed to happen, but that is some weirdo gak that was going on there, the campaigns that I was involved in usually consisted in killing baddies and getting mad loots, not re-enacting someone's sick rape-murder-rape fantasy!

D&D has three evil alignments. Some people are interested in playing the villain of a game, so these alignments sometimes get used. Other game systems don't even have alignments, and leave morality up to the players. Sometimes players create characters who are not nice people (even though the person playing them isn't a baby raping axe murderer). Campaigns that involve player characters doing bad things to NPCs exist. Generally, they are not the majority of cases, but it helps to understand that they are out there.

Now, how a GM and their players handle an evil campaign speaks a lot about them as people. If they handle the more brutal acts "offscreen" as has been suggested, they are probably mentally well-adjusted people who are just exploring the bad side of fantasy RPGs. If they are like the table full of douchecrackers who rape every female NPC they encounter and laugh about it, they probably shouldn't be permitted to interact with other human beings.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The 80's: D&D will turn our kids to Satan!!!
The 90's/00's: Video games will turn our kids into school-shooting mass murderers!!!
Theh 10's: D&D/video games will turn our kids into instruments of the patriarchy!!!

Same song. Different words.

Just a question: did people in the 80's saying D&D will turn kids to Satan play D&D?
Did the people in the 90's saying video games will turn kids to mass murderers (Hello Mr Milo Yiannopoulos. I am very happy for you that now GJW have forgiven you and they love you!) play video games?

Let us look at another article from him on his website:
http://analoggamestudies.org/2014/08/from-where-do-dungeons-come/
So, dungeons because of the cold war? Seems pretty far-stretched for me, but also does not really carry any kind of negative implications. I think this guy is really about analyzing, maybe even overanalyzing games, rather than trying to launch a campaign against games. I mean, certainly he says nowhere that “D&D will make people sexists”, but rather that people's bias made it into the game. Basically the other way around. You can not see him advocating anywhere for removing games, but you can see him advocating for changing some stuff about them. Really, I do not think your comparison has any relevancy.

squidhills wrote:


D&D has three evil alignments. Some people are interested in playing the villain of a game, so these alignments sometimes get used. Other game systems don't even have alignments, and leave morality up to the players. Sometimes players create characters who are not nice people (even though the person playing them isn't a baby raping axe murderer). Campaigns that involve player characters doing bad things to NPCs exist. Generally, they are not the majority of cases, but it helps to understand that they are out there.

Now, how a GM and their players handle an evil campaign speaks a lot about them as people. If they handle the more brutal acts "offscreen" as has been suggested, they are probably mentally well-adjusted people who are just exploring the bad side of fantasy RPGs. If they are like the table full of douchecrackers who rape every female NPC they encounter and laugh about it, they probably shouldn't be permitted to interact with other human beings.

Oh, I understand all about the evil alignments and I usually prefer to play evil characters or races myself, but there are definitely some lines that I think shouldn't be crossed in a game and that story not only crossed them so much as completely obliterated them.

If my character decides to sell all of those villagers to be slaves for a Slaneeshi cult, then no harm no foul, this is a game, there are no actual real consequences for that.
But if I narrate the "despoiling" as it happens then its not only my character doing anything, its my actual mind imagining those things and that seems more than a bit wrong to me.

 LuciusAR wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Yeah, in a world with wizards, bizarre monsters, etc, it's just completely unbelievable that women and men could be equal and the world wouldn't duplicate real-world power structures. This lack of realism just kills D&D for me.

Sorry but it's just because a fictional world has fantasy elements doesn’t mean that it's not supposed to be Medieval. Trying to project modern social norms onto worlds that, though fictional, are still clearly based on a particular historic period with vastly different norms is just silly.

It's just not D&D until I hear some back woods yokel refer to the party's Dark Elf as "that damned n***** elf".

 Frazzled wrote:
They're blowing me off the table

Was this meant to be a Slaaneshi pun?

 Orlanth wrote:


Systemic rape happens. In D%&D and Warhammer both its kept to the background.
Yuan-Ti breeding pits are rape camps, as the the ones operated by the Drow. Yuan-0Ti are covered even in computer games and the breeding pits are covered in th games for example Storm of Zehir. Its ok, because its underdescribed and while its obvious what is going on if you think about it you arent shown it, the characters just mash a whole lot of snakemen in their lair.

Wasn't one of the old D&D 1st ed modules taken off the market because the comic in it actually contained a portrayal(or at least the "just about to happen" scene) of goblins raping a female captive?

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They're blowing me off the table

Was this meant to be a Slaaneshi pun?

The answer is simply PhantomViper, don't narrate the despoiling.

When a Slaanesh warband despoils a village its going to be different from when a Khorne warband does so.

nobody needs to go into it. The example of reducing the women captured by D&D orcs is well chosen, you know why they were spared and the menfolk not, you don't need to describe why.
You could make it plain to everyone "Let us rescue them befroe they get ravaged." No further description is required.

Meanwhile an evil party with a band of orc mercenaries might give over the women of a village to the orcs. We know why they want them as pay, nobody needs to go into it.
Said eveil pary could be players or adversaries.

As a rule of thumb I don't normally encourage evil parties, if players want one I allow it to happen, but play through the consequences of their evil. Evil is not heroic, the arch villain gives heroes a 'sporting chance' because fate dictates that to happen, vile scum get no second chances as Fate rejects them.
In the example given before I am not interested in describing a despoiled village except by dscrigbing ruins. I am very interested in the survivors who get away, and I normally allow survivors to get away from the players because as we know from real life survivors happen.
In the end it's safer not to play evil, the only reason we do is to have multiple parties at odds with each other, and the villains are only loosely handled.
I recommedn this by the way, give the players two characters, one starting good or neutral character and one fairly high level evil 'mini boss'. Players end up making their own additions to the meta plot (though the real end bosses are all full NPC). It gives the players insifght into evil and their own semi-PC's become targets for the actual party.
It also covers up plot holes, if your players think there is a flaw in your campaign they have limited authority to fix it from the point of view of the bad guys. The heroes being a lot weaker have to stay under their radar.

 daedalus wrote:
So spending hours on imaginary murder and wholesale genocide is perfectly fine. Spending a sentence suggesting imaginary rape is wrong, apparently. I wonder if this is some American/Christian "sex bad/violence good" thing, or if it's something else.

I think you are on the right track. There is something almost Victorian about the idiom of gender ideology in this country. Maybe it is because there is so much posturing around this topic? People (and companies) are so worried about being labeled sexist or homophobic or whatever else that they get a bit proactively shrill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
You can not see him advocating anywhere for removing games, but you can see him advocating for changing some stuff about them. Really, I do not think your comparison has any relevancy.

I think HBMC has a good point. In Olden Tymes, when you wanted to get rid of something you tried to marginalize it. Anti-D&D campaigners portrayed D&D players as freaks on the fringes of society who no one should trust. These days, people oppose things by subverting them from within. Instead of banning D&D, today's moral crusaders want to transform D&D into something they find acceptable.

PhantomViper wrote:

But if I narrate the "despoiling" as it happens then its not only my character doing anything, its my actual mind imagining those things and that seems more than a bit wrong to me.

Agreed. I've run evil campaigns in the past and that (thankfully) hasn't been an issue. If I got someone at the table who did that, I'd tell them to stop talking and see me after game for a scolding. People who want to describe each and every vile act their character commits in detail are people who have serious issues and need phsycological counselling, and I ain't getting paid to do that at game.

 Manchu wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
So spending hours on imaginary murder and wholesale genocide is perfectly fine. Spending a sentence suggesting imaginary rape is wrong, apparently. I wonder if this is some American/Christian "sex bad/violence good" thing, or if it's something else.

I think you are on the right track. There is something almost Victorian about the idiom of gender ideology in this country. Maybe it is because there is so much posturing around this topic? People (and companies) are so worried about being labeled sexist or homophobic or whatever else that they get a bit proactively shrill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
You can not see him advocating anywhere for removing games, but you can see him advocating for changing some stuff about them. Really, I do not think your comparison has any relevancy.

I think HBMC has a good point. In Olden Tymes, when you wanted to get rid of something you tried to marginalize it. Anti-D&D campaigners portrayed D&D players as freaks on the fringes of society who no one should trust. These days, people oppose things by subverting them from within. Instead of banning D&D, today's moral crusaders want to transform D&D into something they find acceptable.

Actually no. We never went around slaughtering villagers. Just orks and other wee beasties, usually in dungeons.
This is making me wonder - what the hell happened to DnD?

 Manchu wrote:
I think HBMC has a good point. In Olden Tymes, when you wanted to get rid of something you tried to marginalize it. Anti-D&D campaigners portrayed D&D players as freaks on the fringes of society who no one should trust.

People in favour of gun control evidently missed that memo

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually no.

No what? How does this respond to my post?

Also -- you keep posting as if your experience with D&D is universal. Why?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
People in favour of gun control evidently missed that memo

Remember when S&W bowed to gun control nuts on trigger locks? Don't want to go too far off-topic here. The subversion tactic is no secret, either: you find that language throughout the post-modern manifesto genre (in which I include most contemporary writing on "inclusivity").

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually no.

No what? How does this respond to my post?

Also -- you keep posting as if your experience with D&D is universal. Why?

1. Read the post, don't stop at no.
2. Because I'm an OP (Original Playa).

The counterarguments being made actually are right out of the playbook arguing these things are in fact misogynistic.
If people are going around playing out rape fantasies then they're 100% on point. I'm frankly shocked because we never ever did any of that. Thats just fethed up.
Further, when we played DnD we were comic book age kids.

 Frazzled wrote:

Actually no. We never went around slaughtering villagers. Just orks and other wee beasties, usually in dungeons.
This is making me wonder - what the hell happened to DnD?

Books containing monster ecology happened. More importantly, and I can't say for how much this would have been done back then, nor why it would have changed, but you can apply a Twilight Zone or I Am Legend (the book) twist on the viewpoint of the game:

Yes, you never went around slaughtering (human) villagers. You slaughtered encampments of orcs and other wee beasties, in their homes (dungeons) though. In the name of Good. Maybe it was you and your party that were the monsters.

We jokingly refer to the Pathfinder Society as a "den of psycho murder death hobos" during our games for this reason.

I play a lot of roleplaying games, and I have no problem with rape as a feature of the story, but I don't go in for ERP even if it's consensual and I think that is the same for the overwhelming majority of players.

 Manchu wrote:
These days, people oppose things by subverting them from within.

Like, for instance, the people that opposed D&D now oppose gay marriage, or the legalization of marijuana, by subverting it from within.
I am not convinced.

 Manchu wrote:
Instead of banning D&D, today's moral crusaders want to transform D&D into something they find acceptable.

So, you are saying those peoples that play D&D want to transform D&D into something they find acceptable?