Erato's page

OTOH, having land be worth vastly more than can possibly be earned from it in a lifetime of farming is nonsensical. At least in an agricultural economy. If I have a choice between earning say 200 gp a year from my land (not counting living expenses and the like) and selling the land for ~10000gp, which would be enough to live on for 50 years?

AFAIR, some people did just that. Only, they weren't farmers (since few farmers owned land), they were mostly kings (since kings usually owned lots of land). It worked like this: King goes to war, king needs extra cash/troops, king sells/gives land away to rich nobles in exchange for money and military support, and a few generations later the crown is in dire straits because of a lowered income and a dependence on a powerful aristocracy. Historically speaking, giving away land for temporary benefits have been among the biggest mistakes a monarch could make, and most only did it in times of extreme need.

Part of the issue is that you're you're operating within the timeframe of a single generation. For you, losing a source of eternal income for a huge amount of cash is worth it because it's worth it for you, and maybe your children, and you figure that anyone after that can just go out and get work to support themselves. But if you do that in a medieval style world, your grandchildren were likely to end up as beggars, so people at that time operated within a completely different timeframe. Perhaps you don't have things like medieval or renaissance churches in your area to take your example from, but plenty of those took the better part of a century or more to build. They were started by people who knew, without a sliver of doubt, that they would not see it finished, and neither would their children. But they did it anyway. It's simply a case of Reality is Unrealistic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic) because most of us are used to thinking only of ourselves.

How about we skip the beefcake and just get some good-looking guys instead?

the rogue sounds essential for performing duties necessary to adventuring that are not combat oriented. You mention yourself that he's an excellent trapfinder.

That's one function, and from what the OP mentioned, he hasn't done a very good job at it, nor has it been very necessary. And that doesn't excuse not trying to do his best when his comrades' lives are at stake.

Do your other 5 combat-optimized party members even really NEED his assistance in combat? If he has found his place to shine in non-combat situations, maybe that's the best for all of you concerned. If he turned his character into a flanking, backstabbing machine, maybe he would end up stealing the spotlight from you or one of the other PCs who delight in their contributions to combat (but not so much to other in game situations).

To the point: if 5 of you already have combat covered, why is it so important to you that #6 also jumps in (when in my perspective, he might just step on your toes)?

The OP mentioned that several other characters have already died, and that the rogue has been asked to help out several times but has refused. So he is, in fact, already stealing the spotlight by turning himself into the centre of a conflict about whether it's fair he asks others to risk their lives so that he can have fun from the back.

Also, merely being a decent combatant will never be enough to steal the spotlight from any moderately optimised combat focussed character. If the party was strolling past encounters with no trouble and no danger, it would be excusable to stand back and not contribute in combat, but no matter, merely contributing is NOT stealing the spotlight.

Now, that being said, I don't know what your adventures are like. The games I tend to play tend to be 50-70% exploring, trap-finding, skill-using, and roleplaying; and only 30-50% combat or similarly immediate-danger/damage dealing situations. So in one of MY games, the rogue would have a LOT to do and would definitely be pulling his weight (and indeed, someone who designed their character purely around combat might feel bored if I or another GM wasn't careful to make sure he had stuff to do).

Even if your campaigns are over 15% traps, which would be required for a character whose only contribution was trapfinding to do his equal share, it's considered only fair that everybody contributes in the fights. 6 characters wont disarm a trap better than 1, especially not if 5 of them don't have disable device, but 6 character will be more likely to win fight than 5, especially if they all know how to fight (which a rogue above level 10 definitely does).

As has been mentioned before, even peaceful scientist Daniel Jackson from Stargate carries a gun just in case, and he already contributes much more than the rogue. Jonathan from The Mummy, despite being a coward and only being in the story because he's related to Evelyn, took risks in order to help save his companions. Hell, even the freaking HOBBITS in LotR, who were basically the group's morality pets, took sword lessons in order to contribute. This makes me wonder what special reason this character has for being so deliberately useless and unhelpful. And no “It's his character” doesn't cut it, there would need to be some kind of explanation for what exactly causes this character to be that way, and why the rest of the group should be expected to put up with it.

However, if he's having fun, and he is not keeping YOU from doing what YOU want to do as a player, I am having trouble seeing the problem--so what am I missing here?

Obviously he's keeping the OP from having fun, or he wouldn't have started this thread. First off, losing characters is never fun. It needs to be a theoretical possibility for the danger to feel real, but that doesn't mean people are interested in playing in a party with constantly changing members. It also strains suspension of disbelief that the character is acting like a jerk and the other characters just let him. That's metagaming, keeping him in the party because he's an out-of-game friend. And if the characters are professional adventurers (which is a pretty common premise for a game), it makes little sense for them to keep a largely useless character around, even if said character is their friend, which isn't even established yet.

I don't feel that the player the OP is talking about is a role player, I just think he is trying to get a kick out of derailing the game. I would take the player to the side and tell him he needs to either change the way he is playing this character or role a character that can better be of use to the party. He needs to stray away from being a one trick pony all this character seemed to be able to do is find traps.

Hence why I said self-identified ;-)

Many, perhaps most, of the people who make a big deal about how they're ROLEPLAYERS make at least one of two mistakes, the first being that they get so obsessed with what a character is like that they completely neglect to take into account what this character's current situation is like. The character exists in a vacuum, always running by a pre-conceived script regardless of what happens, and worse, the 'roleplayer' expects the rest of the party to be completely fine with this, because it's 'in character'.

The concept of a cowardly character who avoids combat is fine, in a vacuum. But unless the character is a sociopath or severely mentally retarded, watching your companions die because you think it's more fun to try to cast first level spells from scrolls than getting some archery lessons from the fighter, and not learn from that mistake, is not considered a realistic reaction for most people, not even for a coward. And it requires a very strong in-game explanation for the other characters to just accept it.

*sigh* I was wondering when someone would bring up this old chestnut again.

This is another variant of the old "porn promotes bad thoughts in people" argument.

Really? Even though I didn't mention porn at all, let alone said it was bad? And even though I was not discussing explicit sex vs. no sex, but rather the implications of willing slavery vs. unwilling slavery? And this from a guy who's so uptight and conservative that he considers bare female breasts to be enough to almost push something into porn? Your prejudice is showing.

It's been around since there was porn, and it's never been proven - such "studies" that claim they do prove it are either poorly conducted, trying to twist the facts to suit a preexisting conclusion, or just don't exist.

You do not understand what I'm talking about. You have a very specific perspective and it doesn't occur to you that anyone else doesn't share it. You distinguish between sex/sexiness and lack of sex/sexiness, and measures it according to how explicit it is. Please try to understand that not only is it not my focus, it is not even a priority.

The studies I refer to did not measure the effects of explicit sex, or porn if you will, they measured the difference in reaction between people exposed to descriptions of consensual sex/romance, forced sex/romance in which the victim is clearly distraught, and the “NO!, NO, no, yes, YES!” dynamic. I even recall one of them specifically used a romance movie that was rated suitable for children. I would be interested in some studies measuring the effect of portrayals of willing and enjoyable BDSM too, to get a more nuanced picture, but regardless of that, it's still a completely different phenomenon than the effect of wanking material in general.

Also, I wasn't even talking about your wanking material to begin with, I was answering the argument that portrayals of willing slavery are inherently less problematic or insulting than portrayals of unwilling slavery, because it's an area I happen to some experience in. That's it.

I don't particularly want to retreat this particular topic, but I did feel the point had to be addressed. For what is probably the best debate on this particular topic you're going to find on the internet, I refer you to Zak Sabbath vs. Greg Christopher.

I'm not interested in your particular topic either. I don't know if you're from the USA, but generally, I don't like talking porn with American progressives because few of them appear to have any perspective beyond “Sexual services directed at (straight) men=good, everybody who dislikes anything which includes fanservice for (straight) men for any reason=nasty prudes who need to be put in their place by being told how stupid they are.”

It might just be that conservative censorship has made them all defensive, but describe a (fictive) harem filled with women who're lorded over by a patriarch and covered up completely because of modesty issues, and US progressives will fall over themselves to condemn it as misogynist. Describe the same harem, but give the women tiny metal bikinis and make it clear they have a lot of sex, and many of the same progressives praise it for being edgy and sexy (as long as the women are young and pretty, otherwise it's suddenly not edgy but disgusting), and assume that everybody who has a problem with it must have an issue with sex or porn. It's like the amount of asscheeks shown is what gets to decide what's progressive and not, and the “lorded over by a patriarch” part doesn't enter into it.

So really, I can't relate to your perspective at all (and a good thing I can't, believing my own breasts to be genitals and perceiving every instance of me not hiding them as tantamount to porn would probably drive me crazy), and until you're willing to discuss something other than nudity and perceived porn, I'm not going to consider you as having addressed any point I made at all.

A slave is forced to do things against his/her will, as far as I can tell this 'sekirei' folk enjoy being like pets, they feel love for their master, much like a dog would feel about it's owner, you wouldn't call a dog a slave.

This shows a profound lack of understanding about basic sexual implications. Many rape fantasy stories, perhaps even most, portray the victim as enjoying the act. It's a matter of the rapist giving the victim what she (and it's almost always a she) really wanted all along, so it's not really a violation at all. Perhaps not even rape (e.g. “it's not rape if they enjoy it/you can't rape the willing”).

While these fantasies are not wrong per se (assuming the fantasiser knows it's fantasy), the implications of it are far more damaging (and insulting) than portrayals of 'actual' rape. Many studies show that exposure to the “NO!, NO, no, no...... yes, YES!”-dynamic increases rape myth acceptance, tolerance of interpersonal violence, and hostility towards women far more than exposure to rape scenes where the victim is clearly not happy about the outcome.

In regards to willing slavery (which, as you say, isn't really slavery), the same dynamic appears to hold true. Many people find it far more hurtful and insulting when slavery is described as something the victims want, and the unfortunate implications are much stronger when we're talking about an entire race meant to be slaves, as opposed to individuals choosing, or being appointed, to serve someone (which is the usual method of gaining companions). And that's not taking into account that people have willingly submitted themselves to slavery in the real world, which doesn't make it any more right. Also, Gor.

From what I can gather this is a different race, they are not human, they are 'sekirei', they are closer to augmented animal companions or paladin mounts. They just so happen to be humanoid and somewhat attractive, so sex is not off the table.

They don't happen to be humanoid, they're made to look completely human except for a pink crest between their shoulder blades. And sex is not “not off the table” it's their main purpose.

I see how this could offend some people, but come on, this is something akin to what you would find in Book of Erotic Fantasy and the like. It's harmless words on a paper that some people find funny/fun. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

I agree with TryOmegaZero in the sense that a bunch of sweaty dudes playing romance with each other is not my idea of a good game night, but hey, it must be someone's cup of tea or else books like Erotic Fantasy and the like wouldn't exist, so what's wrong with them having their fun? Why can't they?

Keep in mind that female gamers do exist, and that some couples play one on one, so this kind of material could be of their interest.

Actually, Book of Erotic Fantasy is miles above this. It was just as mechanically wonky, and in some places just as immature and needlessly graphic, but it had one redeeming quality which easily puts it in the top when it comes to RPG material: It didn't treat sex as the act of men and women coming together to work on the common goal of satisfying the man. Most male gamers (and perhaps even most people in general), and thereby most RPG material, seem to have severe difficulties comprehending that women have a sexuality which goes beyond a need for men to like them. Not surprising given how our society treats female sexuality (i.e. it hardly ever mentions it), but still just as frustrating.

Our culture centres around men to such an extreme degree that sexuality often comes to be synonymous with male desire, and sexiness synonymous with whatever men desire. RPGs are worse. Open a D&D book, any of them, and you can be almost certain to see a majority of male characters, male pronouns, and assumptions of maleness, and be even more certain that the images of female characters that are represented will be more humanoid, more physically attractive, more scantily dressed (especially in a sexy way), and more likely to pose in a way that draws attention to their sexiness (if specific female characters are referred to, they will not only be less numerous than the male ones, but also be more likely to be of lower level and even have lower ability scores, and for some reason be less likely to be of an evil alignment – at least this holds true for the books I looked in). The Pathfinder core book is the first d20 book I've seen with more female than male iconics. It still fails miserably when it comes to balance in sexiness, but a good deal of that is probably just that Wayne Reynolds seems to be incapable of making sexy men.

Anyway, the above is not meant to be this giant rant about the evils of mainstream society, but just to explain that as a female gamer who don't mind sexuality in RPGs at all, the vast majority of 'sexy' material is not made with people like me in mind, and doesn't hold a lot of appeal. On the other hand, I've experienced more than my fair share of having it directed at me in a less than friendly way – male characters committing rape without the players asking anyone if it was an element they wanted in their game, having my character impregnated against my will, having my character indirectly threatened with sexual slavery (again, without the DM asking if it was an element I was comfortable with), and being told that since the D&D world was 'medieval', it meant that aggressive and insulting sexual slurs was just something I had to live with if I wanted to play a female character.

And precisely because I actually like when elements of sex and romance are included, the last thing I want is something like what the OP described. It's not only mechanically unsound, but the whole concept is just the tired old fantasy of beautiful women being submissive so that a guy can get off. There's the theoretical possibility that the object of desire can be male, and the subject female, but the source material is male-centred, the gendered pronoun used in the article is female (even though it's grammatically incorrect), the example character is female (bonded to a male master), and there are three images featuring a total of seven girls and no guys. It's cliché, and so far, I have heard of exactly zero female gamers who're interested in this kind of stuff.

And I used the term Pokemon loosely to mean "generic bonded creature under your control", I might as well call them "Humanoid Eidolons".

I think making them a humanoid race of primarily women who're made to be sexually submissive is well beyond what's otherwise described in the rules. The summoner in my group explained his eidolon as an extraplanetary creature who wants to experience the material plane but can't leave by itself, and has made a deal with the summoner to assist him in return for him calling it there. That's possible because the descriptions are vague enough to let people make up their own story. Even companions who're more specifically explained don't come with the same unfortunate implications. Paladins receive their mounts to aid them in their crusade against evil, and druids' animal companions are animals, not intelligent creatures.

This, in contrast, is just a bunch of programmed sex slaves who have no other purpose than serving someone for no reason at all. It's wanking material, plain and simple. And the OP seems to acknowledge this, which is nice. It's less nice that some people seem to have trouble understanding that something like this is only usable in very specific situations, mostly when a certain type of guys want to wank together with other guys but for some reason don't want to look at porn. In that context, it's not particularly sexist or otherwise problematic, but take it out of that specific context, and it almost certainly will be.