An Idea for a main Bad Guy: Do any of you Find it Offensive?


Homebrew and House Rules

151 to 200 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Of course, there's always the middle ground! I prefer my hobgoblins to be into girls. Male sex slavery really float my boat at all, really.


chaoseffect wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Problems begin when one group tries to tell the others that They're Doing It Wrong.
But how will they know they suck if I don't tell them? I don't understand...

Your failure to understand stems from a single universal truth, and that truth is that you are the only one sucking :3


Gorbacz wrote:
Of course, there's always the middle ground! I prefer my hobgoblins to be into girls. Male sex slavery doesn't really float my boat at all, really.

You're sorta okay with creepy rapist stories being highlighted, but you're scared of big burly men who'd wanna party with you? :D

EDIT: This is getting silly even by my standards.


Icyshadow wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Problems begin when one group tries to tell the others that They're Doing It Wrong.
But how will they know they suck if I don't tell them? I don't understand...
Your failure to understand stems from a single universal truth, and that truth is that you are the only one sucking :3

I'm not sure I like your snide insinuations :O


Gorbacz wrote:
Of course, there's always the middle ground! I prefer my hobgoblins to be into girls.

Does this 'being into girls' include the preferrence any female Hobgoblin might have?

SCNR


Completely agree with Mikaze and Icyshadow in their thoughts on the 'rape plotline' side discussion. As for my 2c on a couple of other things I saw...

sunshadow21 wrote:
More like, "It's Pathfinder, you should expect a much darker world than the one we live in. If that's a problem, speak up now so we can figure out if this is the system you want to be playing in."

I don't see how this is true of the Pathfinder system at all. It's capable of running many different types of game and in no way has to be limited to an extremely dark world. As for Golarion itself there are dark elements in it, sure. But there are a lot of elements that aren't very dark as well, again it's a perfectly fine world to run a game that doesn't hit any especially dark areas.

Shifty wrote:


I don't think that at all.

I just don't accept that subjects should be withdrawn arbitrarily on the grounds that someone might find something offensive.

In the abstract, all subjects are valid.

I've seen this said a couple of times while going through the thread and I'm still not entirely sure what is meant by it. There isn't some master list of what subjects are valid to include in a roleplaying game and which subjects are not. All that matters is what threshold for 'validity' subjects have in the context of a given gaming group. And I can't help but believe that far more groups believe that 'killing orcs' is a valid subject than there are who believe the inclusion of rape is valid.


Berik wrote:
There isn't some master list of what subjects are valid to include in a roleplaying game and which subjects are not.

There's NOT?!


Detect Magic wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
To wu, I had one char that went the rape option. Once. Truly a horrible chap, Brutus the master grappler.

Holy s#+@, dude. You aren't embarrassed about this? You feel the need to announce, hey, I played a rapist, ain't no thing.

Wow, dude. Wow.

Aren't you overreacting? It's not like he was there with the character raping someone. He played (in a game, using words) a CE character. The end.

Yep, and no, not embarrassed. As a dm, I've played far worse characters. Brutus was a boy-scout compared. Well, maybe not quite a boyscout, he did strangle succubi and tear the head off a pit fiend. This was before the assassin crossed his path. Silly save vs death.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

I think I've just been called Gallant. It's rather unnerving. I feel like I should do something evil to erase the taint of goodness.

* Goes to animal shelter, adopts a wagon-full of puppies, and kicks them all. Then turns them back into animal shelter with the excuse "They're defective." *

Besides, when I feel the need to have a rape RPG, I play FATAL! FATAL, the most highly realistic and historically accurate rape simulator in tabletop RPG gaming!

disclaimer: Playing FATAL may cause an intense desire to pour industrial strength bleach directly onto your brain for a prolonged period.

I have been informed by a gay roleplayer (not a roleplayer that plays gays) that FATAL's anal circumference rules were incorrect. It can be... conditioned. I am sorry to all who read this.


chaoseffect wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
You seem to assume common violence always leaves the same amount of mental scars as being raped does, and that is rather sad.
The sheer amount of combat and the shocking amount of brutality that goes with hacking someone to death or blowing them up isn't really what you could consider "common violence", and it does leave mental scars with PTSD being an example.

Yes, I've emphasised the messiness, the shock and the gore after some particularly horrible battles/skirmishes/duels. You are a mess, flesh is hanging, you got the last cut in, but nearly died.


Icyshadow wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

It's OK folks, some people get a kick from acting out a world where rape doesn't exist, women are treated fairly everywhere and Equestria is a thing, some prefer a world where they get to kick the seven shades out of a sex slave trafficking hobgoblin gang, and some prefer to play members of said gang. It's all different shades of our hobby.

Problems begin when one group tries to tell the others that They're Doing It Wrong.

I like kicking the seven shades out of a sex slave trafficking hobgoblin gang myself, but I do NOT need to be told in graphic detail of their pastimes to cement said hatred and possibly damage my psyche, or that of anyone else at the table, because our intention was TO HAVE FUN. Also, advocating the whole "there are only two sides in this" thing only makes the arguing worse, since there are people who'd like to have at least some middle ground instead of leaning to one extreme or the other.

You'll be fine icy. Listening to a storyteller won't really damage your psyche. If I could take sanity points, I'd be a shoggoth.

Hmm, middle ground. Yes, my fantasy worlds can be quite pretty, nice with good-hearted people. Then there is everywhere else, with most places not being an idyllic retirement spot. Wandering monsters anyone, that will kill and devour the flesh and bones of those they kill? Crunch munch munch.


Icyshadow wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Of course, there's always the middle ground! I prefer my hobgoblins to be into girls. Male sex slavery doesn't really float my boat at all, really.

You're sorta okay with creepy rapist stories being highlighted, but you're scared of big burly men who'd wanna party with you? :D

EDIT: This is getting silly even by my standards.

In my extreme world, with rape, monsters that eat souls and plants that make you die horribly of poison there are also homosexuals. I make sure they aren't all painted incredibly negatively either. It isn't a big thing. At least they aren't having abortions!


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Rape is in my world, but it isn't as common as apples. I put it another way, if a char dies after much torture, I will simply say, you are captured, you die horribly. I'll let my eyes and voice emphasise it was a bad death. Won't go too much into the details.

This is generally have I've seen it handled, and how I would handle it myself. It's there, but not likely the subject would ever actually be discussed in detail or even broached in most cases. The only times I've seen it covered in more detail or more extensively is one of the players reacts to it in such a way to do make it extended.

AMiB, I think you are getting a bit too caught up in a specific example to see my bigger argument here. It really doesn't matter what the subject is, the only way a player can truly 100% avoid a subject is to be the DM themselves or get all of the other players to agree with them that certain things should never be brought up. No subject is that hard to avoid if the group as a whole is willing to avoid it, but if it's just one player, than chances are the player probably needs to find a different group or at least wait for a different campaign with the same group for a myriad of other reasons as well. A single player does not have final veto power of the game's content, ever, and really doesn't need it. If it's truly that problematic to the group, like rape tends to be, the group will automatically self enforce their level of tolerance, and it works itself out. There doesn't have to be a deliberate ban on that particular subject because no one really wants to go there anyway, and when it comes up in the story, they simply cover in two sentences and move on. If the group disagrees to the degree that the player feels the need to ask for an outright ban, chances are they aren't having much fun anyway, and need to reevaluate why they are playing in that campaign or with that group.

I'm not trying to say that uncomfortable subjects must be broached, or that they must be emphasized and encouraged, I am simply saying that blaming the DM exclusively when anyone at the table takes offense for any reason is a bit unfair. Far too often, I've seen the obvious potentially offensive issue used as an excuse when in reality the problem is something else entirely that the player never mentioned or discussed with anybody else at the table until afterwards when pressed for details of what precisely the problem was. The player still has control of their own reactions and has multiple options if something comes up they don't like before they have to resort to walking away from the table. If the player thinks they are best off to exercise the nuclear option, chances are very good that other things in the group dynamic are bothering them just as much as the trigger issue if they are truly being honest with themselves. If they feel they have to resort to something even more extreme (like attacking the DM), chances are everyone involved, including the player doing the extreme behavior, is better off if that player finds a different group. No single person will be able to work with every group and every DM they run into, and too many people allow themselves to be in situations that are toxic for them and the others simply because they feel they have no other options, even when the signs are clear that simply not gaming for a while would still be better than being in that particular group/campaign.

This is not to say the DM is blameless, just that no one at the table is; if the player decides to storm off in anger (or attack the DM, or anything else equally severe), no one at that table even has a chance to try to turn it into a positive experience, and that cannot be blamed on the DM, who is still standing there. If someone really feels that strongly about whatever subject it is, if they want others to understand why, they need to be willing to be adults about it, and be willing to engage in some kind of meaningful dialogue to get their point across, and "I'm offended, never broach that subject again" is not meaningful dialogue. It may not end up being the funnest night of the campaign if the player tries to do this, but it can still be important and the lessons learned can help everyone better understand subjects that aren't normally talked about. Unless this becomes a common occurrence, one night of mild unpleasantness shouldn't derail the campaign.


Long, but I think I see what you are saying. The scene with the assassin troubled a player but not the dm, no one raised any objection when a succubus tried to kiss ol' Brutus earlier, and the brute grappled and smashed her into the ground over a lengthy combat until she was dead. It is funny what doesn't raise any objections. Also reaping maulers are fantastic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*shrugs*

a couple of years ago, I played in a Word of Darkness troupe, and the GM had prepared a story arc using Black Dog material. Before our first evening in this setting, he had made clear that

DM wrote:
"The upcoming arc is neither clean nor nice, and will contain disturbing amounts of torture, sexual violence, harping upon one's fears or dark impulses, psychological warfare, graphic description of fleshcrafting, and combinations thereof; some of which may happen to your characters. If any of these topics strike a nerve with any of you, and you'd prefer not to play this, please say so before we start playing."

Cleared in advance, no one said "don't", so we did that arc.


Sorry about the length, but my point was clearly not getting across in chunks. Also, the inflammatory nature of the example being used earlier probably wasn't helping either. A briefer summary would be that trigger and "offensive" issues generally only become a problem when other problems within the group dynamics exist as bullets to be fired when the trigger is pulled, and the extent of those problems is borne by everyone at the table, not just the DM. If there's no bullets, the matter usually resolves itself quickly; if the bullets are there, it really doesn't matter what caused the trigger to be pulled, bad things are going to happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The NPC wrote:

The idea for a main bad guy who is a literal mother of monsters.

Either a witch or an Alchemist who a can breed monsters the "Normal" way but gets the best results and loyalties by dosing herself with with potions and mutagens and using herself as cauldron. She then uses the "children" to get what she wants.

Considering what's been going on in the internet of late. My question how likely is it someone or some of you would find the idea offensive?

Or, ya know, if the BBEG has any self-respect in his mad scientist abilities, why would he let a simple thing like his biological sex get in the way of birthin' "his children"?
  • He could be a doppleganger/shapeshifter, either naturally or via invented artificial grafts, and that'd provide a self-fertilization mechanism and a womb.
  • He could be spawning genetic duplicates of himself, and nuturing them in the classic trope of glass tanks
  • ...or maybe in a marsupial or seahorse "pouch"
  • ...or on/in his back like a Surinam toad (just don't end up like Dr. Smith)


Boggards give-birth like the Surinam toad in my world now. Thanks.


The NPC wrote:

The idea for a main bad guy who is a literal mother of monsters.

Either a witch or an Alchemist who a can breed monsters the "Normal" way but gets the best results and loyalties by dosing herself with with potions and mutagens and using herself as cauldron. She then uses the "children" to get what she wants.

Considering what's been going on in the internet of late. My question how likely is it someone or some of you would find the idea offensive?

Probably the people you should be asking is your gaming group. What kind of topics are and are not in their comfort zone in the game? I personally like your idea and it would be no problem at the table I play with but we are all adults in our 40's.

Dark Archive

Sorry, deranging the thread. .but i can't really believe that a game has or needs an "anal circumference rules".

Jesus... and people was worried about "Devil worshipping" in RPGS...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blundith wrote:
Sorry, deranging the thread. .but i can't really believe that a game has or needs an "anal circumference rules".

Methinks you haven't had your brain scorched by glancing through F.A.T.A.L. (the "RPG" in question). It is a singular source of awfulness in a great many ways.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Gorbacz wrote:
Reading AMiB's posts kind of reminds me of all those Usenet convos about Vampre: the Masquerade in the early 90's, where D&D traditionalists vented their nerdrage over people being even remotely interested in playing "bloodsucking rapist vampire monsters" and wondered if folks who picked V:tM shouldn't be institutionalized right away or shot on sight or locked up in some cold basement.

Hey, it's the same dumb "If we disallow rape, we disallow violence!" argument in a whole new form. Those people on Usenet were stupid because VTM has vampires on the cover. If you see a vampire on the cover, and read descriptions of the game that say, "This is a game where everyone plays a vampire," and are shocked (SHOCKED!) that the game includes sexual violence, then you don't know anything about vampires. Dracula was a story about rape. Vampire fiction ever since has been sexual, either metaphorically or literally. WOD is hella problematic but you can't make the case that VTM is somehow misleading.

Pathfinder has people fighting on the cover. Fantasy fiction is almost always about heroic adventure or war. However, most fantasy fiction—even most dark fantasy fiction—is not World of Gor. If you're offended by violence, then you didn't even pick it up off the shelf.

Quote:
Problems begin when one group tries to tell the others that They're Doing It Wrong.

Wanna play a game? Count how many times I've said to ask or warn your players first, or that a game where everyone is on the same page isn't hurting anyone.

THat said, if you brag about your KICKIN' RAD rapist character or insist that including rape in your game is absolutely necessary, I'm going to make fun of you because you're a creep.

Quote:
It's OK folks, some people get a kick from acting out a world where rape doesn't exist, women are treated fairly everywhere and Equestria is a thing, some prefer a world where they get to kick the seven shades out of a sex slave trafficking hobgoblin gang, and some prefer to play members of said gang. It's all different shades of our hobby.

Also, I like this. "It's not real dark fantasy if it doesn't include rape!" right after "Look at all those people who are telling you you're having badwrongfun, amirite guys?"

sunshadow1 wrote:
This is not to say the DM is blameless, just that no one at the table is; if the player decides to storm off in anger (or attack the DM, or anything else equally severe), no one at that table even has a chance to try to turn it into a positive experience, and that cannot be blamed on the DM, who is still standing there.

Did he include rape without warning people? If yes, it is his fault.

LazarX (in a post below this one) wrote:
[Removing demons from 2e] was intended for parents [...]

Tangental stuff:
Eh. It validated those concerns even when they were groundless and did nothing to abate the panic, while antagonizing people who were already sympathetic to D&D at a time when competitors were just starting to pop up. It also ran counter to 2e's marketing message of "Here's a consolidated, reorganized, clearer version of the game you already love!" when you're also excluding something people will want.
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:


Tangent! This was a pretty dumb removal, because it wasn't intended to appeal to people who actually played D&D.

It was intended for parents whom at the time did not probably played D&D themselves, but very well would have had the final say, or did the actual purchasing, for their sons who were running the games. Not to mention the fact that the radical christian tide against the game had reached it's peak with a couple of highly publiscised incidents which put the focus on what to them were highly objectionable elements. This was also the time of the publication of Chick's "Dark Dungeon" after all.

As to the OP, if you don't know your gamers well enough to answer that question, it's not likely that we'll be in any better position to answer that for you.

The only thing I can say is that times have changed since the "locker room" days when the vast majority of D&D gamers were men who did not give a fig on women's issues.

If you really don't know your gamers well enough to answer this question, then consider not including this aspect as much as you want to.


All I can say is that if the group finds certain dark elements liven up the adventure and peak their interest, then good for them. Certain issues like rape are sensitive and perhaps should be threaded on carefully. However, every gaming group has different likes and dislikes. What won't work for one gaming group may provide a high point for another. There isn't really a right or wrong theme or way to introduce such elements to the game. If the DM knows beforehand certain elements could cause great distress to one or more players, don't introduce it or paint it in a different light. Make it somewhat comical or some form of punishment for set npc/opponent. I know one player who was really afraid of fish. The DM portrayed the enemy abberation fishes as bright pink, wearing something like a clown suit. The group had fun and a round of good laughs. Even the player who had the phobia enjoyed herself thoroughly. The general atmosphere at the gaming table does not have to be grim and uncomfortable and it most certainly should not be. A DM skilled in portraying game elements differently can be a huge boost to more good times. However, if the players do not tell the DM anything about certain themes they are very uncomfortable with, its on the players, not the DM. If the DM briefed the players on what to expect and what not to expect too thoroughly, then the sense of mystery and surprise during certain plot turns cannot happen. Those are two main things in gaming which really makes the campaign memorable. Lastly, if there are certain themes which other gaming groups have but you don't, there is no need to insult them. Its like quarreling over houserules. Different gamers and DMs have different preferences. Nobody really benefits from it. If you find something very distasteful and doesn't suit your taste, accept that you and others run very different games. Agree to disagree and move past it. Continuously piling on the personal insults is self-detrimental.


On the original topic, that concept can most certainly work. Lamashtu and Urgathoa are two very solid themes for villains. Another way would be to draw from the first book of runelords and alter the villain to have that ability. Good stuff. I like that campaign. Good game elements presented in a very different light.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only good thing about this thread is that I now have an excellent link to use whenever anyone claims that rape apologia isn't a problem in the TTRPG community.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sure it's a problem, right next to Satanism and seduction of young innocent!


Icyshadow wrote:

You seem to assume common violence always leaves the same amount of mental scars as being raped does, and that is rather sad.

Who said 'always'?

Who said the violence was 'common' What does 'common violence' mean? Is there no variance in the level of assault?

You then proceed to imply that there is a set level of mental scarring in rape victims, which kind of contradicts your first part.

That is rather sad.


Berik wrote:
There isn't some master list of what subjects are valid to include in a roleplaying game and which subjects are not. All that matters is what threshold for 'validity' subjects have in the context of a given gaming group. And I can't help but believe that far more groups believe that 'killing orcs' is a valid subject than there are who believe the inclusion of rape is valid.

Exactly what we are saying too, so to be told that 'you must remove X topic on the basis that it is badwrongfun and you are BAD if you dont' is why this post has blown out - we're defending the concept that if something is contextually valid then it should not be 'taboo by default'.

The groups that are all about 'killing orcs' might not ever have a circumstance where such an act is relevant in the context of their game, and this it would be inappropriate. That said, depending on the storytelling of that game, such acts might explain the half orcs in the village - they weren't found at the bottom of a cabbage patch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah... I see nobody's yet mentioned Eve. From Parasite Eve. This was pretty much her - creating monsters, and then using her own womb to create the ultimate monster. That was one great, if disturbing, game. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The more someone finds a bbeg offensive, the more they want to kill him/her/it. The more they savor the moment afterwards, the more they remember him/her/it years later and say what a rememorable adventure that was.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Sure it's a problem, right next to Satanism and seduction of young innocent!

Right, except in the case of rape, we have people claiming that rape is essential to roleplaying and that they're proud of their rapist character, and in the case of Satanism, uh...

Shadow Lodge

omegaboot wrote:
Yeah... I see nobody's yet mentioned Eve. From Parasite Eve. This was pretty much her - creating monsters, and then using her own womb to create the ultimate monster. That was one great, if disturbing, game. :D

It was actually a novel and a film before it was a game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:
Right, except in the case of rape, we have people claiming that rape is essential to roleplaying...

No we don't not anywhere in this thread, and your continual statement to the contrary wont make this true.

Honestly...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Sure it's a problem, right next to Satanism and seduction of young innocent!
Right, except in the case of rape, we have people claiming that rape is essential to roleplaying and that they're proud of their rapist character, and in the case of Satanism, uh...

If you insist on believing that is what people are arguing, whatever, it's clear that as long as that particular example is used, you refuse to look at the greater argument behind all the posts. Banning any material, whether it be rape, drow, or any other subject that could possibly come up, outright generally doesn't end up working all that well. First, most groups and DMs already self moderate themselves to the point it really isn't necessary, or they give fair warning to any potential new players about the types of games they tend to play. Just because they don't ban it doesn't mean that they highlight it or glorify it; it still very rarely comes up, and usually when it does, most people are able to be adults about it. Second, only in rare cases is that kind of material enough by itself to truly derail an adventure; in almost all cases I've seen, there are deeper issues at play between the individual wanting the ban, and the rest of the group. Therefore, banning the material, whatever the subject may be, does nothing to resolve any actual problems, and it's only a matter of time before another outburst occurs, so nothing is gained. Third, many people play rpgs at least in part to explore human nature, and actually enjoy the occasional serious and somewhat uncomfortable scene/discussion, even if the campaign on the whole is very light hearted. Again, this isn't just about rape, this is about anything that might bother people that could come up in a game. If you insist on sticking to that one single example, there is no more debate to be had because I'm tired of having the greater argument completely ignored because you can't get past that single point.

You also missed my point that simply blaming the DM for ruining the fun of a single player is dumb. It's a group event, and if the fun is ruined, it's because everyone, including the upset player, let it build up until the trouble simmered over. At some point, if the group as a whole as the problem, then the group will naturally correct it. If it is genuinely with that one player, changing everyone else to fit that one player is not going to work, and that player is simply better off finding a more compatible group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it offensive if anyone finds it OOC offensive if a villain or any other character in the game does anything. This is not Real Live, laws/morals/ideals are not the same, nor should be. Especially not for a villain.

I don't like to take RL religion into these discussions but I am a Catholic, I still don't care about what happens in an imagined world.
Actually, I think it gives interesting situations for when a good PC group realizes their evil mass murderer nemesis has a loving family he did everything for without them knowing, or that the greatest chaotic good champion and leader of a city state (which would fall apart and turn into a bloody anarchy if he is gone) loves and buys as slaves little girls. (Which could very well be a standard and accepted thing in their culture)

Making a villain that sexually abuses victims or uses either itself or the victims to breed is nothing different from how Dragon Age has the broodmother. I say it adds to the setting and theme, and makes the character more easy to remember. Think about how themes in RL like homosexuality were abhorred or accepted in different eras. just as you can show good and bad characteristics for people both good and bad, you could tackle cultural themes and shock your group with a revelation that your benevolent and kind Merciful Healer granny actually hates gays or is a racist. Heh, a totally cool guy could be into necrophilia. Would that bother you? Him? The Dead? Extra fun if it is a necromancer.


The equalizer wrote:
On the original topic, that concept can most certainly work. Lamashtu and Urgathoa are two very solid themes for villains. Another way would be to draw from the first book of runelords and alter the villain to have that ability. Good stuff. I like that campaign. Good game elements presented in a very different light.

Yeah! How good would it be if she was the source "of" the goblins. Hmmmm, cool.

Worse, she has her lair set up, so that she can escape deeper, seal an area off and send in more of the recently birthed monstrosities. Retreating queen bee with fast maturing creatures. She says "oh you want to quickly slay me? You want to rush this? Okay, let us slip into hasted birthing overdrive."


A Man In Black wrote:
The only good thing about this thread is that I now have an excellent link to use whenever anyone claims that rape apologia isn't a problem in the TTRPG community.

Rape apologia? We make worlds (the DMs). Some of us don't present worlds with sugar-coated toppings. Rapists are precisely one of the reason a setting needs heroes. What do you think orcs, goblins and ogres do when they conquer? I am reminded of Brienne of Tarth in a recent Game of Thrones episode. She realised what some guards did to some strung up girls, and when they got in her way, she killed them viciously. Important moment for the character, shows that she does kill evil scum. A feminist heroine perhaps?


sunshadow21 wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Sure it's a problem, right next to Satanism and seduction of young innocent!
Right, except in the case of rape, we have people claiming that rape is essential to roleplaying and that they're proud of their rapist character, and in the case of Satanism, uh...

If you insist on believing that is what people are arguing, whatever, it's clear that as long as that particular example is used, you refuse to look at the greater argument behind all the posts. Banning any material, whether it be rape, drow, or any other subject that could possibly come up, outright generally doesn't end up working all that well. First, most groups and DMs already self moderate themselves to the point it really isn't necessary, or they give fair warning to any potential new players about the types of games they tend to play. Just because they don't ban it doesn't mean that they highlight it or glorify it; it still very rarely comes up, and usually when it does, most people are able to be adults about it. Second, only in rare cases is that kind of material enough by itself to truly derail an adventure; in almost all cases I've seen, there are deeper issues at play between the individual wanting the ban, and the rest of the group. Therefore, banning the material, whatever the subject may be, does nothing to resolve any actual problems, and it's only a matter of time before another outburst occurs, so nothing is gained. Third, many people play rpgs at least in part to explore human nature, and actually enjoy the occasional serious and somewhat uncomfortable scene/discussion, even if the campaign on the whole is very light hearted. Again, this isn't just about rape, this is about anything that might bother people that could come up in a game. If you insist on sticking to that one single example, there is no more debate to be had because I'm tired of having the greater argument completely ignored because you can't get past that single point.

You also missed my point that simply...

Yep. Exploring human nature. As a dm I've thrown in some rapist and other such creepy npcs, most of them are demihumans, some are human. What is more interesting of late is the introduction of people that are low, they have no moral fibre, they aren't pure evil though, they aren't diabolic. They make excuses, they try to get away from what they have done, but they could always do it again. Theon Greyjoy types. Martin in his books had a monologue through Jaime Lannister once, where the character reflected on the common man that was the soldier. A person who could commit horrible atrocities on campaign, and then return home to a normal life. A rapist can be a normal person, someone we don't suspect and that is both frightening and intriguing.

At the moment, the party I dm for, is tooling around with a war criminal from the southern wars. This guy has killed children, kicked puppies, fought his ancestral enemies and caused so much woe and pain. And he is done with the southern wars, he just wants to get away from it all. He isn't good though, not by a long shot. He is considering joining a LG church for protection and peace.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
The only good thing about this thread is that I now have an excellent link to use whenever anyone claims that rape apologia isn't a problem in the TTRPG community.

What exactly do you mean? I have seen that gamers, in particular video gamers from which a good percentage of the tabletop players are drawn from, are heavily fond of using that word in a manner that reveals them to be sexist misanthropic pigs with the sexual maturity of a 10 year old.

Rape is not a topic to be taken lightly and for women it is an issue which impacts them on a personal level differently than it does men.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

imagined rape in an imagined world should affect them less than imagined killing in a FPS, sexual phantasies when one looks at someone, or drawn nude people

oh the horrors! woe is me! if we don't ensure the safety if these nonexistent people and/or from nonexistent events the world is doomd, doomd I say! Let us quickly create the thought police, and quickly imprison or castrate everyone who thinks nasty nasty things! Did I mention yet we should also imprison all the artists who dare to draw nekkid people, even if they are long gone and their paintings are in museums?

Quote - *I'm gonna sing the doom song now!*

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

LazarX wrote:
What exactly do you mean?

Well, when I mean rape apologia, I mean this:

Quote:

imagined rape in an imagined world should affect them less than imagined killing in a FPS, sexual phantasies when one looks at someone, or drawn nude people

oh the horrors! woe is me! if we don't ensure the safety if these nonexistent people and/or from nonexistent events the world is doomd, doomd I say! Let us quickly create the thought police, and quickly imprison or castrate everyone who thinks nasty nasty things! Did I mention yet we should also imprison all the artists who dare to draw nekkid people, even if they are long gone and their paintings are in museums?

Quote:
To wu, I had one char that went the rape option. Once. Truly a horrible chap, Brutus the master grappler. He once caught a female assassin that was trying to kill him, it didn't go well. She stabbed him with a poison dagger, he passed his save, laughed and grappled. The good news about this, is that the party ranger executed me in the street later with holy arrows (I was CE and playing it). I tried the reason it out option, got demolished. Very funny. If one is playing a rapist pc, and the others dont like it, just kill them. They are heroes that fight evil after all. It was a shame it wasn't a fair fight, it was an assassination, but I wasn't that bitter about it.
Quote:
Aren't you overreacting? It's not like he was there with the character raping someone. He played (in a game, using words) a CE character. The end.
Quote:
If you don't want [rape] included, DM a game yourself and make a world to fit what you want. If you aren't willing to take that step, find someone that is, and play under them. Otherwise, be prepared to accept that DMs make worlds, players live in them, and that most worlds created will include the darker elements of human nature, including rapists, to at least some degree; otherwise, there really isn't much need for adventurers, and the campaign is probably going to be rather short. Telling a DM that he needs to change a world he's worked on for 30 years because a single player doesn't like rapists isn't going to get a very positive reaction.
Quote:
But the player has to understand that most every fantasy world has rapists in it; it's only a question of how big a role they play in the individual campaign, and that even when it's not emphasized, it may still come up, and they may still have to deal with the ramifications of it being present as a fairly common, and occasionally even tolerated, activity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am honored that you quote me, truly, it makes me feel important. Still, it would be preferred if you also write the name to those who wrote it, I can't take credit for others either naturally.

/facepalm

What is not real isn't real, and people shouldn't feel insecure about nonexistent things, nor should law do anything about it. Otherwise we would all go to jail or worse because we kill goblins and orcs constantly. I enjoyed Knights of the Old Republic played as dark side villain the best, but that doesn't make it untrue that in RL I am a kind and helpful guy, I won't force choke anyone, promise.

I don't see how my comment has to do anything with being apologetic

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
joriandrake wrote:

imagined rape in an imagined world should affect them less than imagined killing in a FPS, sexual phantasies when one looks at someone, or drawn nude people

oh the horrors! woe is me! if we don't ensure the safety if these nonexistent people and/or from nonexistent events the world is doomd, doomd I say! Let us quickly create the thought police, and quickly imprison or castrate everyone who thinks nasty nasty things! Did I mention yet we should also imprison all the artists who dare to draw nekkid people, even if they are long gone and their paintings are in museums?

Quote - *I'm gonna sing the doom song now!*

So I take it from your point of view, considering the views and sensitivities of one's players is equated to opening the avenue to nationwide and global censorship and fatwas?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You might want to actually look into the term 'rape apologia', as I don't really think you understand what it means. If you did, you wouldn't be claiming it happened here.

Light reading

Once you have had a GOOD READ of all that, please come back and substantiate your case where ANY poster has decided that the victims were asking for it etc. In EVERY case EVERY poster has said that rape is BAD.

What you are ACTUALLY doing is trying to censor people, and when they dont toe your moral line you get nasty and become abusive, in turn you then dishonestly make claims about what they said.

Something to discuss with the next FemLit class I am sure.


LazarX wrote:


So I take it from your point of view, considering the views and sensitivities of one's players is equated to opening the avenue to nationwide and global censorship and fatwas?

Except thats not what is taking place now, is it?


joriandrake wrote:

imagined rape in an imagined world should affect them less than imagined killing in a FPS, sexual phantasies when one looks at someone, or drawn nude people

oh the horrors! woe is me! if we don't ensure the safety if these nonexistent people and/or from nonexistent events the world is doomd, doomd I say! Let us quickly create the thought police, and quickly imprison or castrate everyone who thinks nasty nasty things! Did I mention yet we should also imprison all the artists who dare to draw nekkid people, even if they are long gone and their paintings are in museums?

Quote - *I'm gonna sing the doom song now!*

You are my new hero. Crazy doom cleric of the end times.


I played a chaotic good necrophiliac ninja once. Weirded out afew party members. The one friend and longest travelling companion he had was a drunken master, while initially very surprised, shocked and went:"Meh. Everyone's got their preferences." Good times. Had to persuade a paladin of sarenrae he wasn't some evil necromancer getting his kicks. Combat still ensued but it was close and the ninja refrained from dealing the finishing blow.


LazarX wrote:


So I take it from your point of view, considering the views and sensitivities of one's players is equated to opening the avenue to nationwide and global censorship and fatwas?

No, my point of view is that a GM just as an artist who creates music, paints, or sculpts shall not allow his own decision on how the world he tells his stories in and most likely created the world itself become a "yesman" and do everything to make the players feel warm and fuzzy inside.

It is one thing to listen to what the players think, another to change the setting because of it. If a player doesn't like something in the game, then it should IC do something against it, if the player doesn't like OOC something with it, then it can always pack and leave.

We don't even speak about following rules here, this is not a debate about how a GM misuses its power to constantly kill off players or similar.
No, this is about how some people dislike a setting that could be similar to a dark medieval setting, to a World of Darkness setting, or a Ravenloft setting, and selfishly ask for it to be changed outside its boundaries.

If a player doesn't like something happening IN THE GAME, then it should do something against it in the game, and suffer the consequences. Whatever they may be.

*sigh*
Sorry, am dead tired and not English native, so my comments probably have dozens of typos and become hard to follow, I bid farewell and go to sleep.

151 to 200 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / An Idea for a main Bad Guy: Do any of you Find it Offensive? All Messageboards