Well, when I mean rape apologia, I mean this: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
How precisely is that being an apologist for rape when you could remove [rape] and rapists and put in any other other subject matter in their place and it would still not change it's basic meaning and intent in any way shape or form? Seriously, you really need to get off that one example; it's not the whole argument. Just because I don't advocate for it's complete removal from the game means I'm arguing it that it's a good thing in general? I don't know how you are making that jump of logic, because I made it very clear elsewhere that that is most definitely not the case.
"It's the GM's game, so the players are just going to have to deal with that. We're not talking about killing PCs, but raping them? Sometimes you're just going to have to roll with the punches to be allowed the privilege of playing in the GM's world."
And if the DM is being that much of a pain of it being "his" world, why are you playing under that DM? In this particular case, the problem isn't the presence of the subject of rape, it's that the DM is not wanting to have players for very long. You could replace rape with any other subject in it's place and still have the same basic problem. You keep getting a mental block when rape in mentioned, and not seeing the bigger picture.
He's just going to continue to misquote and misrepresent your position Sunshadow, no matter how clear it is that you are not at all trying to suggest for a minute that any of this is the case.
And if the DM is being that much of a pain of it being "his" world, why are you playing under that DM? In this particular case, the problem isn't the presence of the subject of rape, it's that the DM is not wanting to have players for very long. You could replace rape with any other subject in it's place and still have the same basic problem. You keep getting a mental block when rape in mentioned, and not seeing the bigger picture.I'm seeing the big picture fine. When it comes time for you to make a fantasy world that you think it would be fun for you and your friends to play in, you also think, "Hey, rapists! Can't go without those!"
If rape is so goshdarn essential, then why aren't integrated circuits just as essential? After all, all topics are valid. Could it be because they're out of place and inappropriate?
First, I never focused entirely on rape as being essential. Dark themes are essential, and rape in one of many available dark themes. If someone feels so strongly about not only a particular dark theme, but any theme, race, class, or random rule, that they never want to see it in a game, they need to DM so they have final veto power or find a group that is willing to outright ban that particular theme. Very few groups will go that far because that extreme a reaction is a problematic one, and one that rarely works out as intended. If they are unwilling to step up and run their own game, they need to understand that (enter personal problematic subject here;note, personal problematic subject /= rape; don't read anymore into it than is there) may be someone else's preferred aspect of the game and that their preferred aspects may be someone else's flashpoint. This means that if they try to ban what they don't like, the other person may very well try to ban something else, perhaps something the original player heavily favored, and then you have bigger problems.
Second, I'd have no problem allowing integrated circuits if the player could figure out a good enough reason. Just because a subject is out of place and inappropriate 99% of the time does not mean that it shouldn't ever come up. When that 1% comes up, that element may be the crucial part of the scene, and entirely appropriate within that scene. My personal campaigns follow a simple rule when it comes the odd, strange, and corner case scenarios. If it fits, I use it for as long as it fits; if the players want to continue focusing on it, I'll oblige, otherwise, it gets dealt with, and we move on to topics of more interest to the group.
At any rate, I'm done with this. It's clear that you really have no interest in reading the deeper argument because you absolutely are stuck on one example of many, and that is all you really care about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's just going to continue to misquote and misrepresent your position Sunshadow, no matter how clear it is that you are not at all trying to suggest for a minute that any of this is the case.
I stopped ceasing to care about his opinion a long time ago, but I did want to make sure that my position is quite clear to everyone else, and some of the earlier posts were a bit fragmented in their thought process.
CRYSTAL clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spin and misrepresentation continues...
When all else fails, HYPERBOLE! :p
"Hey, rapists! Can't go without those!"
Damn straight!
Paizo followed a similar course with the Hook Mountain Massacre. Not for everyone, but when they wanted vile enemies, the designers knew what to draw upon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's making a list, he's checking it twice...
Sadly though, I suspect you guys are now down to my level of getting tired of listening to someone misrepresent your (polite) rebuttals and now just stirring him up for teh lulz. Unfortunately all you do is give some skerrick of legitimacy to the cheap and tawdry tactics being employed against you.
I had to find someone to take out the frustrations of an annoying job hunt on, but I think it's time to let the thread meander back to the op.
Goofus and Gallant
Just thought I should HILIGHT! it . . .
OK fair enough.
I was just about to start questioning why someone would make a list of rape related materials, I suspect "I have this harddrive full of rape-porn because I am disgusted by it" would be starting to get down to the truth.
I don't think he gets it, a dm can be entirely against it, but play a character that is entirely for it.
On the topic, might add some brood mothers into my game. Got to make them fit though. Works with pathfinder and Lamashtu perfectly, for other settings, hmm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think he gets it,
No he does, but he has his own agenda to push, and whilst trying to dress it up with a blanket of moral decency (hijacking an issue) what he is actually doing is quite ugly, and an offence to the victims of rape.
Moral-highgrounders don't care about other people, that is a big secret. Consider greenies and how lowly they view people, especially those involved in the animal industries, farming, companies that need to use water to make products for the wider society.
He might think he is doing good, but there aren't any rape lovers here to bash. Even if there were, they would probably keep it hidden, it isn't a criminal mark, it can be hard to tell.
If he really cares I am reminded of a George Carlin skit, he should publicly set himself on fire. That's a protest.
For the brood-mother thing, you could get heavily alien influenced. The monsters have acid immunity and come out of the womb slick with acid (and with Scottish accents). Grease me up Scotty!
Looking at the top of the last page, I'm ALMOST unsure of how we got to rape.
Because a poster has a fixation about it, and a list of source material he has compiled, and wants to talk about it all afternoon as though every thread HAD to contain it.
@the OP
I didn't read the entire thread (so I don't know if someone mentioned this or not) but there was an item that does what you're talking about, it's a mask that followers of lamashtu can wear to breed with whatever critter they want and make hybrids (like gnolls, lizardmen and even stranger stuff). I believe the item is found in the gods and magic book.Looking at the top of the last page, I'm ALMOST unsure of how we got to rape.
Not that hard, given the op, and the fact that someone was bound to raise rape eventually given the clear tie ins and the sensitivity of it. The fact it stayed on that subject is because no matter what other examples others tried to use, one person always forced it back to their preferred example because that was the only one they personally cared about.
Wasn't there a giant worm in 3.5 that could cast spells and raise zombies? That could be a good villain. Especially if it has levels in enchanter (lol) and alters its apparent form. Yeesh again. Welcome to my boudoir.
I still don't see any argument why you just gotta have rape.
And neither does anyone else here, you are the only person is asserting that this was even a suggestion. Which it wasn't.
Why do you want to talk about rape all day? Why are you so fixated that you have to keep bringing the subject up into conversation over and over. Why do you have an obsessive fixation with the subject?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't see any argument why you just gotta have rape. Why would you want it in your game in the first place?
That depends on precisely what you mean by that. What most of us mean is that it is and should be present in the world as one of many background themes the party could potentially run into based on their actions, and can occasionally come to the forefront from time to time as the story makes it's merry way through the campaign, usually just long enough for a few sentences to describe the general scene and move on to dealing with the consequences of it. I haven't seen anyone outside of yourself suggesting that it should be commonly played out in actual play, nor have I seen it used in that manner in most games. It's there, but usually the point of interest in it is figuring out how to deal with it or how to avoid it, not the actual act itself. The act itself is still necessary as a cause and a threat, but it really isn't the main interest when the subject is brought up. The avoidance and the aftermath both provide much better story content, most of which is also far less disturbing, and therefore much less problematic. Even the op's example didn't sound like the actual process would be played out, but rather described more or less as it was in this thread and that the PCs got to deal with the results from the process.
If you could stop fixating on the single example of rape, it really does make much more sense. The world has dozens and dozens of possible threats, most of which won't ever even get mentioned, and the large portion of the others getting at most a sentence or two. Rape is one of them, and across the world, may be one of the more common ones, but really how likely it is to show up as part of the story itself depends mostly on the characters and their actions. If they choose to focus the story on fighting evil, it suddenly has a much higher chance of showing up. If they prefer to clear out random dungeons, other threats are far more likely. If they choose to fight the despot king, and make the kingdom their own, it will definitely get mentioned from time to time as part of the background material, but unless the PCs do something to put in the spotlight, it probably will stay at the sentence or two stage.
The answer that allows you fixate on rape specifically. Because bad things are part of the world and it's hard to completely avoid entirely without adding a lot of work to the already busy task of DMing. Thus, most people have it as background to make the world seem a bit more believable while focusing the story on far more interesting topics the majority of the time, and handling it like responsible adults the 1% of the time it comes up in the story.
Is it time to leave Brittney alone yet?
You were the one who mentioned rape in the first place, so that part is on you. If you feel putting the conversation in the greater context is changing the subject, I feel really sorry for you, especially since the original topic wasn't even rape, but more general concern for offenses in general.
As for the rest, while it is possible to not have it at all, it's often more trouble to avoid it than it is to simply cover it quickly and move on. Also, most responsible adults can handle a short paragraph description of the act and it's aftermath, and that is all most campaigns have. Again, you are the one suggesting that it routinely plays a major part of other people's campaign, not anyone else.
Given that those are pre-existing conditions, you've got a big claim to justify a causal link to a game session that has not even occured yet.
Can I have that again, but this time in English?
So, to be 100% clear, you're saying that anyone who reacts poorly to and does not enjoy a paragraph describing rape and its effects is not a reasonable adult, correct?
Again, back away from the fixation on rape and look at the big picture. Anyone who reacts that poorly to a single paragraph of anything over the course of a campaign probably needs to reevaluate why they are playing with the group because it's highly likely that there are other issues if they are willing to admit it.
Again, back away from the fixation on rape and look at the big picture. Anyone who reacts that poorly to a single paragraph of anything over the course of a campaign probably needs to reevaluate why they are playing with the group because it's highly likely that there are other issues if they are willing to admit it."Anyone who reacts that poorly to a single paragraph of [rape] probably needs to reevaluate why they are playing with the group because it's highly likely that there are other issues if they are willing to admit it."
Is this a mischaracterization of your position? It seems to be that you're saying that rape and sexual assault are no different from any other topic.
Considering that rape does not equal anything, yes. You're way oversimplifying the statement. It really doesn't matter what you put in the place of anything, the base argument doesn't revolve around that one word. You really need to learn context.
He doesn't need to AMIB.
What he has said is expressly clear.
What you are posting is clearly fallacious.
On the topic, might add some brood mothers into my game. Got to make them fit though. Works with pathfinder and Lamashtu perfectly, for other settings, hmm.
Brood mothers could definitely be an interesting foe with right campaign. There was a lot I didn't like about that game, but the story was pretty good.
Considering that rape does not equal anything, yes. You're way oversimplifying the statement. It really doesn't matter what you put in the place of anything, the base argument doesn't revolve around that one word.Can you clarify this? You seem to be saying that anyone who responds poorly to bringing up the topic of rape is not a responsible adult in previous posts, and this post makes no sense.
May I suggest you start your own thread if you really want to continue your precious ranting? It is quite humorous to see you make an idiot of yourself, but it's not fair to the op to do so here.
May I suggest you start your own thread if you really want to continue your precious ranting? It is quite humorous to see you make an idiot of yourself, but it's not fair to the op to do so here.Nah, I'm good here. Were you going to clarify that post, or answer any of my questions, or just be smug?
I'd rather discuss the op, since that is the point of this thread. If you want to discuss something more limited, make your own thread, and maybe you'll get a bunch of bored people to vent their pent up frustrations on you there. By insisting on continuing in this thread, you are not only being stupid, but rude as well, and I find arguing with rude people to be more of a pain than it's worth.
|
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?
Kind of like "Toddlers and Tiaras" on Lifetime....
I'd rather discuss the op, since that is the point of this thread. If you want to discuss something more limited, make your own thread, and maybe you'll get a bunch of bored people to vent their pent up frustrations on you there. By insisting on continuing in this thread, you are not only being stupid, but rude as well, and I find arguing with rude people to be more of a pain than it's worth.So your answer to "Could you please elaborate on how you think a responsible adult should react in this situation" is "No, you're stupid."
I see.
Don't blame me; you did it to yourself with your loose interpretations and misquotes of pretty much everyone else in the thread.
Don't blame me; you did it to yourself with your loose interpretations and misquotes of pretty much everyone else in the thread.
At least you aren't misinterpreting him :)