Yeah, that isn't go to fly with me!

[Berselius]

So, long story made as sort as I can, I was in a new gaming group (four guys including me and three women) and an issue happened pretty damn quickly. Our group had a lot of neutral-based PC's (Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral) but our DM (against my advice) allowed a guy to play Neutral Evil. Everything was going as well as it could but then the guy playing the NE divine spellcaster tries to "rape" a DM controlled NPC. I basically said TIME OUT and told the GM that this wasn't going to fly with me.

I have a niece who suffered from a date rape experience in collage and one of the three women has a sister who suffered an actual gang rape experience. So, yeah, this wasn't going to fly with me or the three women in our group. What was worse, the GM was trying to play "mediator" and at times he took the NE player's side (aka "it's just a game", "it's not real"). The NE Player pitched a royal fit and in the end, all three women and myself left the table and we've never looked back since.

I'd like to know if anyone here has experienced something similar to this sort of situation?

[Muddman72]

For what its worth, I completely agree with you, I wouldn't let that fly and quite frankly your DM is a jerk to not throw the guy out.

[chbgraphicarts]

There're a LOT of people who would agree that torture, rape, and similar things are actually much worse than murder. Which, yeah, I agree with and would have been in the same mindset of "SERIOUSLY, DUDE!?"

Here's the thing, though: the "charm someone into sleeping with them" thing is a common plot element in literature and mythology, used by a whole LOT of characters throughout various mythologies.

These characters are usually evil or at the least SERIOUSLY morally ambiguous; if they're treated as okay, it's usually because the story is from a time/society where things were that screwed up (half of the Heroes of Greek Mythology came from Zeus tricking women into sleeping with him).

So, TECHNICALLY he's not wrong that a Neutral Evil character would be within bounds to do that. However, Even Evil Has Standards, and as the party you're generally assumed to be SOMEWHAT heroic, even if you're still otherwise unrepentantly Evil.

You're not wrong to say you're uncomfortable with the whole mess, and any reasonable human being would be apologetic and find a way to play their character as "Neutral Evil" without making the other players feel uncomfortable.

Let the DM know that there are just some things that are NOT okay, and you guys feel that this is one of those things. "It's just a game" is NOT a justification for making players feel uncomfortable.

[Batsran]

I'm guessing the old chestnut of "I'm just playing my character" was probably uttered at least once, right?

As if it's somehow the character's fault that they chose to create and play it that way and they are now powerless as a player to behave in a way that anyone else at the table finds tolerable.

[Philo Pharynx]

If rape is a trigger for you, then you shouldn't have to deal with it at the table. If they insist on having it, then walk away.

And I will say that using spells that mess with somebody's mind and have sex with them is rape. Using drugs to have sex with somebody is rape. Using sleep to have sex with somebody is rape.

[TarkXT]

Have I been in a similar situation?

No, not really.

I tend not to really care what fictional characters do, they tend to meet their ends in poetically horrible ways anyway. Even if I have to be the one that makes it happen.

If players do feel uncomfortable I tone it back but do ask that they make others aware of those boundaries.

Now, out of curiosity I asked my spouse what she would do if this exact situation came up.

Being that she was a victim of a pedophile with the added insult of never getting anything resembling justice I felt it was a relevant subject to talk over with her. Given that one of the player characters was sliding in a direction where that scenario was not outside the realm of possibility.

Her response?

Depended largely on her mood. She'd certainly have something to say.

So we'll see. I may ask him to tone it back if it happens. It might not require me to say anything.

[Hogeyhead]

I'm of a mixed mind on this issue. On the one hand I'm not comfortable with rape in a PnPRPG. I just wouldn't be comfortable with it in a game for personal reasons. That being said I have no other taboos that I would object to in principle. Torture I would have no problem with. Dissecting live children, say, I as a GM would allow it in the right game and situation. Genocide, or just murder based on whatever prejudice I would have no problem with in the right circumstance. Sowing chaos, abducting slaves, selling slaves, buying slaves, any evil act in an evil campaign I would allow except rape.

However given that I have only one taboo that I wouldn't allow in an evil campaign this suggests to me that it's either an issue with me, or that objectively rape is just the worst thing to a human instinctively. Or some other thing I haven't considered.

That being said all of that is circumstantial, and I wouldn't let it go in a non evil, or at least very morally ambiguous game which this was not. An evil campaign is something you play only with people you know well, and who are comfortable with evil acts. This was not that either. This was some idiot who should have known better than to play out a rape fantasy with strangers.

You were right to object if you were uncomfortable, and the GM was wrong not to support you. However moral and social morays are not always super clear to everyone and sometimes they need to be clarified extremely bluntly. I don't know exactly what was said, and I'm inclined to think you handled the situation clearly, however I would review what you said to the GM and the player and see if you were absolutely clear and utterly blunt leaving out all wiggle room for why this was making the game unplayable for you. Remember that these are extremely emotional subjects and they can color your words in a way as to obscure your point.

Next time this situation happens be a utterly clear as possible as to why this is unacceptable. If they don't cede the point, f#~$ them.

[Use Headbutt!!]

We are somewhat inoculated to murder because it is a common trope in media/literary works/news/ect. It is far worse than torture or rape (hmmm perhaps less so in a world with concrete proof of an afterlife and where people can be brought back to life for money? That is a fairly interesting tangent, but we are talking about out of character reactions rather than in character reactions), but because we are used to the concept of it, it doesn't shock us like other evil acts do. For instance, which makes you shudder more: "I ripped his head off" or "I ripped his finger nails off". For me, I twitched a little at the idea of getting fingernails ripped off despite the fact that losing my head is far far more serious. Well, I realize that murder being worse is my personal opinion from a extremely privileged area of the world where I don't have to usually fear either of those things. However, logically I think that suffering extreme fear+pain and surviving emotionally and physically scarred is still usually a better alternative than not surviving. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE AWFUL. Rape is seriously hushed up in America, there is not enough immediate counseling for victims, and, worse, victims are often times made to feel like it is their fault. Slut shaming is a serious thing, which is completely illogical since you are effectively blaming the victim for the attacker's inability to control himself. This is a serious problem and society needs to take a better look at the issue, however I am not sure pathfinder is the medium to do such a discussion. If you are playing an evil character who does evil things and everyone at the table knows that these are evil things which they should not do in real life then why is the severity of evilness being called into question? So why then is it ok to play a guy that stabs a man for his mostly empty gold pouch but not one that kicks puppies (or other shock value evil acts).

THAT BEING SAID! Rule 0 is "don't be a dick." If a player like the OP or the female player said "hey, woah this is not ok. I've had real life experiences that this is too close to." the player in question should ret-con the hell out of his actions. Hell, that should always be the case. I know someone whose dad passed away with cancer and it left a huge emotional scar on her. It doesn't matter that sick parent dying is a common trope in media/stories, if that scenario comes up in a situation she is playing in, it should be changed. The point of the any game is to have fun, but a game that comes at the cost of poking someone else's emotional wound is a pretty F-ed up game. I don't think that RP-ing a messed up situation is in and of itself messed up, but turning to your fellow player and saying "I don't care about how this effects you" is a sure sign they are in need of serious counseling.

[lemeres]

TarkXT wrote:

Have I been in a similar situation?

No, not really.

I tend not to really care what fictional characters do, they tend to meet their ends in poetically horrible ways anyway. Even if I have to be the one that makes it happen.

If players do feel uncomfortable I tone it back but do ask that they make others aware of those boundaries.

Just a question- was that from the perspective of a player of GM?

That just touched on something that had been rattling in my head (and using the slight varification as a jumping point)- the context is rather different when it is done by a player character, and when it is done by an enemy.

Enemies, by their very nature, are designed to be stabbed in the face (or something along those lines). Besides their role as a mechanic (the thing you test yourself against), they are typically thematically colored so that you refute their actions, and punish them harshly for them.

But that is not something you can do well in a party with a player character. The age old problem of 'evil character in good/neutral group does a thing that encourages PVP'. While you have a clear method of recourse with an enemy (murder it HARD), you can typically only ask the player to tone it down, kill his character, or leave the table (and possibly try all three in that order).

Of course, that isn't to say that having the enemies try it can't cross the line either. Just that the way the context affects the tone, as well as the option to just stop the whole situation rather effectively, means it is less likely to become a problem for the table. But yes...a GM that repeatedly brings this up will probably need a stern talking to.

I would certainly advise against actually trying to go through with it with an enemy- it is best just to have it as a set up for a rescue (if nothing else other than the sake of good taste- it is not something you can give any details about without it getting uncomfortable for everyone). And I would try to limit it as much as possible if I knew the actual personal objections involved.

[blackbloodtroll]

I am not shocked that he had his character do that, but rather the response to "Please, don't do that. It makes me uncomfortable."

Everyone is there to have fun. It's the whole point.

That's not fun for you. That should be respected.

[TarkXT]

lemeres wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

Have I been in a similar situation?

No, not really.

I tend not to really care what fictional characters do, they tend to meet their ends in poetically horrible ways anyway. Even if I have to be the one that makes it happen.

If players do feel uncomfortable I tone it back but do ask that they make others aware of those boundaries.

Just a question- was that from the perspective of a player of GM?

Both. Unless within a very specific context.

[chbgraphicarts]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am not shocked that he had his character do that, but rather the response to "Please, don't do that. It makes me uncomfortable."

See, I'm kinda the opposite - I've only met a few true morons who had the legendary lack of tact to say "hey, Imma have my character RAPE somebody!" I know they exist, but would like to believe that they're such a small percentage of the population as to be almost nonexistent.

However, I have seen more neckbeards throw a fit over people NOT being cool with them pulling an obvious dick move, resulting in the fine examples of Neckbeardus Basementdwellerus flipping out, flipping the TABLE, and shouting "IT'S JUST A GAME / IT'S WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO, YOU FACISTS!!!" than I would care to admit.

Said Neckbeards, unsurprisingly, generally play X-Neutral or X-Evil characters in order to be able to play the sociopaths they wish they could be and be vindicated for it because "that's what Neutral/Evil characters do" (bearing in mind that this doesn't mean all players who like to play Neutral/Evil characters are neckbeards - lots of players like to play Neutral/Evil characters because they enjoy antiheroes or Byronic heroes like John Constantine, V, etc.)

So, really, it surprises me that he had the utter GALL to initiate a rape scene in a game, but it DOESN'T surprise me that he threw a tantrum once people called "WTF, DUDE!?"

[Tindalen]

Simple fact is, this is a game meant to build a story for all participants to enjoy and remember. If an action crosses a boundary, it should be discussed out of character and handled in a way that those whose enjoyment was ruined can have it restored or peacefully separate ways.

With that said, murdure, torture. Rape, and abuse happen in role playing games, the key is to not make the players feel helpless about it. In the OP I read it as one player going to far and the others being uncomfortable, having to work with that character/player instead of being opposed to them.

If a good character is grouped with an evil character, how much evil must they allow before the companion becomes an enemy? Our games always require a minimum one step separation of alignment on the good evil scale, no more. And evil campaigns always require some pact or death scenario to ensure that the group can work as a group. That is more important, in my view, than pushing boundaries on morality.

If I am a good character, why would I restrain my self against a group member who rapes, but not an enemy?

You become those you associate with, if you don't not want to become them, do not associate with them.

[kyrt-ryder]

Tindalen wrote:

If I am a good character, why would I restrain my self against a group member who rapes, but not an enemy?

However much the character is willing to put up with.

Now one's character probably has a fair amount of influence on its tolerances from its player [though this isn't a sure thing] but the issue at hand as regards party cohesion is the characters, not the players themselves.

As for why? That varies.

Maybe they aren't 'evil enough' for you to bother taking action [or to override your personal bias towards them.]

Maybe they are a dear friend or family member who has 'problematic quirks' but blood is thicker than water.

Maybe you value them and wish to redeem them.

Maybe you yourself are on the slippery slope downwards and see something of yourself in them and don't feel justified in taking action against them.

Or maybe the whole f***ing world is ending and it's better to save the many than sacrifice all for the sake of a few people's chastity/sanity/life.

[blackbloodtroll]

Yeah.

It's about comfort, cooperation, and the respect of other players.

It's not really important what the subject matter is, but when another player asks you to stop, as it makes them uncomfortable, you at least discuss a compromise.

[Tindalen]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Tindalen wrote:

If I am a good character, why would I restrain my self against a group member who rapes, but not an enemy?

However much the character is willing to put up with.

Now one's character probably has a fair amount of influence on its tolerances from its player [though this isn't a sure thing] but the issue at hand as regards party cohesion is the characters, not the players themselves.

As for why? That varies.

Maybe they aren't 'evil enough' for you to bother taking action [or to override your personal bias towards them.]

Maybe they are a dear friend or family member who has 'problematic quirks' but blood is thicker than water.

Maybe you value them and wish to redeem them.

Maybe you yourself are on the slippery slope downwards and see something of yourself in them and don't feel justified in taking action against them.

Or maybe the whole f~%*ing world is ending and it's better to save the many than sacrifice all for the sake of a few people's chastity/sanity/life.

There are reasons to tolerate, or condone, or deal with evil acts in game. But my point was that this is, first and foremost a game. Evil campaigns are harder to run, or p,any, than good campaigns. The difficulty is finding a reason for the characters to bond, to act as a team. If the goals, and morals of characters are diametrically opposed, the campaign will be short and painful.

[kyrt-ryder]

Tindalen wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Tindalen wrote:

If I am a good character, why would I restrain my self against a group member who rapes, but not an enemy?

However much the character is willing to put up with.

Now one's character probably has a fair amount of influence on its tolerances from its player [though this isn't a sure thing] but the issue at hand as regards party cohesion is the characters, not the players themselves.

As for why? That varies.

Maybe they aren't 'evil enough' for you to bother taking action [or to override your personal bias towards them.]

Maybe they are a dear friend or family member who has 'problematic quirks' but blood is thicker than water.

Maybe you value them and wish to redeem them.

Maybe you yourself are on the slippery slope downwards and see something of yourself in them and don't feel justified in taking action against them.

Or maybe the whole f~%*ing world is ending and it's better to save the many than sacrifice all for the sake of a few people's chastity/sanity/life.

There are reasons to tolerate, or condone, or deal with evil acts in game. But my point was that this is, first and foremost a game. Evil campaigns are harder to run, or p,any, than good campaigns. The difficulty is finding a reason for the characters to bond, to act as a team. If the goals, and morals of characters are diametrically opposed, the campaign will be short and painful.

Part of this- in my opinion- is dependent on the responsibility and maturity level of the players.

If the players can handle having characters that disagree [perhaps to violent degrees] without escalating it into excessive interparty conflict, then a great story can arise out of the sparks between characters.

Hell even PvP has its place if handled properly.

[Tindalen]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Yeah.

It's about comfort, cooperation, and the respect of other players.

It's not really important what the subject matter is, but when another player asks you to stop, as it makes them uncomfortable, you at least discuss a compromise.

Exactly, I have played in evil campaigns that have pushed my boundaries. I think that is a good thing, it makes me think and consider other points of perspective. In this case, if I was the evil character, I would have suggested that I play the character out, the rest of the party found a way to relieve the character and I rerolled.

[Tindalen]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Tindalen wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Tindalen wrote:

If I am a good character, why would I restrain my self against a group member who rapes, but not an enemy?

However much the character is willing to put up with.

Now one's character probably has a fair amount of influence on its tolerances from its player [though this isn't a sure thing] but the issue at hand as regards party cohesion is the characters, not the players themselves.

As for why? That varies.

Maybe they aren't 'evil enough' for you to bother taking action [or to override your personal bias towards them.]

Maybe they are a dear friend or family member who has 'problematic quirks' but blood is thicker than water.

Maybe you value them and wish to redeem them.

Maybe you yourself are on the slippery slope downwards and see something of yourself in them and don't feel justified in taking action against them.

Or maybe the whole f~%*ing world is ending and it's better to save the many than sacrifice all for the sake of a few people's chastity/sanity/life.

There are reasons to tolerate, or condone, or deal with evil acts in game. But my point was that this is, first and foremost a game. Evil campaigns are harder to run, or p,any, than good campaigns. The difficulty is finding a reason for the characters to bond, to act as a team. If the goals, and morals of characters are diametrically opposed, the campaign will be short and painful.

Part of this- in my opinion- is dependent on the responsibility and maturity level of the players.

If the players can handle having characters that disagree [perhaps to violent degrees] without escalating it into excessive interparty conflict, then a great story can arise out of the sparks between characters.

Hell even PvP has its place if handled properly.

One small caveat I would like to add to your statement, as if I had made it, is that the maturity level would include discussing the alignment of the character and at least attempt to cover some socially contentious issues it may bring up. 99% of gaming problems can be resolved amicably by discussing them ahead of time, or stopping the game to discuss them when they happen, out of character. If you have some unwilling to have those discussions, then they should be removed.

[kyrt-ryder]

Indeed, open communication among players at a table is a huge asset to the group.

Just like any other relationship, if you don't communicate you're probably going to push eachother's buttons way more than you would if you did.

[Java Man]

I see this overall as a gm fail. I run far more often than play, and view the role of the gm as a facilitator of the players' fun. In the OP's description, the gm failed to achieve this. What the uncomfortable issue was exactly, why it was uncomfortable, if it was justified in character, none of this is important, it was a serious source of discomfort, that is it was not fun, case closed, keep ot out of the game.

[kyrt-ryder]

If said barmaid is diametrically opposed to the encounter, wouldn't that be classified as 'obviously harmful' [to her mental well-being and potentially to her marriage]?

[Helcack]

Personally this was a problem in my gaming group for a bit, and caused my best friend to never want to play the game. I will have to agree that murder and torture are actually a lot more common than people would like to think about. The problem with nerds in general is that they on average are repressed and use games to express their feelings as they don't feel emotionally available unless they can project their feelings onto a character. Being repressed as such causes control issues, sex and especially rape are about taking control, yadda, yadda, I got bored halfway through writing this so I'll get to the point.

TLDW; Try to understand and accept people even if they want to express a form of control that upsets you as you don't know what they've been through themselves. Roleplaying is therapeutic for many people... So don't get mad at the DM, but also make it clear that you aren't comfortable with the subject and allow the player to express control in different ways.

/I apologize for being long-winded and etc... I have literally yelled "Uncultured swine" at my screen after reading some comments on here.

[Snowblind]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

If said barmaid is diametrically opposed to the encounter, wouldn't that be classified as 'obviously harmful' [to her mental well-being and potentially to her marriage]?

Would you consider being kept as the pet of a forest creature and used as a meat shield whose sole existence is based on physically defending said forest creature from harm, laying down your life if necessary, as "obviously harmful".

Because that is within the bounds of the spell. It's one of the ways Dryads use their SLA, so it's fair to say any interpretation of "obviously harmful" that excludes the above isn't the intended interpretation.