gamegrene.com

Wow, a very well covered (and courageous) article.

We had one game where the GM had a PC raped, and although the GM still played with our group, he was never made GM again. Fortunately for the PC's player, the actual rape wasn't graphic, so the trauma of the actual rape was low. But that player never played that character again, and was quite irritated at the GM.

I also prefer a game with realism, but it is after all only a game, and there are some aspects of "the real" that I don't feel are appropriate for a game-- this is one of them. I have said on previous posts that the game is all about having fun, and if the group isn't having fun, then what's the point of it all.

Thanks for writing on this topic. Whether or not it needed to be written, I think it needs to be read.

As a sidenote, this is one of the less-mentioned (but still considered) advantages of Paranoia: the ample amounts of hormone suppressants cuts out 99% of potential "encounters". (As for the other 1%, if you want sex in games, you shouldn't be playing Paranoia.) Combined with the knee-jerk "DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS" censorship of cuss words and you have one of the more kid-friendly RPGs out there. (That is, if you don't mind the violence, anti-social behavior and the humorously depressing viewpoint.)

As for my other games, I've never had one where sex came up, let alone rape. Either I'm lucky, or most of the groups out there consider sex a forbidden topic.

-Mike Lemmer

Rogue, buddy... where ya been?

Thanks for your support and insight... well worth it, as usual.

Come to think of it, we may have had an NPC-behind-the-scenes-rescued-after-the-fact kind of rape in a game. Boy, that was some time ago. In that regard, I can see how it can work with a campaign's storyline. Doesn't need to be shown; just understood that it happened.

Great example of famine... heh. Have to try that one sometime.

an interesting and thought provoking read. thanks, shataina.

It is interesting to think about what such twistedness actually accomplishes, isn't it? One might say that it's a good way to get people emotionally involved, but it seems as though there are always other ways to do that. I wonder what it is that attracts us to that sort of thing?

Perhaps a little bit of context might help. I'm running a D&D game with a strong Call of Cthulhu-style emphasis on Cosmic Horror. I don't use alignment or standard fantasy racial stereotypes, and I've removed resurrection from the setting. I emphasize a sort of Gnostic/Zoroastrian struggle between the "true nature of the soul" and the evils perpetrated by the demiurge.

In this setting, I play mortals as people - they run the gamut from "noble" to villainous to barking mad. The Outsiders are mostly beings of utter horror. This conceit speaks to my feelings about alignment; it's my way of telling my players "Your standard perceptions of good, evil, and 'neutrality' don't apply here. You have to treat people as people. By the same token, when Cthulhu comes to town, you can't act like it doesn't apply to you."

I find this helps us explore the true limits of heroic behavior. When all is hopeless, a character's true nature is revealed. The real heroes are the ones who are willing to suffer death - or far worse - so others may live.

What has this got to do with rape? Well, we're exploring the limits of goodness, so we also have to know the limits of evil. You say below that there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed without player consent; I would go a step further and say that there are some lines that probably shouldn't be crossed at all.

Take, for example, one of my favorite stories from the so-called Cthulhu Mythos: "The Dunwich Horror" by H.P. Lovecraft. In this story, a young woman is offered by her own father as a rape-offering to a hideous, alien entity. This happens 'off-stage,' as it were; and the symbolism of the story is such that it clearly conveys much of HPL's own fears relating to women and the reproductive act. But any way you slice it, this is a story centered around what is sometimes casually called 'tentacle rape.' The monsters of the story are the resultant offspring of this incident.

I wouldn't ever go there. I just can't. I seriously doubt any of my female players (or male players who play female characters) would ever consent to such a plotline, but more importantly it's just too misogynist and twisted for me. I can conceive of it, but I don't like to. The furthest I'll go is to include Dunwich-Horror-style monsters in my setting, who presumably result from a similar episode involving some nameless, dreadfully unfortunate NPC.

I can see the objection coming (perhaps not from you, but from someone): "But that's not real, and 'regular' rape is. Why does something imaginary turn your stomach when something reflective of a very real problem seems ok to you?" I don't have a good answer: I can only say we all draw the line in different places. I will insist, perhaps feebly, that I am neither a misogynist nor a homophobe and that this is a subject that I do not like to see handled lightly. With considerable respect to OldTimer, the example of the "humorous" rape of a human man by an orc woman is something I think actually shows a little bit of insensitivity. Who am I to preach at the 'Timer, when I'm running a far darker game than he(?) ever would? No one. I don't hold myself superior. But I wouldn't ever characterize a sexual assault as amusing. (I'm a bit of a pro-Orc, anti-stereotype gamer, too, so that's important to keep in mind with reference to this particular remark.)

I've included several rapes of female NPCs in my campaign - all 'offscreen' - to help define some of my villains as villainous bastards. It's effective: the players uniformly despise them and want to see justice visited upon them.

I had a player perpetrating gay-rape on NPCs for a while. His NPC victims were all thoroughly villainous, but there was a general distaste at the table for this character and his proclivities. It was an offensive-as-all-hell stereotype, and I probably should've put a stop to it. Fortunately the character died before anyone got truly offended.

As noted, I had one PC raped by an NPC. While the player and I discussed this eventuality at some length before it happened, I now think perhaps you are right - I probably had already established this NPC character's villainy by his previous attacks against the PC's NPC best-friend. In retrospect, I think the assault was gratuitous. While the same PC was sexually coerced in the same plotline, the player really hammed up that part of the story, and it led to a fascinating subplot. But I worry that maybe I stepped over the line with the assault, even though she was "a good sport" as I somewhat patronizingly put it, and I probably won't do such a thing to a PC again. There are many, many ways to establish villainy, and to resort to one of the ultimate forms of violation seems to betray a lack of imagination on my part.

As a GM, I would never dream of bringing sex into the game. We keep it at a level of fun escapism and leave potential baggage at the door. All of my players are there to forget their worries and have some laughs.

I did have a problem with a previous player that insisted on creating absolutely miserable background stories for each of his characters: typically they had been orphaned, were products and victims of incest, had been raped, mutilated, tortured, you name it. Then he played these psychological husks that were paralyzed by indecision; think "fighter with phobias of edged weapons, blood, fire, and loud noises" or "cleric that has become an atheist and so has no spellcasting ability." Their motivation? Exacting bloody, horrific, sex-and-violence type revenge on their malefactors. Oh my.

It was ridiculous. I cautioned him privately against it, but he was resolute that playing an angst-ridden, suicidal trainwreck was just his cup of tea.

Two games in, the party abandoned his 13 year old waif Psionicist with club feet in the forest and moved on. He complained; they stopped the show and said, "Dude, you are adding ZERO fun to the game. Deal with it."

He pouted and quit, and the fun-factor immediately went up. It's so nice when your players help steer the ship clear of rocky personalities.

Taking advantage of sleeping people is sometimes argued as a lesser crime since no threat of violence was involved. But you're right, it's in the same category as getting someone so drunk they can't say yes or no.

And the situation has been made clear in later discussions. Our group has almost fallen apart over some other incidents, and it always results in a huge e-mail discussion. Everyone gets to say what they want from the games and what they absolutely DON'T want.

Funny timing - I've barely gotten around to reading World of Darkness: Ghost Stories, and the entire Chapter 2 ("The Terrifying Tale of James Magnus") seems absolutely ripe for exploitation of the above kind. Reading the adventure (a haunted house infected with oversexed black magic kinks) kept tweaking my "rape" nerve, but it came to quite a point when page 67 rolled around. Describing the female antagonist, which can possess PCs: "It may attempt to seduce females, or possess them and use them to seduce or attack males" and then a bit later, in regards to her transmogrify ability of a possessed victim: "Characters can spare the lives of [their possessed friends] by consenting to Aiesha's sexual advances". Sounds like "Charm Person" and "But you had a choice!" to me.

Always happy to be quoted in a positive light. :-)

I wouldn't worry that "discussing [why roleplayed rape is a bad thing] will lead to rationalization about it on some peoples' part," though, mostly because the people who would try to rationalize it have already made up their minds, and will manage to rationalize it to themselves whether you give them words to twist or not. Sort of like the old Infocom "Hitchhiker's Guide" game, where if you make a typo, you cause a catastrophe of cosmic proportions. And if you work and work and work and manage to never make a typo... well, in the end, you cause that exact same catastrophe.

So I'm going to go on the record and say, yes, role-playing rape is always a bad idea, in the same way that playing "shoot the tale off the donkey using live ammunition" would always be a bad idea for a party game. Sure, you could fire the gun once and do no actual harm. Or fire it twice. Or five times. Or ten. Or fifty. Or you could fire it just once, straight through the heart of your best friend, just arrived at the party to wish you a happy birthday.

Anyone who tells you there are no victims in a role-played rape is spouting BS. There are only two types of role-play rape available, and each causes it's own sort of damage:

1) Without player consent. In this type, there is a true victim, since the damage from rape is mental/emotional (per my previous post).

2) With player consent. By definition, there's no immediate victim with this type of role-play rape, but role-play is the most powerful learning tool available. And while I'm as sickened as anyone by the religious rights' attempts to oversimplify the lessons we learn from it, and to tar the whole thing as demonic brainwashing, I cannot begin to deny that nearly 30 years of role-play have had a deep, profound, and dramatic impact on my personality.

A lot of what we learn from the fantasies of RPGs depends on what made us want to act out those fantasies in the first place. Each time our role-play efforts meet with un-rebuffed success, we take it as a personal affirmation of the motives behind our fantasies, not (unless we're mentally unstable) an affirmation of the fantasies themselves, which is where the religious right gets it wrong. We've revealed a tiny fragment of our soul to our fellow players, and they've given their approval, tacitly if not explicitly. And all this plays straight into the "broken windows" model of urban crime.

The essence of the broken windows model (which was proved through practical testing to cut down crime in New York City) is that broken windows in a neighborhood increase the crime rate. In a broader sense, it means that the way to stop the big crimes before they happen (murder, rape, armed robbery) is to vigorously prosecute the small crimes (vandalism, turnstyle jumping, etc.), because people rarely jump straight into the big crimes. Instead, they learn that they can get away with the little stuff without consequences, and slowly expand their horizons to include the more severe offenses.

Player-consent role-play rape, then, is basically vandalism of the mind. It teaches the participants that they can engage in the mental and emotional vicitimization of others and get away with it. And just as few vandals ever graduate to murder, few consent-role-play rapists will ever graduate to real life rape. But I'd never, ever leave my wife or child alone with someone who got his kicks off of role-played rape any more than I'd drop them off unescorted in the middle a neighborhood full of grafitti and broken windows.

There are some things that are just too taboo for me to throw into a game, and this is one of them. I have never played with a GM who has done this, nor would I likely play with them for very long if they did do it. Sex comes up in game from time to time (or quite often depending on the campaign), and this is fine. Murder, fine. Torture, yeah occasionally. But rape is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed in my opinion.

1) It is up to the GM to make a game fun, fair and entertaining for everyone. If the GM cannot control the players, or allows some elements of the group to bully others, they're no GM. Move on and find another group to play with.

I'd have to disagree with this. At the social level, it's everyone at the table's responsibility to make sure the session is fun, fair and entertaining for everyone.

MArsden
When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded.

Interesting. I come here on occasion to read the articles. This one actually prompted me to join and respond.

I've been playing off and on over the last 20+ years. Now we can be pretty sick in our own right, i remember one character who took the description of a monster (erect hyena-men) a bit to far, and abused their corpses after we killed them (surely you didn't think we lost did you). But the question of rape has never come up. Being a guy that likes to play a female character, this article brought me up short. Made me wonder how i'd feel if my character were forced into something like that.

Now i've been known to come up with some very bizarre, perverse stuff in my time. Sickened co-workes with some of my utterances but i'm actually a bit shocked that this has never even occured to me. Knowing the guys i play with, this would probably never come up (now watch it come up next time we get together) but the article is very thought provoking. Good job!

an interesting outlook there , lurkinggherkin, and a thoughtful one.

just a note: you said:
"Graphic violence on the big or small screen is held to be more acceptable than graphic scenes of sexual congress.."

I'd like to emphasize that this is a very american view. In other countries (i.e. most of Europe) the relation is reversed and sex (or erotic imagery) is more prevalent than violence. In still other places, both are equally abundant (whether common, rare or even completly banned).

I think violence can be more acceptable than rape in an RPG (or game, or comic, or movie, or whatever) depending on how it's conveyed.

My wife disagrees with you. She can't understand why anyone would want to invent a game where the object of the game is to go around killing things or people - for whatever thinly disguised justification.

In a game where monsters have alignments and are intrinsically evil, players can conveniently claim that they are justified in killing those monsters because their 'detect evil' ability registers 'bad guy' - regardless of any actual evidence (or lack thereof) of wrongdoing. But are you trying to say that players of games don't actually enjoy the act of virtual killing and violence? The satisfaction of scoring a hit and dealing a deadly wound?

Most games sanitise violence by avoiding things like the permanent disablements or disfigurements that can arise from being hit by a bloody great sword. In Star Wars, you can get repaired anyhow, so no worries there.

What I am trying to say is that violence in games is such an accepted part of the games culture that gamers tend to take for granted that it is acceptable. Not everyone finds it so.

Star Wars is a tale of good versus evil. Guys on both sides get killed / maimed. The violence goes hand-in-hand with the adventure aspects of the movie. Rape has no place in the SW movies and I fail to see what rape could bring to them.

I'd just like to point out that Star Wars is a film for kids. Check the rating.

Do you imagine that Palpatine, steeped in the ways of the Dark Side, would never have commited an act of rape in his life? Because it's just 'too humiliating and perverse'?

Okay, so what if some want a more realistic game? Something grittier. I still see no reason to inlcude rape.

It depends on what kind of 'reasons' govern the action in your game. If the things that happen in your game are always driven by OOG reasons and RL sensibilities of the players and DM, then fair enough, although I find that that kind of game is somewhat problematic in itself, for other reasons. If you say that you don't allow rape to EVER occur in your game because it's just too offensive IRL, you're kind of saying that anything else that happens in the game IS OK IRL.

What I was saying is that rape could potentially occur in a game where you have 'evil' creatures and people. Newsflash, rape is an evil act (according to most people's definition of evil in modern western culture, and certainly according to those who have been raped) and so why should the bad guys exclude it from their lexicon of evil? The 'reason' for the rape occuring isn't an OOG one, the DM isn't doing it for fun or something, he/she is simply extrapolating the likely actions of their disturbingly evil NPCs. When running my NPCs I don't think 'What do I want the NPC to do?', I tend to think 'What would the NPC do in this situation, given the impression I have of their personality?' This is why, for instance, monsters and opponents of the player characters in my campaigns often flee or surrender when it becomes clear that the odds are against them winning (if they've taken 50% casualties and have barely scratched the PCs in return, they'd be stupid not to). In fact my individual monsters tend to try to back out of a fight when they are 75% damaged, especially if they haven't scored a decent hit in return. Just about the only creatures that fight to the death in my games are zombies or golems or similar.

What's the upside to having one of the PC's raped?

Just like in RL, there are none. The only 'upside' is that it might make for a more consistent and believable campaign. More 'quasi-authentic'. I'm not suggesting that you should consciously choose to throw in a few rapes to MAKE your campaign authentic. I'm just saying that if a situation arises where NPCs could 'reasonably' be expected to carry out such an act, and provided you know that any players involved have a sufficient degree of psychological player/character seperation to not be personally traumatised or offended, then you shouldn't consciously avoid this occuring. In a sense, where possible, you should avoid 'intervention' in the game reality for the sake of political correctness.

At this point, I'd like to mention as an aside, that a player character has never actually BEEN raped in any of my campaigns. I'm just saying that it's certainly not excluded as a possibility. And I'm absolutely certain the players are aware of that.

There are too many opportunities to have fallout between the DM and the PC's...or the PC's and the PC's...depending on how the rape is handled.

See my comments above about 'a sufficient degree of psychological player/character seperation' and my earlier comments about GM's having to tread with care when dealing with a group of players that they don't know very well.

I don't think we can use the "rape isn't as bad as murder" aspect to justify it. One, that's debatable depending on who you are -- if I think rape is worse and I'm deemed a moron for it...fine, then I'm a moron and I'll deal with it...but I'm not changing my mind.

I would never call you a moron for having this opinion. For some people, they think they would rather die than be raped, although I suspect that if put in an actual RL pants-wetting situation where they have to make a choice I suspect that many of them will change their minds. It also makes a difference if you have kids; you wouldn't want to leave them alone in the world if there's another option no matter how grim. Without going into details I was in a situation not too long ago where I genuinely thought I was about to die and the main thing on my mind was the anguish that my death would cause to my wife and daughter.

Two, would anyone ever make a video game where the player goes around and rapes other people?

Firstly, unpleasant though it is to contemplate, I think that someone would and someone either has, or will - though it certainly wouldn't be a 'mainsream phenomenon' in western society. There are more nasty people about in the world than you might imagine who would play this game. Your neighbour two doors down the street might be one of them. The well-groomed corporate CEO that you never get to meet might be one of them.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a trawl of japanese on-line gaming sites turned up something unpleasant of this nature. Consider the tentacle rape scenes that occur in certain animé videos.

Secondly, would anyone ever make a video game where the player character goes around killing people? Yes, they would - and have done - because they are able to add a justification for the killing. The people being killed are 'bad guys' and killing them terminates their ability to perform future acts of evil, whereas raping them would not. Rape doesn't 'fix' anything, and you can't add a veneer of justification to it. However, try to tell me that a player doesn't feel a sense of smug satisfaction about taking down an opponent? Rather than a sense of sorrow that they have to kill this person, or thing? How often do you see games where enemies are taken prisoner and an attempt is made to re-habilitate them? How often do you see games where enemies surrender and their surrender is accepted and they are treated as POWs? Please don't kid yourself, player characters (under the guidance of their players) often do some pretty ugly things in the name of 'Good'. Most game designers (of video games) tend not to present people with moral dilemmas and generally speaking the monsters/bad guys just attack mindlessly until they are killed, thus conveniently de-humanising them for the player's benefit.

The point is, that no-one designs games in which the point of the game is, ostensibly, just killing things. There's always an in-game reason provided for the killing. Similarly, non-one other than a sicko (of which there are more than you may imagine) would be expected to design a game where the point of the game is, ostensibly, just raping things. But it is entirely possible that a game could be designed where such a thing could occur, under certain conditions, for in-game reasons.

Why does death jive? Because in a game, death doesn't have the consequence that it does in real life. If you guy dies...he can come back via a quarter / restart switch / or raise dead spell.

How convenient. Ever played in a campaign where resurrection isn't permitted?

How about a campaign where people actually role-play the trauma of death? A resurrected character is plagued by nightmares about the moments leading up to, and the actual moment of, death? Quite simply, you are underestimating how traumatic death is.

If you say that the resurrection magic somehow erases the trauma from the character's mind, you should also allow magic to be able to erase the trauma of a rape from someone's mind. How about a Restoration spell in D&D? That fixes quite a few things.

How would you "take back" the rape?

See above.

Most PC's kill orcs...but very few murder.

When is killing an orc justified, and when is it murder?

Luckily, orcs look very ugly and they 'ping' as evil on the alignment radar so most people don't worry about killing them even if they've never actually seen them commit an evil act. So what if the dungeon you've invaded is their home? They have no right to use force on you to try to drive you out, do they, because you're the 'good' guys....uh-huh?

Also..in the real world...murder is about malice, hatred, loss-of-control, wrath, impulse...something along those lines. But in the game world...most death isn't murder...death in RPG's is more about victory, justice, questing...things like that.

Yep. Victory and justice against bad people who actually commit evil acts within the game setting.....like rape.

Questing? Why would you kill someone because you're questing? Because they're in your way?

Rape is about hummiliation, helplessness, torture, violation, and perversion. I'm at a loss in figuring out what kind of alternate meaning rape can have in a game.

It doesn't have any alternate meaning that I can see, within the game.

Sorry...I just feel that certain things have no place at the game table.

I also agree that certain things have no place 'at the game table' (as opposed to 'within the game').

In my case, I am more concerned about player vs player conflict or player vs DM conflict, or bullying and intimidation - which are the things that can sometimes go on at gaming tables in real life, especially (but not exclusively) amongst younger players. The fact is that if these things manifest themselves in-game via actions such as PC vs PC rape, then removing the possibility of this occuring in the game has simply denied the aggressor one channel for expression of their aggression. They will find another, such as PC vs PC killing or PC vs PC torture. Or even stealing their goods or property, repeatedly. If the DM is involved as the bullying party it's even worse (and possibly harder to spot that it's happening).

When this kind of behaviour occurs, I'm of the opinion that it's better to deal with it at the OOG source rather than seeking to impose artificial restrictions on in-game behaviour.

I think you're trying too hard to meld reality with fantasy. If you're going to continue along those lines, you might as well start endorsing that embezzelment, infaticide, cannibalism, and scatology should be in the game as well.

Those things are all in my games. I'm just sayin'. Scatology has never had any "air time" because it's not something I really think about. But if a player asked me if it existed, I'd say it probably does somewhere, if you look in a place that is populous or degenerate enough. But those other things, especially cannibalism, are very much part of the setting I run. It's a dark setting, sure, and it's definitely not for everyone. But my players and I love it.

Not my Game Table anyway.

That's the real point. We play these things to have fun. If there's anything that gets in the way of your fun, get rid of it. If pure escapism is your bag, go for it! I like "gritty" fantasy, myself. My setting is sort of like the real world, but "through a glass and darkly." It's not straight D&D or "high fantasy" because those things don't move me.

I think Shataina's line on this subject is a bit broader than yours, RG. She seems to think there are ways in which even the darkest subjects can be handled in such a way as to keep the game fun (and more importantly, to keep it from scarring anyone). I agree. If it's not for you, it's not for you...but I think you're being a bit categorical.

To my mind, what has no place in the game is anything that interferes with the enjoyment of it. Everything else is fair game as far as I'm concerned. But I'm very glad this article was written, because it made me re-think how I handle certain disturbing elements.

in a somewhat off-topic side note:
how many of you people play (or have players in your group play) characters in the third person? how many in first?
Think about the changes this element of playing style causes to player immersion and POV (as pointed by lurkinggherkin)

No...I don't mean to imply that *you're* advocating rape (in the game or outside of it). It's just one of those things that I feel doesn't deserve a defense of *any* sort...not when it comes to its existience in escapist type events, like RPG's.

And I don't feel that real life murder equates to the same kind of violence that exists in RPG's -- I feel there's a difference in fighting for a good cause and setting out to ruin another's life (whether it be murder or rape). Too much pycho-analysis of why the PC's do what they do

It's not about sanitization. It's about not pouring Pepsi over your Wheaties. Certain things just don't mix.

Rape is one of those things that is seldomly dealt with in the right context. A book / movie about how someone deals with it...I have no objections with. A book / movie / whatever that thows it in for a "hefty dose of reality...'cause like is tough, buckwheat...deal with my outlook"...no, sorry, had too much of that and its far from quality entertainment.

I don't doubt that it's *possible* for rape to be dealt with in mature fashion in a RPG...but why do it? Where's the upside in dealing with this? Didn't you even admit there's not really much of one in a previous post?

I'd probably have no objections if someone were to argue against making games more violent...but to argue that because the violence is there and, therefore, rape shouldn't be excluded...sorry, I just can't think of a reason to include it (except maybe as a sub-plot for an off-screen, 3rd tier NPC -- i.e., the Duke of Cuckoo Land's wife was raped 20 years ago by the evil tyrant that you're fighting against).

But, no, I don't think the inclusion of rape in a game makes a DM "evil." I'm not saying that. The inclusion is most likely superfulous...but not evil, per se. I seriously doubt it makes the game more enjoyable in any capacity.

I'll go ahead and confess that my hatred of rape is bases in part because it's treated as a "lesser" crime. A guy can accidentally kill another -- manslaughter -- and get 25 years in jail. Another man can plan a rape...deliberately terrorize another person...and walk in 5. The only crime that I can think of that trumps rape in terms of evil intent is Murder One...but, because murder has a higher consequence, we treat it as the higher crime. I think the focus is too much on consequence and not enough on intent.

It's just one of those things that I feel doesn't deserve a defense of *any* sort...not when it comes to its existience in escapist type events, like RPG's.

Given that you later make this statement.....

The only crime that I can think of that trumps rape in terms of evil intent is Murder One

....I am curious to learn whether anyone (PC or NPC) is restrained by Deus Ex Machina in your campaign world from ever commiting the more abhorrent crime of Murder One.

Let me re-emphasise; I am not attacking the way that you play. There's nothing wrong with the kind of game that you and your friends enjoy.

I am only attacking your assertion that the occurence of a rape in game play at ANY game table is indefensible under ANY circumstances; particularly when the best defense you can offer for in-game violence is that 'it's in a good cause'. Swordfish (of the film of the same name) uses much the same argument. As do Team America. Actually, so did Hitler, come to think of it. NO I'm not saying you guys are as bad as the Nazis (not all of whom were bad, in fact; and let's not forget, even the Pope was a Hitler Youth once). I'm just saying that if you are going to REQUIRE everything that goes on in your game world to have a 'sufficient justification' other than that of 'it happens in real life', well I think that justifying violence simply because 'it's in a good cause' is a pretty flimsy argument.

You keep talking about not being able to see a 'reason to include rape in a game' and how it is 'superfluous'. Well, if you take the alignment mechanism provided in D&D at face value, ALL acts of evil are superfluous. Because creatures that are evil just detect as such without ever having to commit a single evil act! All the player characters need to do is wind the Paladin up, turn him/her loose and attack anything he/she gets a bad feeling about. Murder is superfluous; heck, stealing candy from a kid is superfluous! Why have the bad guys do anything bad at all, they can just be 'born bad' like it says in the monster manual / compendium!

OK, so let's say that you let rapes happen, but only ever 'off-camera'. Presumably, unless there's a whole lot of consentual sex going on between humans and orcs, this is going on somewhere to produce all those half-orcs. So suppose a female player character is captured by orcs? Now, in some gaming groups, where rape is a no-no (especially if they tend to play in 1st person), the DM might dream up some reason why the character isn't abused in the 'expected' fashion.

Now don't get me wrong - if 'my orcs' have a PC in their clutches, don't think I wouldn't give them a chance, within reason. I'd look favourably on their escape attempts and cut them some slack; but there'd still be some die rolls in it. I'd give them some time, so that the other PCs can effect a rescue.

But, I can assure you, if all of these fail, there would come a point at which the player themselves (in my gaming group) realises they've outstretched their favours, and they themselves will start to feel uncomfortable with the breaks I'm giving them, because they stretch the bounds of credibility like a bad movie (or what WE would consider to be a bad movie). Bear in mind that these are people who, for the most part, I have known for twenty years or more. Even then, when they have bowed to 'the inevitable' it still wouldn't be inevitable - there'd be a die roll in it, kind of a 'what do they do to her today' sort of thing. And I'd roll it up front, not behind my screen. And if the worst happened, nobody would laugh or find it funny. And I'm certain they wouldn't hold it against me either; they'd say I was being 'more than reasonable'.

The above scenario has never happened. But it COULD happen, and it would run pretty much as I've described. Depending on the player involved I might tread a little more carefully in some cases than others.

There have been two occasions during games I've been running in which player characters have been subjected to what I would call 'early-stage' torture (these occasions were seperated by about 12 years of real time BTW). In one case the PC spilled the beans to the bad guys just as they were about to take an eye; he escaped shortly after on a successful bend bars roll (and he hadn't told them the whole truth, of course....). In the other, the PC (a different one) was given a short spell on a rack to 'loosen his tongue'; he toughed it out on a Resist Interrogation roll. He was contacted in his cell by an NPC who was a traitor within the enemy camp (not a traitor on the party's side, per se, just someone with his own agenda). He was given some healing for his dislocated joints and set loose (on the proviso that he would carry out a mission on behalf of this NPC). I didn't throw the NPC in to 'let him off' by the way; the prescence of the traitorous NPC in the enemy camp was already detailed in my notes. And I hadn't planned to capture the PC either; it was just something that happened. A fortuitous connection of events.

Many adventures in our campaign tend to be 'set-piece' affairs; the DM sets up the initial conditions that the PCs wander into / encounter / become aware of, and then we just see how things develop. In a campaign where the action is very linear and story-based, it's easy I suppose to not have things happen that you don't want to happen, and if you are used to playing that type of game you might be forgiven for thinking that ALL games are similarly story-based, and so you might say 'why write a rape into the storyline?'. But with our campaign there IS no storyline - not on a day-to-day basis, though there is a long-term plot going on but with LOTS of side-treks and unplanned stuff happening.

I don't doubt that it's *possible* for rape to be dealt with in mature fashion in a RPG...but why do it? Where's the upside in dealing with this? Didn't you even admit there's not really much of one in a previous post?

I did, but then there's no 'upside' to player characters being killed either. But most campaigns allow for this to occur.

Why do it? Because convincing bad guys do actual evil things, they don't just wear an invisible 'chaotic evil' badge. Not in my campaign, anyhow. And my players happen to want something vaguely realistic. Even if that means that their own characters might also be on the receiving end of that realism.

I AM disagreeing with the notion that rape should be considered a universal 'taboo' subject in all roleplaying games everywhere, and that we should ALL steer gently round it. And I am willing to bet that there are some rape victims out there - some, maybe not all, but some - who would agree with me. I don't think they'd be happy to hear that someone's idea of escapism is to escape to a world where rape never happens. Where does that leave them?

I know that you are probably never going to agree with me, because I think you feel that I am trying to persuade you to include rape as a part of your game. I'm not. I'm simply saying that it CAN be a part of a 'realistic' game and handled in a mature fashion. If you ask the question 'why do it?', don't expect a moral justification or a plot-building justification. There are none. I would never have a character raped as part of a plot, although the act itself might give rise to one incidentally.

The only 'justification' is the simple fact that in a realistic game 'bad things sometimes happen to good people' - just like in real life. Maybe that's not 'escapist' enough for you. For my players, perhaps the escapism lies in having the power to go after the bastards that do those bad things and make them sorry.

For someone who continues to admit that there's no upside to having rape in the game...you sure do go to great lengths to defend it.

Whilst you seem unable to provide any upside to having murder in the game.

I am not, of course, going to great lengths to defend the act of rape (which I'm sure you understand, but just to clarify).

What I am going to great lengths to defend is the freedom of GMs and players to have as realistic a game as possible if that is what they want. In other words, what I am opposed to is censorship and political correctness intruding into role-playing game worlds.

Shataina has written a good article here, because she has pointed out the importance of treating the subject of rape in a game with care and sensitivity - she has made it clear (to those for whom perhaps it wasn't already clear) - that an in-game rape is not a trivial matter!

However, I am concerned with knee-jerk reactions to this, such as 'banning' rape from RPGs or making claims that any GM or group of players who are not adverse to the notion of in-game rape occuring in their game world are a bunch of sick perverts.

Not least because once you start doing this you are on the slippery slope of restricting the content of what goes on in RPGs. And for me, the basic tenet of role-playing game worlds is the principle that anything can happen in such a world - both good and bad.

I have a feeling we'd also disagree on what a "realistic" game is...and what constitutes an enjoyable one.

I daresay - however, don't let our disagreement over this specific issue colour your opinion of me. You may find we have more in common than you think. I thought your article on hit points was a good one, by the way.

Oh, one last thing -

Bag Pipes don't mix well in Jazz bands.

http://www.hipwax.com/music/patch/horns_rh.html

;-)

OK zip, I understand that I've struck a nerve here. I paused for a second before typing that stuff about Hitler and the Pope, knowing it would strike a nerve with someone - but I decided to publish and be damned. I admit with hindsight that perhaps I could have chosen a better example.

Please don't imagine that I idealise the Catholic church or any other organised religion. My main point was that we shouldn't be content to simply take a claim of 'good cause' at face value and see it as a justification for anything and everything.

Alignment thread? Read it, done it, got the T-shirt years ago which is now faded and worn lying at the bottom of my drawer.

I accept your rant, and on the whole agree with it. And I believe it supports my viewpoint rather than undermines it.

It's not about censorship...it's about style...it's about putting square pegs in round holes...or, rather, not doing that.

Indeed. It's about style. Different groups have different styles. My group has a different style to your own. And you are in no position to claim that my group's playing style is wrong. There is no universal standard for what constitutes a square peg and a round hole; you and your group of players will define these things differently to my own.

You say it's not about censorship. I'm not saying it is, at the moment. But it's a step down the slippery slope, when people start handing out judgements on other people's game content. This kind of thinking lies behind Hasbro's revocation of the d20 license for the 'Book of Erotic Fantasy' - despite the fact that the material was d20 compliant. (Please don't make the mistake of thinking that I am claiming rape has anything to do with eroticism, by the way. I am citing this as an example of the 'thought police' in action).

And quit trying to equate RPG violence with murder. Killing and murdering are two different things (either accept that or don't...I don't have the energy to start that debate).

My reference to murder in the post you refer to was not a general equation of violence with murder. I was talking quite specifically about murder. Such as that which might be comitted by a bunch of raiding Ogres attacking some helpless villagers. Or by a jealous husband who discovers his wife is having an affair and decides to do away with her lover. Do you not agree that these are acts of murder? And do they never happen in your campaign world?

Do player characters ever get killed in your world? I mean, ever?

It's about trying to include something that doesn't fit.

Are you familiar with the concept of subjectivity?

I don't add the concept of divorce in my games either. It's not because it's taboo or because it offends someone's sensibilities...it's because divorce doesn't bring anything to RPG's.

My goodness. Do you have the concept of marriage in your game world? What happens when things don't work out? Are people obliged by the state/church to soldier on in loveless marriages? Do player characters ever marry?

Maybe these things just don't enter into your virtual universe - and that's absolutely fine, if you and your players want that kind of game. Just don't, I repeat DON'T get upset when the rest of the world don't all fall sweetly into line with your idea of what constitutes an 'ideal playing style'. Not everyone wants to eat at McDonalds.

It'd be silly to make an intriguing movie based off how one deals with the trauma of rape and / or divorce...and then throw in a lightsaber fight in the middle because we don't want to censor out the violence.

I'm truly sorry to say this, Rogue, but you're a marketing executive's dream.....

I admire your dedication...but I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I doubt anyone reading this thinks that I, or anyone else, is saying that we're making a "knee-jerk" decision to exclude rape.

Your decision to categorically exclude rape from your personal campaign world is not knee-jerk. The kind of knee-jerk reaction I was talking about would be explicit statements written into the rules of games by their authors / publishers, telling people what kind of things should or shouldn't occur in a game. (Advice is fine; suggestions are fine; diktats about content are not). Or even worse, legislation being brought to bear against people who include particular content in games.

I was thinking of the wider / longer term picture, you see. Not simply your game, Rogue.

I've gamed for over 15 years and I have a pretty good idea about what works and what doesn't. I'm saying that rape just doesn't work.

You forgot the magic words, Rogue. 'In my campaign world, with my players, in the style of game I play'. Add those on to the end of your sentence and I would take no issue with it whatsoever.

Having gamed for over 25 years I too have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't, in my campaign world, with my players, in the style of game I play.

I play RPG's 'cause I'm a bit too old (and my knees are too weak) to go outside and play cops and robbers and I'd feel a bit foolish doing it.

Hey, you're never too old to make a fool of yourself. Some of us lot are 40 or pushing 40. Take a look:

http://baylon69.valuehost.co.uk/mdb/webpics/York02/YK0010.jpg

(shame about that lamp-post)

http://www.atburton.freeserve.co.uk/MilitiesdeBec/Main_files/image005.jpg

Don't worry, we don't go around raping people...

I believe that RPG's exist to give us guys who are 15+ the chance to keep playing...'cause I think it's a good thing to inlcude playtime in one's life (so long as it doesn't become the prime focus of one's life).

There you are, Rogue. I told you we had more in common than you think. I absolutely, 100% agree with you here.

With the proviso that the content of those RPGs does not have to forevermore remain frozen at a '15' rating.

Whatever. The P stands for Playing.

If you'll excuse the play on words....I can play that game too:

'Playing' here is part of 'Roleplaying':

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=roleplaying

And even if you take it as a word in its own right, see the various definitions in the link below:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=playing

I don't believe in running games where it's a pure slaughterhouse of bad-guys, by the way...I said something to that affect a few posts ago, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. Heck, one of my players spends 75% of his time trying to talk to the minotaurs rather than attacking them out of reaction.

I have never claimed otherwise, Rogue....I am sure you run a very varied game. I am not accusing you of running a hack-fest. My point - which you still haven't responded to - was this: You say that you can see no upside to rape within the game, therefore on this basis you question my willingness to allow it to happen under certain (believable) circumstances. Hypothetically speaking, of course, as in practise no player character has ever been raped in any of my games.

However, you have yet to provide me with any justification to include murder, or for that matter death of any kind, in an RPG.

Where's the upside?

As a closing note, let me try to explain something here that YOU don't seem able to grasp.

The fact that we have different game-world philosophies; neither of which are right or wrong.

Your game-world philosophy would seem to be something a little like this:

"Identify elements from 'heroic fantasy' that are wholesome and enjoyable and that I know my players find fun to play, and use these as the basis for my game world. Put in the kind of stuff that they'd cheer at in the movies."

My game-world philosophy is:

"My players are a fussy lot who routinely tear movies apart for their lack of realism and absurd deus ex machina driven plots; they get annoyed when super-villains fail to just shoot James Bond in the back of the head when he's in their clutches. Not because they want James Bond to die, but because it's just not realistic.

Therefore I must create for them a world that, so far as possible, does nothing to disturb their suspension of disbelief; it should be a game world that is rather like real life, with people who act like real-life people, including evil people who actually act like real-life evil people. A medieval-type setting, with the addition of magic and heroic feats and some exotic creatures and races (that's the 'fun' bit), but otherwise as believable and absorbing as possible."

I haven't written a longer description of my philosophy in order to denigrate yours in any way. I'm just trying to explain the way I think about this in some detail.

Oh, I've never had a divorce in my campaign. But we have had a couple of player characters get married. Watch this space, you never know....

I refer you back to your earlier comment -

I don't add the concept of divorce in my games either

This is fundamental to the whole thing. You see inclusion of rape as "adding a concept" to a game - because you create a game world based on elements that fulfill certain criteria.

But in my game-world, it's not a matter of "adding a concept". The only "added concepts" in my game world are magic, heroic feats and some exotic creatures / races.

Otherwise, it's simply an attempt at a realistic portrayal of a (mostly) gunpowder-free early renaissance world - warts and all. That's the baseline.

For you, the appearance of rape as a centre-stage event in your game world would be a conscious decision to include. I am not criticising you for choosing not to include rape in your game. Neither you nor your players would be comfortable with its inclusion, so why include it?

For me, the denial of the possibility of rape ever occuring as a centre stage event would be a conscious decision to exclude something that could happen in real life, and under certain conditions might even be a likely event - and something that the players in my group would definitely NOT want me to categorically exclude for out-of-game reasons. They'd feel equally uncomfortable with my decision to exclude as your players would feel uncomfortable about your decision to include.

I hope that you will have the same respect for my decision as I have for yours, recognise that our groups have different playing styles and that there isn't a universally right way or a wrong way to roleplay - just a right way or wrong way for a particular individual or group of players.

Well, nuts. I'd typed a reply and it didn't post.

I think the slippery slope goes both ways. One can endanger a game by excluding too many things...and the game can become endangered by including too many things.

It's all about where one draws the line. I'd encourage everyone to draw the line at rape as I see no benefit to including it.

Taking rape out of the game does not limit realism or creativity -- in fact, I'd argue that people who would enjoy the game less because rape was excluded are a less creative group. "Aw, man, no rape? How we gonna enjoy the game now?"

The upside to having violence / death in the game is that is the X Factor that makes the game intense / exciting / whatever. This is really no different than a video game game -- if you were always guaranteed to "beat the level" (or whatever), then the game is not likely to be as fun. Having death in the game means there are no guarantees.

Yes, PC's have died in my games. But I don't kill them often. I think it's more intense if players don't know when they might die. If I killed one per month, then it becomes anticipated and the game loses punch.

Of course I'm aware of the concept of subjectivity. Are you? My proposoal that rape should be excluded is no more or less subjective than your stance. I'm saying "red" and you're saying "blue" -- both of us are telling others what's best for the the game...we just happen to disagree. Subjectivity doesn't really having anything to do with this.

Everyone draws a line somewhere. I draw mine at rape. I seriously doubt that you truly believe that anything goes in a game.

For example...do you truly believe that the game would be better if everyone played the game stark naked? I mean, let's not limit ourselves...right? Let's not go down the slippery slope of excluding possibilities. So...go ahead and try this next time and let me know how it works for you and your group.

Everyone draws the line somewhere. And I stand by my stance that games are better off without having rape in them -- I feel that the risks outweight the benefits when it comes to RPG rape and I'm all about encouraging folks to make the best RPG's they can. Sometimes that means you have to tailor things and throw out things.

If all you were doing was disagreeing about where I draw the line, then I wouldn't have rambled on so much. But, you have to understand that it's not wrong to draw the line and then encourage others to take to your POV -- you're doing the same thing, you're just doing it from the other side of the fence.

The following is a response to Rogue Githyanki's post a little further up....

I think the slippery slope goes both ways. One can endanger a game by excluding too many things...and the game can become endangered by including too many things.

It's all about where one draws the line. I'd encourage everyone to draw the line at rape as I see no benefit to including it.

Your opinion is noted, and you are very welcome to hold this opinion, and apply this thinking to the games you play.

There are of course other people who would encourage everyone not to play games that involve simulated violence of any description, since they see no 'upside' in including it. Why have an imaginary game world with evil people in it at all? What's wrong with playing dominoes instead? Or if you insist on roleplaying, why not have a game that's solely focussed on solving riddles in order to advance in levels and earn wealth?

These people are also welcome to hold this opinion and I will not try and convince them otherwise. I will not sneer at their dominoes. However, if they come to me and start handing out criticism of the type of game that I and my group of players wish to experience and are comfortable playing because they think they 'know better', well they had better be prepared to see me defend the practises of my gaming group. Just as you are now discovering.

Taking rape out of the game does not limit realism or creativity -- in fact, I'd argue that people who would enjoy the game less because rape was excluded are a less creative group. "Aw, man, no rape? How we gonna enjoy the game now?"

A nice piece of stereotyping that fails to resemble my group in any way, shape or form. Shame on you.

The problem with this kind of argument is that it can easily be made to fit anything at all that you don't like.

Watch this, Rogue:

'I'd argue that people who would enjoy the game less because violence was excluded are a less creative group. "Aw, man, no violence? How we gonna enjoy the game now?"'

Did you see what I did there?

The upside to having violence / death in the game is that is the X Factor that makes the game intense / exciting / whatever. This is really no different than a video game game -- if you were always guaranteed to "beat the level" (or whatever), then the game is not likely to be as fun. Having death in the game means there are no guarantees.

Comparing it with a video game doesn't automatically justify violence, since the presence of violence in video games is just as contestable as it is in RPGs.

Why does it have to be death? People find football exciting, but aside from rare, freak accidents, people don't get killed playing football, do they?

Now, you see, Rogue, actually, I'm not arguing against the inclusion of violence in role playing games. I entirely understand why people include this in their games - indeed, to a large part it is core to many RPGs. BUT there ARE people who do find the violence and death portrayed in RPGs just as horrible as you find rape. AND these people use the same kind of argument that you use! What's more, there are plenty of people who will happily support legislation to limit the contents of games - electronic or tabletop - on the basis of similar arguments to your own.

You have said that including violence and death makes the game exciting - it's the 'X factor'. Now let's take this a bit further. For my players (at least with respect to most of the characters they play), creatures don't deserve to have violence or death visited on them unless they are EVIL. In order to be EVIL they need to commit evil acts - and these acts may include any kind of act that we, in the real world, might consider evil. As none of my players, either male or female, is more specially disturbed by the idea of rape in an imaginary setting than they are the idea of torture, murder, slavery, or various other terrible evils, I have seen no reason to exclude it from my game so far. It's one of the things that bad guys might do that warrants punishment and the exaction of revenge. My player's characters don't go after people and hack them up because they have an alignment; and they don't do it because 'violence is exciting'; they do it because those people are bastards that make their blood boil.

Yes, PC's have died in my games. But I don't kill them often. I think it's more intense if players don't know when they might die. If I killed one per month, then it becomes anticipated and the game loses punch.

That's the way I like it too. There we are. We have something else in common....

(You know, despite this argument, we might even enjoy playing in each other's campaigns!)

As far as player character rape is concerned - well, let's go back to my earlier (hypothetical) scenario where a PC is captured by orcs, and I said that I would allow for the (completely reasonable, if unpleasant) possibility that they might be raped. Now this possibility is one of the reasons that getting captured by orcs is a really bad thing so don't try it if you can help it. Mercifullly, this hasn't ever happened yet. But, supposing it did. Now, let's suppose, having given them a few fair but not giveaway chances to escape / be rescued, and these fail, and so I roll the dice to see what happens to them and they get a 'something very bad' result, and I said to the player concerned, 'Well, ordinarily, I would have said that your character is chosen by the war-chief to be his concubine. However, Rogue Githyanki has enlightened me as to how truly awful rape is ('cause before I didn't realise), so I'm pleased to say that instead they kill your character, boil them and eat them, bones and all. Not necessarily in that order. You can post on Gamegrene to say thanks.' I can guarantee you they wouldn't be impressed - in my game group, which is of course different to yours and everyone elses'.

The possibility of bad things happening to their characters - which includes the whole gamut of possibilities in my 'realistic' game world - are part of the 'X' factor that keeps players on their toes, in my game. And they appreciate the realism. It's one of the reasons they still consider our tabletop game to be superior to MMORPG.

Of course I'm aware of the concept of subjectivity. Are you? My proposoal that rape should be excluded is no more or less subjective than your stance.

The reason I mentioned subjectivity is because you seem to imagine that the way your group plays is a better way to play, in a morally objectivist sense. At least this is what comes across in your argument. Not once (to my notice) have you acknowledged the simple fact that different groups have different styles of play that are suited to them and the individuals within those groups, all of whom may be perfectly happy with that style of play. Something I keep re-iterating as core to my argument, and something that you repeatedly seem to ignore.

I have never said that the way my group plays is better than the way your group plays. In fact I have repeatedly said that you are welcome to continue playing the way that you do, and that I'm sure your style is right for your players. I have been VERY respectful of that fact.

And yet, you keep saying things like -

"I stand by my stance that games are better off without having rape in them -- I feel that the risks outweight the benefits when it comes to RPG rape and I'm all about encouraging folks to make the best RPG's they can."

Yes, we are both being subjective at the 'argument' level. Both of us have an argument, that is simply a matter of opinion for both of us. But the nature of your argument is that you are claiming the existence of an 'objectively correct' playing style that would be beneficial to all roleplaying groups - you do not admit to the possibility that your advice may not be universally applicable, and herein lies your failure to acknowledge subjectivity - at the in-game playing style level.

Shataina ADVISES that rape should be handled very carefully and the players' consent should be obtained - and that rape should not be a gratuitous occurrence to be taken lightly or as a throwaway event by a referee. She doesn't claim that it is wrong to include rape in a game - only that the referee should handle the subject with more care and thought than is typically observed in many gaming groups.

I entirely agree with Shataina's very reasonable views on this. I have some small quibbles concerning her expanded definitions of rape, but these are relatively minor compared to the overall issue and I shan't go into them here.

I'm saying "red" and you're saying "blue" -- both of us are telling others what's best for the the game...we just happen to disagree.

NO. This is the fundamental difference in our arguments that you don't seem to have grasped. I hope that this is the post where the penny drops.

YOU are telling others what's best for the game. By your own admission.

I am saying that what's best for the game is different for different groups of players - and furthermore, what's best may change over time as the group changes, adds and loses players, and players grow older and more mature.

MY argument is that non-exclusion of rape from a game world is not necessarily a bad thing, under ALL circumstances. This doesn't mean that I am advising groups that currently exclude rape to start including it! Can you see the subtle difference? I am not saying 'You should', or 'You shouldn't'. I am saying 'You CAN - it's possible to run a realistic campaign world that doesn't have a special exclusion clause for rape - if the conditions are right - if the players have a suitable attitude'.

The other thing I am taking issue with, is certain people's earlier comments on this board that a referee who allowed a rape to occur within their campaign world was, perforce, some kind of deviant that they wouldn't want around their house. WAAAAYYYY too judgemental. Yes, those people have a personal right to make those kind of snap judgements if they wish, but I also have a right to counter their opinion if I see them encouraging a prejudiced attitude by posting their snap judgements on a message board.

That's not to say that every referee who allows rape to occur in their game is necessarily OK either. Some of them might be sickos. As might some referees who purposely exclude rape from their games. (By the way, it's worth mentioning here that in order to qualify as a 'sicko' in my book you actually have to do something sick...)

Everyone draws a line somewhere. I draw mine at rape. I seriously doubt that you truly believe that anything goes in a game.

Ever played the 'Nuclear War' card game, Rogue?

http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/nucwar.htm

Just curious....

What 'goes' in a game depends entirely on context. I wouldn't pass judgement from afar on someone else's game without a good deal more familiarity. If someone told me that a group of players spent every session simulating rape or torture in their imaginary game world and then asked me to condemn them, my response would be 'insufficient data'. (Though I admit, on first hearing, that it doesn't sound too good....)

For example...do you truly believe that the game would be better if everyone played the game stark naked? I mean, let's not limit ourselves...right? Let's not go down the slippery slope of excluding possibilities. So...go ahead and try this next time and let me know how it works for you and your group.

Whoops. You are confusing what goes on in-game with what goes on in the real world. Remember, we're talking about drawing a line at what goes on in-game.

Besides, it's really very narrow-minded of you to assume that naturists don't enjoy the odd session of D&D now and then....

If all you were doing was disagreeing about where I draw the line, then I wouldn't have rambled on so much. But, you have to understand that it's not wrong to draw the line and then encourage others to take to your POV -- you're doing the same thing, you're just doing it from the other side of the fence.

Certainly, I am encouraging people to take my point of view - and my point of view is, let's be open-minded about this - every gaming group is different, and what works in one group may not work in another (or the same group 10 years later).

Earlier on, you said that we were both arguing our subjective viewpoints from opposite sides of the fence - that you were saying "red" and I'm saying "blue".

I'm not saying "blue"

I'm saying "pick a colour - but choose carefully...."

Drop all the pennies you want...

FYI, 'The penny drops!' is a British expression - it refers to the sudden dawning of understanding. It is usually voiced by someone when they finally succeed in explaining something to another individual - possibly after a lengthy struggle.

You're still offering advice...

...and all I'm doing is offering advice.

Yes. Both of us are free to do so.

I don't encourage people to put rape in an RPG

Neither do I.

I'm simply pointing out that your advice -

Don't put rape in the game.

may not be universally applicable as a means to improve people's game play, from their own perspective.

I'm also voicing my opposition to the idea that someone who doesn't choose to take your advice is mentally unhealthy. Just in case there's anyone around here who thinks that may be the case.

Now, while I have virtually unshakable faith that I'm right, I don't go around and force people to heed my advice...

{grins}

Given the tenacity with which you have argued your point I have an uncomfortable suspicion that this is only because you lack the means to do so!

(bear in mind that whilst I have also argued tenaciously, I have simply been arguing in favour of people's right to have the kind of game they are happy with - and pointing out that arguments agiainst the inclusion of certain elements 'on principle' are based on subjective judgements that may equally well be applied to other elements of roleplaying games).

In fact, I'd be disappointed in someone if they stopped putting rape in the game based purely off my say-so.

My original post was a defence of GM's who reserve the right to have rape occur in a campaign under certain circumstances; your response seemed to indicate that you disagreed with this idea, and you were expounding that a GM should NEVER allow a rape to occur under any conditions. Naturally I felt inclined to defend my viewpoint.

Now you are saying that people shouldn't just go by your say-so. This is an encouraging statement which is as close as you have come to acknowledging, at last, that I may be making a valid point.

We're not disagreeing that people can play the game the way they want to...

Even more encouraging!

at this point, we're simply disagreeing on who has the better advice.

Well...natuarlly...I do :)

And naturally, I disagree ;-)

- with the notion that your advice is universally applicable.....

.....although I freely acknowledge that your advice may improve the game play of some gaming groups.....!

I like the way you think!

Oh, don't be silly...I wouldn't force people to accept my opinion even if I had the means. I think you were joking, but still...

{winks}

I think we've strayed quite a bit from how all of this got started. I still maintain that PC to PC rape...or GM to PC rape is a no-no for the game.

Okey-dokey...I see no further need to re-iterate my arguments. Anyone joining the thread at this point is advised to read back.

And I think universal truths exist.

Stop waving that red rag in my direction!

I don't back down just because someone disagrees with me or finds my stance "unacceptable"

Ditto (obviously)

After all of this, I've toyed with the idea of writing an article or what belongs in the game and what doesn't...as I think there are other subjects that should be avoided for gaming.

{grins}

I'm trembling in anticipation. Though may I suggest, your article ought perhaps to be delicately titled "How to have a great game like Rogue Githyanki's"....or maybe...."Ten Things That Need To Be Handled With Care in RPGs" - that is, if you want to avoid a horde of irritated, experienced GMs tearing into you with their responses. Especially if you start saying things like divorce and taxes have no place in RPGs...

Well, I rather suspect that this exchange is doomed to continue until one of two things occur -

So at this point I shall elect to do the latter.

I said it before, and I'll say it again, since LG's been insisting on lumping mentally playing out a mental crime (rape) with mentally playing out a physical crime (murder) all this time I've been gone. The two are apples and oranges, and while trying to actually ban the role-play of rape would be inefectual and pointless, that doesn't change the underlying social truth:

Role-playing rape is bad idea. Anyone who thinks that ANYONE is "mature" enough to handle it with zero ill effects is officially disinvited from any party that I will ever throw. Ever.

Before anyone succumbs to the temptation to demonize me.......(absurdly) imagining that I am in some way 'pro-rape'....or even 'pro-virtual-rape'.....

I would like to mention that I have just been re-reading the original article, and I was once again impressed by the author's calm, even-handed and respectful approach to this very difficult subject. And also her lack of patronisation or over-zealousness. Other writers could take a leaf from her book.

I found very little in Shataina's original article that I would disagree with, and found it a very good article. Extremely thoughtful and well-written, and a highly recommended read.

(Sorry to keep harping on, zip....but I felt it had to be said. Don't worry, I have better things to do than have another ten-page argument with GiacomoArt!)

BTW, 2+2 = 4. It's a universal truth. :)

{snorts, paws ground with hoof, lowers head....}

Excuse me for not staying on-topic, but while I get studying Philosophy and Design, what is a degree in Religion?

- reading a signature is silly -

In-fact, if i had sum player bitching about how a game went too far, got too scary, creeped them out too much- then Id slap myself high-5 and laugh at them..then I would continue to have the monster rape them....

shut up with saying what a GM can and cant do. He/She can do ANYTHING they want to you...yknow why? cus he/she spent 3-12 hours making the fricken game your playing in, and your sissy nature is dragging it down hill cus you want a fruity-dooty world of play where you can get cut but you cant get %ucked. whaaaaaaaaatever!...

Your lucky your not in my realms. Cus i burn children, sell woman to orks, and for homosexuality on full grown men who pride themselvs to be macho...I am the Hitler of D&D, and you are pawns in my epic song of death and blood. Do not pretend you have rights agaisnt anything I say, do or roll, cus you dont.

I thought the role of the GM was to be the referee/mediator, not an adversary of the player characters. Hmmm... maybe things have changed since the game was released.

One thing I don't have to worry about though: I won't be playing in any of your games, and it doesn't have anything to do with having "balls" or not. In my opinion, the descriptions (and rhetoric) you have posted on these boards show a level of immaturity with which I would not enjoy playing. Your players obviously enjoy it, so more power to you and them for finding a format that fits everyone's interest in your playing group.

Hi Sifolis,

Looks like your attempt to yank people's chains over this was successful!

As I said before my entire viewpoint is that each group will have its own set of rules as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a game, and I don't think we should indulge in moral panics over each other's game content, because everyone has different ideas about where the lines of taboo are drawn. In my own game, well, if it can happen in the real world, then it can happen in my game. Because I *know* that's the way my players like it.

The referee needs to be sensitive to the needs of their players (if he or she wants to retain their players). I agree with your sentiment that it's an issue of trust built up between players and referee. And I think you are quite right when you say that there *are* plenty of things worse than rape although this is to a certain extent subjective - some people would literally rather die than be raped, or at any rate would rather their character die than be raped.

I don't really believe for one moment that you are the Hitler of D&D. I have personally encountered someone who *was* the Hitler of D&D and guess what? Everyone deserted his campaign. Of course, you may have happened to have somehow acquired a particularly submissive, masochistic set of players who enjoy being ruled by your whims. And if you all enjoy it that way, and no harm is being done to anyone in the real world, no-one's rights are being infringed and the 'golden rule' is being followed then fine. But I think you should bear Shataina's advice in mind, particularly when new players are joining your group. I don't mean to patronise, for all your swagger I suspect that you are not such a bad fellow actually and I don't imagine that a player who is new to your group would get their character anally raped in a bar during their first session, esp. if you didn't know them too well.....would they?!

BTW - the whole 'So I can't spell, so bite me' thing is getting a bit tired now....

Well, you know, Sif, I understand that you like to wind people up and that half of what you say is exaggeration. But when you deliberately set out to inflame people's emotions on a message board just for the pleasure of seeing them explode, well as you probably know that's called 'trolling'. I rather suspect that this isn't the kind of board that will tolerate that sort of behaviour on a protracted basis, so if you plan on sticking around, I'd try to reign in those urges a little. I'm not trying to be a killjoy and sometimes I tease people a little in my posts but it's a matter of knowing where to draw the line.

Many of your posts do have a backbone of thoughtful comment amongst the 'giggle-n-smirk' as you put it so I personally wouldn't want to see you get booted.

Although I do not ban any kind of activity in my campaign, I think that Shataina wrote a pretty good article here, especially as a piece of advice for less experienced referees, but also worth thinking about for more experienced ones as well. Particularly with regard to how they treat new players joining the game. Remember, the rulebooks show pictures of people fighting monsters and seeking treasure on the covers, and so that's the over-simplified expectation that many newer players would have of the game. It could be argued that a game in which rape occurs is not quite doing what it says on the cover! Maybe those new players didn't sign up for that kind of thing, and some people can be quite emotionally involved in their game-playing and can get hurt by nasty surprises. Maybe those sort of players should steer clear of your playing group, but they need a chance to realise what they're getting into when they join. Shataina was really just saying that a referee shouldn't blithely assume that a player will be able to take their character getting raped in their stride. And I'd agree with that sentiment.

You know, I happen to think that Scott Free has some pretty good things to say as well. I know that you and he got off on a bad footing, but maybe it's time to bury the hatchet?

I always burie that hatchet with that guy, and then he returns with "leave the board". So plainly said- "I dont care if I am booted, this site is small and one of many". And, I am not here trolling, I am here talking about the one game that took over my entire youth and lead me into adulthood playing a table-top game with colorful dice. The game itself is an integrel part of the way I grew up. Its not going too far saying, that D&D raised thousands of kids of my generation...so, no, I am not trolling.

what i AM doing is, posting my thoughts. I didnt say shack-anacka-whats her name didnt write a good artical here. Nor did I direct my thoughts on this subject directly at her. I simply said, with gusto, that I think certain players who think certain things are too "grusome" should go plug in a final-fantasy game and shut up.

I also pointed out that a "really creepy" GM shouldnt be played with at all.

Now both those statments bleed truth and nothing is hostile to shama-lama-ding-dong in that. Your right, she did write a good artical in saying that new players can be shocked. But yknow what? Anyone whos new to D&D should already have heard about the GM's style, the past adventures he has run, the opinion of others who played.

and lets say this new player is from Mars and hasnt had the chance to disscuss this new game with anyone who has played with this GM yet (cus he is from Centron-Z...farther away then mars), and then this mysterious GM pops outta thin air (poof!) and starts his adventure...then goes into this long blow-by-blow discription of his huge army of rapist-goblins who sodomise everything they see with phallic swords-etc-etc...then I can understand the new player's shock.

but more likely its friend running the game, or the game was recomended to the player by a friend...whatever....alls I am saying is if this was a problem in D&D it would end up in a christ-comic or on the news like all those stupid warnings about the devil and murder....so I stated my point.

But heyyyyy..im the jerk right? who cares, so be it. If I get booooooted, as you so warn, then I go to one of dozens of other sites. you dont want my view on things? then perhaps your blind and enjoy that...me? I enjoy reading every view on this board and I dont go picking fights, I simply allow you anal jerks to judge me and say "water of a duck man...water offa duck"

Cus im a duck! and your water! so...get off my back.

ok?

jesus...wtf happend to D&D, everyones a fricking hall monitor for sum online-forum these days.

Hey Sif, take it easy. Try to cool down a little. I wasn't asking you to leave the board, in fact the reason I gave you some gentle advice is because I don't wan't to see you get booted.

Your posts don't really aggravate me at all but then I'm not an easy person to rouse to anger (it's kind of a British thing!). I'm not responding here to 'fight back', I'm trying to help out a little. I know that you will probably think I'm being patronising, as you're just a little touchy and over-sensitive. But I can't help that.

Sure, it's not trolling to disagree with something. I never said it was. Take a look back through this thread and you'll see that I had a very lengthy argument with Rogue Githyanki in which I was basically defending the right to include rape in a game, if circumstances warrant the inclusion of such an occurence - just as you have done. Trolling is where you say something specifically designed to wind people up. Mind you I'm not saying that everything you post should be some po-faced piece of Vulcan logic either. Nothing wrong with a bit of leg-pulling now and then, but the other guy needs to be able to see that tongue planted in your cheek to avoid the discussion degenerating into a flame war.

By the way, there's no 'home team' on this board, really, and we're not all singing from the same hymn sheet. You keep talking as if we've all got it in for you and you're lashing out at all and sundry. I don't have it in for you, in fact you remind me of an old friend of mine (who was also rather...excitable, shall we say).

The number of posts on this board as a measure of how good it is? What kind of nonsense is that? Does the fact that only a handful of people drive an Aston Martin Vanquish mean it's a rubbish car? Does the fact that only a small percentage of the human race is able to understand nuclear science mean that nuclear science is crud? C'mon.

Just calm down, my friend.

OK....
hoping that now everyone's agreed to play nice, let's move on!

Next topic, please! (...and guys, try to stay on topic for...errr...once?)

- reading a signature is silly -

whocares? Exactly. Who cares about your comment? It is an obvious immature and sexist remark and really has no place in our forum.

I've known many women who play male PCs; should I no longer game with them? According to your post-- yes

Likewise, I've known many mem who play female characters. Should they then be discounted? According to your post-- yes

So, we'll leave you to your one-sided, biased and totally-out-of-it point of view, it's a wonder that you have any friends much less a group with which to game.

I'm pretty surprised about in game rape being a big deal. I wouldn't like a graphic description, but I doubt I'd dislike it any more than a graphic rape in a movie. I'm new to pen and paper RPG, though, and haven't really gotten emotionally attached to characters. Of course, I do realize that players and GMs have to work together. The characters don't have to respect each other, but to have fun the players and GMs do.

I expect my reaction to getting raped in game would just be that its a good RPing opportunity. I can't imagine myself having my character rape anyone else, though. But, I've not even played an evil character yet.

I am in complete agreement that being raped is not worse than death. However, I don't necessarily believe that murder is a worse crime than rape -- the two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. When this topic is on the table it is essential to remember that there are at least two perspectives in every rape: the victim's and the attacker's. I don't really feel equiped to engaged in a debate over the relative evils of the crimes in question with murder, rape, and torture being put on some kind of ethical scale and measured.

The consideration that I would like to offer to this topic is that we are what we think. In fact, if we agree with Descartes then thinking is the thing that proves our existence. Branfish has an excellent post above outlining the dangers of letting rape be a "dirty little secret" crime that festers in the shadows of our society. That is still a long way from concluding that it should be examined by roleplayers. Is narrating a rape from either perspective illuminating for the role-player? Should it be something that we dwell on? I dont think so. So few people who takle the topic are adding to our understanding and compassion. There are a few exceptions.
In Elizabeth Moon's Deed's of Paksenarion the main character is raped. The scene of her rape in the book is quite graphic and disturbing (I couldn't even read it through the first time -- I skimmed ahead). What makes her story different is the next steps, the character becomes healed. Throughout the story the character experiences weakness, defeat, humiliation and uses these events to consolidate her compassion not as fuel for retribution. Typically, the less mature rape story involves a brutal rape/revenge cycle. This suggests that the only way to deal with a rape is to erase it -- kill the person who perpetrated the crime and go on, slightly diminished and damaged, with your life. That is a rotten message, but unfortunately it seems to be the prevailing attitude towards the topic.

Back when I played Magic: The Gathering, I got rid of all of the black cards that I owned and played with the other colours. I didn't need black. I didn't need to dwell on those images or ideas for the fear of becoming what I think about. If all I can think about is horror and revenge then where is my imagination; if I learn through my pursuits to explore depravity and seek to inflame my anger then where is my self control?

Sure, let's talk about rape. Let's talk about it outside of the game. In the game let us challenge our own need for revenge, uphold the rights of the weak, and seek to explore and understand. One of the dangers of the role-playing format is that most games are predicated on making the player characters constantly more powerful (but that is another topic).

Ok, I've rambled on long enough. In a nutshell my opinion is that a gaming group is typically not a good environment to explore the concept of rape. While we should acknowledge the presence of evil and that it is the major drving force in almost all fantasy literature, dwelling on dark and evil things is perverse.

Yeah I took out all the black. It was all about the imagery. I didn't want to play the dark side with corpses, demons, skulls, and pestilence. I'd play against black decks -- I'm not a raving purist. I just thought that the kind of magic that I would imagine summoning while playing the game shouldn't be dark and twisted. I have the assumption that magic would come from within.

Other people would be cool with it and I don't place any value judgement on that. For me black cards don't work.

I guess the logic is that it will change you if you think it can. Since I think that it can change me, I shouldn't do it.

I know that this subject hasn't been active in a while, but I'm wondering if you could address an issue I'm currently going through with my gaming group.
You discussed much about PC to PC and NPC to PC rape, but what about NPC to NPC rape? I as a player and my character are not feeling personally violated, but I am affected by the occurrence of rape in the general game world. Do I have a right to be affected by this, or am I over-reacting?

Here's the basic story line (some of which I wasn't aware of at the time but learned after the fact):

"James", a gamer in our group decides to try GMing for the first time. Our current GM "Brad" gives him some general GM advice, including what topics to avoid (rape and sexual assault were mentioned).
After a few gaming sessions, the characters encounter a hostage-scenario situation, where one of the NPC hostage takers is actively raping an NPC hostage.
I'm annoyed by it, but figure he's new and it probably won't come up again.
Brad talks to the GM after the session about the content (basically saying "Dude, remember when I said not to include rape in your games?").
The next time it came up, my character blows a spell which results in her developing a new incapacitating phobia (GM's discretion). He decides that my character is convinced that the other PC characters are going to rape her. I roleplay my character being all freaked out and running away from everyone until one of the other characters uses his power to remove my phobia.
After that session, I contacted the GM to ask him if he would remove rape references in the game. He says “no problem”.
Several years later, he forgets about that request, and our characters encounter an NPC getting raped/tortured. At this point I get pissed off and leave the game. After he realizes I’ve left, he comes over, says he’s sorry and that he honestly forgot about my request.
After I told him I was leaving his game because I did not find roleplaying rape scenes “fun”, he says that rape will not come up in gaming anymore (and based on the lengthy emails I sent him about it, I think he will remember this time).

Part of me is waiting for the next session to see if James will send my character to “nothing bad ever happens land” full of rainbows and ponies, where I won’t have to deal with anything difficult, sad, or mildly unhappy ever again. ;)

"Fixated" is certainly one way to put it...

He did perceive gaming to be an "art" (which I totally respect), the rape issue came up for the third (and last) time when he included a morally-flawed character that he really liked from a book he had just read.
I felt kinda bad for putting the kibosh on using a literary reference, but *then* I read the Wikipedia article on him - shudder! I’m really glad we rotate GMs and will be switching to someone else very soon!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Bothari