Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Super Guy 07-26-04, 10:27 PM	Bear in mind, this was a while ago, and was with a friend who was new at DMing. I thoroughly expressed my displeasure, and fortunately the campaign ended soon after because it just fell apart. Here's the story. We're in town with the paladin NPC's corpse. I go into the Church of Pelor to get him raised. Guy takes the money, says he'll raise him (No sense motive, here, btw) and we leave 'cause we need to go. As I'm walking out, I see the paladin's head get thrown over a fence, and the cleric walking out, now dressed as a Cleric of Olidimarra. I say "Hey, you cheated me, give me back my money" and he promptly casts Dictum on me. The reason he could do this was because he was actually a Cleric of Nerull. In the middle of town. He then teleports away with me. I wake up, I'm in his jail cell, my familiar is nailed to the wall. I'm absolutely ****** at this. On top of that, this guy is sick. He rapes my character (the guy is bisexual) and shortly after that he sends me back out to do whatever. What would you have said? I was angry, but I didn't shout at him, and I sorta undermined his campaign by not participating heavily in it and it fell apart.
green_yawgmoth 07-26-04, 10:58 PM	I woulda given the DM the finger, cursed at him, and left. The DM's job is to create a game that is fun for all, not to lay a powertrip on his friends. http://img30.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Kitt-su 07-26-04, 11:06 PM	I would have been super ******! Raped! DUDE! Thats so messed up, you should have stabbed him! And remember "Zombie cat loves you. Meoooow!" :devil:
Super Guy 07-26-04, 11:12 PM	Heh, yes, I figured the replies would be this way. I just made the topic 'cause I was thinking about it and sorta wanted to vent and show other players/DMs the horrible travesties that can happen if you're not careful. :sad:
bitnine 07-26-04, 11:25 PM	How would I personally react. Really, in a situation like this, I'd probably be all like: "What? What the **** are you doing?" In fact, I might go as far as to stop things for a moment and give the DM a long look, and ask him calmly if he knew what he was doing. After that and a couple of other questions I would have probably been like, "Listen, I don't really think this is the type of game that I'm looking for. I'm going to sit this one out." [Edit: And, to be clear, this is not because of any particular content that I say this. I'm fine with a mature game, and plenty of brutal things can happen in a given world. There's a thread on the mature boards here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=139601) covering that topic. /Edit]
ElvenEnigma 07-27-04, 01:27 AM	I would've gone Tenser on his ***. In character and out;)
Yuffie 07-27-04, 01:56 AM	Some of you need to settle down. First, there's nothing wrong with what the DM did as far as using rape goes... provided they did it in a serious fashion and they intended to antagonize the party in a very grim way, instead of satisfying some sexual urge they had. Rape is not some automatic "should not be in any campaign" issue. The problem is, you need to ask the party if they're ok with it being a consequence in the game. It's also something that should not be used in certain fashions, but this particular incident wasn't a mis-use of it... ... except the fact that the DM didn't tell the players beforehand what kind of game he was running, where things that grim and unpleasant can happen to the PCs, and thus sprung it on the player. Which was a bad thing. But some of you folks seriously need to get a grip on yourselves and look at this maturely. It really depends on the type of campaign. Brutally realistic campaigns where the PCs probably get raped by the orcs if they're captured and where ritual sacrifice is of the BoVD variety aren't innately wrong or anything. Some groups prefer that level of "realism" where the dark side of villainy and evil is truly that depraved and corrupt. I mean, honestly... it's how it'd be, none of this "let's throw them in the dungeon and leave them there". But it takes that kind of campaign and should not just be interjected into your standard "D&D Heroic Fantasy" campaign, because rape can ruin the image a player has of their character. Which is part of the rather unsettling nature of rape. It's not some minor thing and is one of the reasons that it's such a disgustingly despicable act. But for people who say that it has no place whatsoever, ever, at any time... well, honestly it's no different from a grisly depiction of murder or torture or carnage or any of the other atrocities that happen in a D&D game.
Vaelan 07-27-04, 03:06 AM	Is it wrong to have a smallish whiffle bat with the words "BAD DM!" written on it(big, bold letters in permanent ink) to games? If it is, I don't wanna be right... Is it wrong to caress said whiffle bat whenever the DM states something intent on killing me moves to a square adjacent to me? :smirk:
tarkin 07-27-04, 11:07 AM	The DM was a bad DM. The rape had nothing to do with it. He put the character up against a ridiculous situation. You do not send 1st level characters up against a Dragon. Similarly you do not pull that kind of no chance to get out crap. Maybe it was OK to have the Cleric not really be a cleric of that god. In that case he should have been a LOW level cleric of Nerull, not a high level cleric. THe odds of the player finding the "fake" cleric was bad enough, but having be that powerfull was stupid. Then having that powerfull cleric pull that crap in publis was ALSO stupid. What if some passerby happened to see the Dictum + teleport and report it to the Real Church. Bad DMING, bad plotting, stupid and unrealistic.
Elrana 07-27-04, 11:29 AM	I have to go along with the fact that some things are best left out of a game or left to the imagination... DM: You are imprisoned and suffer all manner of indignities and degradations before being thrown, battered and bloody, to the ground outside the prison by a leering guard. ...or words to that effect. To introduce potentially emotive and provocative RL situations is not necessarily the nature of the game, and to go into graphic description is just unnecessary. D&D is about being heroes and living out one's heroic fantasies, not one's sexual fantasies. Personally I'd be pretty offended if a gay/bi- DM who knew I was straight got his rocks off by having my PC bound, chained, male-raped by his (alter-ego) NPC and would probably think he's a sick SOB for bringing that kind of scenario into what is supposed to be a pleasant and happy past-time. The railroading aspect is just indicative of general bad DMing as we all know and has been stated more times than I care to remember on these boards! :)
Yuffie 07-27-04, 11:33 AM	Originally posted by tarkin You do not send 1st level characters up against a Dragon. Similarly you do not pull that kind of no chance to get out crap. No offense, but what are you talking about? Maybe it was OK to have the Cleric not really be a cleric of that god. In that case he should have been a LOW level cleric of Nerull, not a high level cleric. It's called a plot mechanic. I guess it's a bad DM that has a powerful NPC that imprisons the party in a trap, tortures them for a while, and then they escape with a loathing hatred for said NPC thus creating a plot hook for later? No. DM: You are imprisoned and suffer all manner of indignities and degradations before being thrown, battered and bloody, to the ground outside the prison by a leering guard. That would probably be the best way to do it for most groups. Originally posted by Elrana ...or words to that effect. To introduce potentially emotive and provocative RL situations is not necessarily the nature of the game, and to go into graphic description is just unnecessary. For most groups. Some groups like more graphic depictions of violence and more realistic combat. Other groups prefer high fantasy where every wound is a heroically taken glancing blow until the final, dramatic mortal wound is suffered! Oh the angst! This, like all things, must be something tailored to a group. D&D is about being heroes and living out one's heroic fantasies, not one's sexual fantasies. Personally I'd be pretty offended if a gay/bi- DM who knew I was straight got his rocks off by having my PC bound, chained, male-raped by his (alter-ego) NPC and would probably think he's a sick SOB for bringing that kind of scenario into what is supposed to be a pleasant and happy past-time. No offense, but what the hell are you talking about? First, (even though I read it to be that the NPC was bisexual, not the DM, but either way) if the DM was gay or bi, that has nothing to do with it. Homophobia is alive and well among D&D players I see. Second, you seriously need a reality check. The NPCs of a DM are not their "alter egos". And contrary to what you apparently think, some of us out there are capable of playing characters that have desires that we as actual individuals do not. Wow. The lack of "toning down" the description does not infer a desire to commit such acts. I guess by your logic, anyone who plays a warrior obviously wants to go out and kill people with swords. :rolleyes: And no, D&D is not some sugary, flowery past-time of innocence. It might be for certain groups if you have small children, but it's based on blood, sweat, pain, agony, victory, domination, failure, tragedy, loss, hardship, laughter, and everything that makes drama interesting.
Elrana 07-27-04, 12:12 PM	Originally posted by Yuffie For most groups. Some groups like more graphic depictions of violence and more realistic combat. Other groups prefer high fantasy where every wound is a heroically taken glancing blow until the final, dramatic mortal wound is suffered! Oh the angst! This, like all things, must be something tailored to a group. No offense, but what the hell are you talking about? First, (even though I read it to be that the NPC was bisexual, not the DM, but either way) if the DM was gay or bi, that has nothing to do with it. Homophobia is alive and well among D&D players I see. Second, you seriously need a reality check. The NPCs of a DM are not their "alter egos". And contrary to what you apparently think, some of us out there are capable of playing characters that have desires that we as actual individuals do not. Wow. The lack of "toning down" the description does not infer a desire to commit such acts. I guess by your logic, anyone who plays a warrior obviously wants to go out and kill people with swords. :rolleyes: And no, D&D is not some sugary, flowery past-time of innocence. It might be for certain groups if you have small children, but it's based on blood, sweat, pain, agony, victory, domination, failure, tragedy, loss, hardship, laughter, and everything that makes drama interesting. Hmm. Isn't it amusing how more or less anyone who begins a sentence with 'no offense but...' then goes on to be offensive. Firstly I am not homophobic, to suggest such a thing is extremely offensive no matter how you attempt to dress it up in flowery pre-emptive cliches. In your game D&D is what you have labelled it. In your mind heroism is about blood, sweat and stock response etc. In your opinion this is what makes drama interesting. Somewhat more obviously this is not the case for pretty much everyone else who has posted to this thread. Are they all wrong but you are right? No, they are a majority who have a certain stance and you are a minority who has another, different stance. The original poster certainly doesn't appear to share your opinion of this matter. If you took time to notice my use of the conditional (i.e. my example began with 'if') then you would see that this is a hypothetical example, at no point did it suggest that this was the case it implied that if it was that is how I would react. I am perfectly willing to accept that there are many alternatives open, ranging from not thinking about how the player might feel to not caring and covering all bases in between. I deal with sh1t in the real world, in D&D I like escaping from that sh1t. D&D is different things to different people, escapism, fantasy, drama, method acting, alter ego, self-discovery, story telling, enactment of traits that can't be unleashed on the real world and probably a million other things. For me it is about enjoying social time with my friends, role-playing good heroes and saving the world from evil villains in a fairy tale world of myth and magic. Obviously for you it is about overcoming adversity in a dark and gloomy world of filthy, agonising hardship. Each to their own, horses for courses and all that. This is a thread asking for people's opinions, you posted your opinion, no one responded with a 'what the hell are you on?' post. If you can't handle people holding opinions that are different to yours then don't open the forum, if you want to disagree with someone's opinion then do so, but don't go bombastically bandying dogmatic disapproval and words like 'homophobia' around willy-nilly because people will take offense. :)
Naeron 07-27-04, 12:54 PM	Originally posted by Yuffie Some of you need to settle down. First, there's nothing wrong with what the DM did as far as using rape goes... provided they did it in a serious fashion and they intended to antagonize the party in a very grim way, instead of satisfying some sexual urge they had. Rape is not some automatic "should not be in any campaign" issue. The problem is, you need to ask the party if they're ok with it being a consequence in the game. It's also something that should not be used in certain fashions, but this particular incident wasn't a mis-use of it... Yes there is something wrong with it unless it was made clear, in advance, that the campaign would contain mature material and would be included. As a DM I will not introduce mature material in any campaign I run unless I have cleared it with my players. and they will not introduce such material unless they have cleared it with everyone as well. It is basic good manners and a matter of showing proper respect for the people you are playing with that you do not force anything on them that makes them feel uncomfortable without their prior consent. Sick power tripping by DM's has no place in a friendly game unless everyone wants to play that sort of campaign. Funnily enough people call these sorts of things "mature" but the more mature a group is the less likely they are to do this sort of thing. Originally posted by Yuffie ... except the fact that the DM didn't tell the players beforehand what kind of game he was running, where things that grim and unpleasant can happen to the PCs, and thus sprung it on the player. Which was a bad thing. But some of you folks seriously need to get a grip on yourselves and look at this maturely. It really depends on the type of campaign. Brutally realistic campaigns where the PCs probably get raped by the orcs if they're captured and where ritual sacrifice is of the BoVD variety aren't innately wrong or anything. Some groups prefer that level of "realism" where the dark side of villainy and evil is truly that depraved and corrupt. I mean, honestly... it's how it'd be, none of this "let's throw them in the dungeon and leave them there". But it takes that kind of campaign and should not just be interjected into your standard "D&D Heroic Fantasy" campaign, because rape can ruin the image a player has of their character. Which is part of the rather unsettling nature of rape. It's not some minor thing and is one of the reasons that it's such a disgustingly despicable act. But for people who say that it has no place whatsoever, ever, at any time... well, honestly it's no different from a grisly depiction of murder or torture or carnage or any of the other atrocities that happen in a D&D game. Well you've just argued both sides in the same post. It isn't wrong and it is. Basically this whole scenario was stupid in the extreme. A high level cleric of Nerul masquerading as a cleric of pelor in the countryside is one thing, but doing so inside a Temple of Pelor is another, the chances of detection would be quite high. Having 13th level clerics throwing 7th level spells around inside a town (it has a 40ft radius spread so would have killed quite a few bystanders as well) is also bordering on the ridiculous. My advice to the player, get out while the going is good and find another DM.
Yuffie 07-27-04, 01:05 PM	People can take offense all they want, Elrana. I really don't care. I'm going to take offense when someone makes a blanket assumption that a DM they don't even know plays their NPCs as their "alter egos" in a post that seemed to uncannily revolve around an assumption that the DM was gay or bisexual themselves, not that it should have even been an issue in the first place even if it was true. That's a load of horse crap and anyone old enough to be allowed to type on the computer all by their lonesome should be aware of that. Originally posted by Naeron Funnily enough people call these sorts of things "mature" but the more mature a group is the less likely they are to do this sort of thing. The maturity level of a gaming group has nothing to do with the level of realism and valid consequences of in-game actions. For many gamers (myself included), the more roleplay-oriented aspects of a D&D campaign such as falling in love, friendship, etc etc are weakened and watered down if there isn't absolute, brutal realism to counter it off and reveal just what the PCs are actually fighting to abolish... not to treat it with kid gloves. Or in the case of an Evil group (which isn't always easy when the PCs do take it seriously and don't just treat it as an excuse to go around mindlessly killing), it seems odd to gloss over the darker details and focus simply upon the happy shiny parts of D&D. I'll play a lighter game if that's what folks want... but I prefer there to be more "reality" to my "fantasy".
Elrana 07-27-04, 02:03 PM	Originally posted by Yuffie People can take offense all they want, Elrana. I really don't care. If you really don't care then why open with phrases like 'no offence but...'? Do try to retain some semblance of consistent thought. I'm going to take offense when someone makes a blanket assumption that a DM they don't even know plays their NPCs as their "alter egos" in a post that seemed to uncannily revolve around an assumption that the DM was gay or bisexual themselves, not that it should have even been an issue in the first place even if it was true. That's a load of horse crap and anyone old enough to be allowed to type on the computer all by their lonesome should be aware of that. Often friends of mine who don't play D&D ask me why I do. They say that D&D is for friendless gimps with no social graces and an inability to fraternise in polite society. Of course I oppose these opinions and argue that it is unfair to generalise in such a manner. Then you have to come along and bolster their arguments. Firstly if you don't care how much offense you cause then do us all a favour, get the hell off these boards and out of these forums. The majority of people don't want to hear it. Secondly you have already made this assertion, I outlined to you why it was an incorrect interpretation. If you have no intention of reading or paying attention to what other people post then why wait for them to post at all? Surely it would be quicker and more self-gratifying just to predict the opposition you expect and respond to it before it has even been typed. Or is that what you are doing, but you are just allowing a few posts between each of yours? As much as I have more to say I really can't rouse enough enthusiasm to say it. You aren't worth the time and energy it would require. I have no interest in attempting to reason with someone who is incapable of reason, blindly ignores responses to his inaccuracies and has no care for how his posts may affect the other users of this board. Go away and take your lack of regard with you.
starfire311 07-27-04, 02:20 PM	wow, I have never cleared adding "mature" content to a game with my players, cause well I would never play with people that weren't "mature".... even the one high school kid in my group is plenty mature to handle anything you might hear about on Law & Order(ie rape). on topic... If this happened to my character, I would be so mad.... I would exact a measure of revenge then I would kill that cleric, ofcourse how far I would go and exactly how I would act would depend on my character... Everyone must remember that it is the NPC that is committing the act not the DM and that it is the PC that is getting violated not the player.... heck I was once corn-holed by a redneck tree in Munchkin the card game, boy was I mad at Steven Jackson. I did a similar thing to a player in one of my current game, but it was his GF and he witnessed it and he was a Paladin... that was fun RPing.... then there we a ton of plot twists... oh it was so much fun.
Yuffie 07-27-04, 02:24 PM	Originally posted by Elrana If you really don't care then why open with phrases like 'no offence but...'? Do try to retain some semblance of consistent thought. Do try to recognize sarcasm when you see it. Often friends of mine who don't play D&D ask me why I do. They say that D&D is for friendless gimps with no social graces and an inability to fraternise in polite society. Of course I oppose these opinions and argue that it is unfair to generalise in such a manner. Then you have to come along and bolster their arguments. How witty. An assumption that I am without social graces, without friends (would make it rather difficult to play D&D, much less the other things I do with them, now wouldn't it?), and have an inability to fraternize in polite society. Wow. I haven't seen a personal flame before. If you're going to take a shot at someone directly, have the common sense to attack someone in a way that you can actually back up somehow. Firstly if you don't care how much offense you cause then do us all a favour, get the hell off these boards and out of these forums. The majority of people don't want to hear it. So glad to hear you speak for the majority when a large number of my posts over the years are followed by "Wow Yuffie, I couldn't have said it better myself" or some derivation thereof. Surely it would be quicker and more self-gratifying just to predict the opposition you expect and respond to it before it has even been typed. Surely that would have to be harder than this. Fish. Barrel. Except these are disturbing fish. *ka-blam* all the same. Originally posted by starfire331 Everyone must remember that it is the NPC that is committing the act not the DM and that it is the PC that is getting violated not the player.... Not such an easy thing to remember for some.
starfire311 07-27-04, 02:26 PM	Orginally posted by Elrana: Personally I'd be pretty offended if a gay/bi- DM who knew I was straight got his rocks off by having my PC bound, chained, male-raped by his (alter-ego) NPC and would probably think he's a sick SOB for bringing that kind of scenario into what is supposed to be a pleasant and happy past-time. You called the DM gay/Bi and said he got his rocks of by raping the guys character with his alter-ego How is that not offensive... you have no idea who the DM is and all you have to go on is what the OP said and the OP didnt mention anything about the Sexual orientation of the DM, and if every NPC I play is my alte ego then I am one confused individual with hundreds(if not thousands) of alter egos
Salla 07-27-04, 02:27 PM	I would have walked. That is simply not appropriate subject matter for any game I have any interest in participating in.
KittenWarrior 07-27-04, 02:40 PM	Easy now, people... remember the old adage: "There is no offense where none is taken." :) Elrana, you need to calm down. Yuffie has as much right to voice his/her opinion as anyone else. Yuffie, would it kill you to take a little more time to read over your post and express yourself in slightly less loaded terms? Okay, that's me trying to be the Voice of Reason (ProBlue, yay! :D ) Here's something that happend to my character a while ago: She's a human female fighter, With Str 18 rolled. Since we played 2nd ed. with S&P, I decided to put 20 in Muscle (+3 attack, +6 damage). The DM approves. Essentially the first thing that happens to her is she gets mugged (hit on the head from the back, no chance to react or remain conscious - with Dex 16 and Con 14?) A couple hours later she finds herself waking up naked and without any equipment. DM (grinning): "you're leaking.. and not just blood.. you feel sore ALL over". So he did not, specifically use the R-word, but it's pretty obvious. I'm already feeling pretty upset about this, but essentially decide to play it out a little longer - it might just be a plot hook after all. The character gets herself to a temple where she' given some clothes, but noting else. Deciding that the town (Zhentil Keep - yeah, I know) is becoming too dangerous, she attempts to leave, but the guard is asking for a fee (which she obviously cannot afford). After wandering around for a while she decides to get herself arrested, so she'll at least have a roof over her head and food. She walks up to the guards and hits one (Me: "I punch him in the face.") The DM decides that this is a called shot to the head - to which I object to no avail - but it hits. As I happened to roll 8 damage, the DM decides the guard's neck snaps and now she's arrested for murder! For punishment, she has to duel other convicts and comes up against a fully armed 4th level cleric. The same round she hits him, he casts Blindness and Deafness - shouldn't he have lost that spell due to broken concentration?- so needless to say I'm fairly screwed at this point... There's more, with the next character, but this rant is becoming quite long as it is.. Just venting, but if you want to give an opinion, go ahead! Cheers, KW
Elrana 07-27-04, 02:48 PM	Originally posted by Yuffie Do try to recognize sarcasm when you see it. I do and I haven't. How witty. An assumption that I am without social graces, without friends (would make it rather difficult to play D&D, much less the other things I do with them, now wouldn't it?), and have an inability to fraternize in polite society. Wow. I haven't seen a personal flame before. How about 'You are a homophobe'? Forgotten that one already? If you're going to take a shot at someone directly, have the common sense to attack someone in a way that you can actually back up somehow. Pot. Kettle. So glad to hear you speak for the majority when a large number of my posts over the years are followed by "Wow Yuffie, I couldn't have said it better myself" or some derivation thereof. Okay, I am going to imagine that you have no need for an English lesson including an explanation of the term 'context', that being, in this case, this thread. I don't recall having participated in a thread that you have before and therefore can't comment on whether or not you generally talk sense and have some kind of regular agreement from other posters. In this case you are in the minority. The posts are all listed just up there ۸ go have a look and see. It is kind of inarguable in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Kitten: I would have been pretty miffed as well. But more by the DMing than the experience. The capture pretty much followed the route I agree with in terms of what your PC suffered, the graphic details were left out and the experience as a whole was left to the imagination of the player(s). That being said it does sound as if he could have taken a little less glee in reporting it. I am a little confused as to why it was a called shot to hit a guard and also how you killed him unless you had Improved Unarmed Strike. If you were then to duel other convicts why were they armed when you weren't? It all seems a bit of a power-play on the DM's part designed to bring you to a certain point no matter what. So, the next character, what happened? :)
Astanphaeus 07-27-04, 03:04 PM	Clearing "adult content" with a group is simply a courtesy... a mature courtesy. It's not a question of whether or not the players can deal with it. It's a question of whether or not they want to. This is sensitive subject matter that some people may not want included in their shared illusion/story. That's perfectly valid, and no, it doesn't make them immature. Anyone who runs a game using a system that includes adult content should know this, as it tends to be stated flat out in the material. Before introducing this sort of thing into a game: make sure the players are comfortable with it. It's not rocket science, it's just common courtesy. A genuine adult would recognize that, and, frankly, wouldn't even need to be told. So... strike one for this situation. Obviously, the player wasn't given any input into the degree of adult content and wasn't given forewarning about it. Strike two: implausibility. A cleric of Nerull is in a temple of Pelor, masquerading as a cleric of Pelor. Right. Apparently he's doing this for the sole purpose of thwarting the ressurection of a Paladin? Uh huh. Oh, and then, he's clever enough to pass as a cleric of Pelor in a temple of the same god, but he's all sorts of sloppy in his retreat, and doesn't care who sees him leaving (even though he's wearing another disguise... posing as another cleric)? ... Then he casts a spell that puts him at (minimum) 13th level, and reveals him to be at least 5 levels above the PC. On top of that, he teleports and takes the PC with him. Strike three: Gross railroading. Strike four: Ruining a character. Assuming that this actually happened, it was all sorts of wrong. I would've left the table immediately... whether I was playing the character in question or not. There was nothing "mature" about this situation at all. ~ A.
Super Guy 07-27-04, 03:05 PM	Kitten Warrior - Oh, the old bamboozle, hm? :mad: I agree, if the DM did not clear this sort of stuff with you before hand, it shouldn't have been done. And the way you describe his reaction to this situation, it seems like he was 'getting off' on raping a PC. Ah, um, to clear it up, I meant the NPC was bi. He, er, also had the paladin's body on a spike and had raped it in front of me. However, the thing is, I don't believe my DM was 'getting off' through alter egos, I think he was just trying to be realistic, but several of the people we play with don't want to hear that sort of stuff. Not that they're immature people, it's just for them, DnD is not where they want to have people raped. Regardless, thanks for the input. The thing I was mainly upset about was that I had no chance to escape this situation. The DM forced me into it, I had no way to evade the situation (perhaps if I hadn't asked for my money back, but even then it's doubtful. The Cleric of Nerull probably would've been the innkeeper, too :rolleyes: ), and my familiar was killed on the spot.
Yuffie 07-27-04, 03:08 PM	Originally posted by Elrana I do and I haven't. Your sarc-dar is off today, then. How about 'You are a homophobe'? Forgotten that one already? Except that I actually had a valid reason to think that about you. You talk as one. And I'm not the only one who noticed it. Scroll up and take a look at Starfire331's response. Pot. Kettle. Wrong. Your shots were personal and not at all relevant to the thread. They were a lame attempt at attacking me personally when the attacks had absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of what I had to say... whereas mine was dead on, based on the fact that you make grossly incorrect assumptions about the man and seem to focus far too much upon the homosexual nature of the encounter. It is kind of inarguable in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'm not seeing how you can make that statement with a straight face (not that I can see your face... but anyway), considering that folks (note the plural) are disagreeing with you. However, I'm not the one who started trying to make this into a popularity contest. I'm here to say what I have to say. Frankly, I don't give a crap if anyone agrees with me or not. What I say stands on it's own merits. Try to offer us the same. Originally posted by Super Guy Ah, um, to clear it up, I meant the NPC was bi. Well whatd'ya know... He, er, also had the paladin's body on a spike and had raped it in front of me. Gross, but... still, an effective demonstration of just how deranged your opponent was. However, the thing is, I don't believe my DM was 'getting off' through alter egos, I think he was just trying to be realistic, but several of the people we play with don't want to hear that sort of stuff. Not that they're immature people, it's just for them, DnD is not where they want to have people raped. Thank you for being mature enough to disagree with his methods and yet still be able to understand that he's not a sick perv, unlike some folks around here. I agree, it was inappropriate that he just sprung it on you without forewarning. Regardless, thanks for the input. The thing I was mainly upset about was that I had no chance to escape this situation. The DM forced me into it, I had no way to evade the situation (perhaps if I hadn't asked for my money back, but even then it's doubtful. The Cleric of Nerull probably would've been the innkeeper, too :rolleyes: ), and my familiar was killed on the spot. The fact that he killed your familiar is a no-no. However, you shouldn't necessarily have been able to escape the situation. There are times in games when the DM is entitled and even should put PCs through a situation. Hell, that's what a DM does at the start of every campaign. "You have been summoned by the high court of Elywithe to...", etc. While I agree that overuse of this DM's right is one of the most grossly over-abused features of a DM's arsenal... ... it is not in and of itself a bad thing. But the fact that your familiar died is bad. Anything such as this (DM brings in a powerful NPC to make a display of power and horrific intentions before depositing your PC back somewhere) should be the realm of "cut scene"... and in cut scenes the PC should not be permanently injured or lose valuable items or anything like that UNLESS the plot absolutely calls for it, and even then I'd talk with my player before I had a master thief steal that Staff of Super Magic that they weren't supposed to get their hands on and would ruin the entire campaign. "Rail roading" is a term that I'm noticing... more and more often lately... that many people are ignorant of it's actual meaning. This was not a case of actual rail roading. Folks, please stop using current buzz-words to attack a situation.
Cymraegmorgan 07-27-04, 03:24 PM	I agre with Salla, rape might be a word my PCs here in a rumour, but it is NOT part of any game I would DM or play in. That said, the whole temple, quick change cleric setup was too much of a setup, I could not sit still. I would run not walk from that game. Don't even get me started about the poor familiar. I have a soft spot for litttle helpful critters.
Bard-of-all-trades 07-27-04, 03:28 PM	The one thing that has been touched on, but never clarified, is this, did the DM ever give you the option or possibility of getting out of this situation? Was there any chance of success for making a save? And after certain deeds were done, was there any chance for revenge on the offending NPC? If the answer to all of these is no, that's what I call railroading. Railroading characters into any kind of situation that they have no chance of thwarting or getting any measure of revenge is pretty poor DM-ing in my opinion. That may not be the case in any of the instances given on this thread if the players didn't hunt for loopholes. Questioning the DM is part of the game and can lead to loopholes the party would have never thought of if a particular question was never asked or answered. A situation like the original one given by SuperGuy is a prime example of when to help a new DM. Bear in mind, this was a while ago, and was with a friend who was new at DMing. All you would have had to do was calm down for a day or so and talk to your friend and say "Hey about the other day with that business with the guy from Nerull ..." and point out a couple different ways he could have done the same thing that wouldn't have been so heavy handed. You could have also asked him if the tone of the game was going to continue to be as realistic and adult-oriented as it had been. That would have been a chance for you to possibly learn more about the game this friend had in mind and possibly get a bit of insight into what the campaign had in store for you. I was angry, but I didn't shout at him, and I sorta undermined his campaign by not participating heavily in it and it fell apart. It's too bad this type of thing happens. I've had my fair share of things happen to my characters, but it's only a game. Ruining the game for everyone else because something you don't like happens to your character seems rather selfish. Did the things listed happen to all the other characters in the party as well or was it just to your character? You seem to have taken this personally when it might not have been intended. NOTE: These are just observations on my part and are meant to point out possibilities the reader might not have thought of previously.
starfire311 07-27-04, 04:29 PM	I see nothing wrong with having a "rape" in the game it should be used sparingly and only to truly show the players how vile the NPC really is. I have never asked my players if they cared if I ran a muture game, every game I run I expect maturity wether the players are going to a town festival or witnessing their girlfriend getting raped... cause guess what the games I run/played in everytime have been extremely violent(I would not let an immature person play this game)... there have been creatures getting killed in almost every game I have ever played in... If you have found a way to play D&D without killing then you may have found a way not to run a mature game.... Yes I know that violence is seen as not being as bad as a naked body(something I think that we have terribly made a mistake on). BTW in the entire time I have DMd ... closing in on 20 years now... there have been 2 incidents of rape(involving PCs).... One was a Paladin was forced to watch his girlfriend get raped and another was a female PC was almost raped by 3 orcs... but due to amazing luck and a good plan she managed to escape... it was quite awesome.
archcomponent 07-27-04, 04:38 PM	Originally posted by starfire311 BTW in the entire time I have DMd ... closing in on 20 years now... there have been 2 incidents of rape(involving PCs).... One was a Paladin was forced to watch his girlfriend get rapedAnd you really have no idea why it might be appropriate to ask people about their comfort levels/zones before including such material? No idea at all?
eudas 07-27-04, 04:47 PM	Did this DM just buy the BoVD or was he just out in left field? eudas
Cymraegmorgan 07-27-04, 04:56 PM	Good question, Eudas. And just as BoVD comes with a mature content warning label on it, so should this DM's game. The people I play DnD with are all very close to my age, but the campaigns are still run with a PG13 air of decorum.
Astanphaeus 07-27-04, 05:09 PM	Originally posted by starfire311 I see nothing wrong with having a "rape" in the game That's you. The point is: others do. That's valid, and it should be respected. It is inconsiderate to foist your viewpoint upon a table full of players, who might not want to deal with such subject matter. The games I run can have sensitive subject matter in them. That's a default. The key point is: the players know this going into it, and if there's anything any of them have a specific problem with, I'll avoid that subject out of consideration for their sensibilities. It is, after all, considered sensitive subject matter for a reason. I have never asked my players if they cared if I ran a muture game It isn't a point of running a mature game. It's a point of explicit, adult content and subject matter presented within the game, whether it is a mature game or not. Such subject matter can be handled immaturely, and you can run a mature game without such subject matter. there have been creatures getting killed in almost every game I have ever played in... If you have found a way to play D&D without killing then you may have found a way not to run a mature game.... Yes I know that violence is seen as not being as bad as a naked body(something I think that we have terribly made a mistake on). We are not talking about nudity. We are talking about explicit, violent violation: a sensitive topic. We are not talking about killing: that's implicit in the game. Someone who has serious issues with that is breaking from the expected norm. The subject matter at issue here is not implicit in the game. It is not the expected norm. Therefore, participants should be given the option to consent to it. That is the considerate, mature thing to do. ~ A.
Nick Soapdish 07-27-04, 05:39 PM	Your reaction was a bit milder than mine. Depending on how badly it went down, I might've just ripped up my character sheet and walked out on the spot. At the very least, I wouldn't have bothered show up for any future sessions. It's not just that your character was in over his head. I don't object to putting characters in situations that are above their heads ... as long as they have a decent way to get out of it. Heck, I just let a 4th level party go up against an 8th level fighter and 11+ level cleric. (I hadn't actually bothered statting out the cleric since I figured it wouldn't matter if they went into combat.) I thought that I gave them enough hints that they were bad guys, but the party thought it could talk its way out. But the rest of the things just adds insult upon insult to injury upon injury. I think that Astanphaeus covered the problems pretty succinctly.
starfire311 07-27-04, 06:13 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus The games I run can have sensitive subject matter in them. That's a default. The key point is: the players know this going into it, and if there's anything any of them have a specific problem with, I'll avoid that subject out of consideration for their sensibilities. Really so prior to starting your game what do you do hand out a questionnaire with all sorts of dispicable acts, to find out what the players are comfortable with... or maybe you stop the game prior to something "sensitive" happening and ask everyone at the table if it is ok to proceed. What if players arent comfortable with player death would you get rid of that too... what about players that arent comfortable with slavery would you get rid of that to... what about racism... what about murder... what about magic.... what about demons and devils... what about flase gods...The list goes on and on. all these can be "sensitive" subjects for people would you change your game to accomadate a player that doesnt want one of these things or even several of them... I would probably listen to them and then ask a few of the players if they had similar concerns and then depending on what they said I would either change or inform tem that they need to look for another game... However this has never happened to me. I would have trouble gaming with people that can not handle these "sensitive" subjects. I think they can be very interesting to explore and make for memorable moments. I can continue writing a dissertation on this topic but I choose not to do it right now... nor do I think this is the forum for such things. On topic: unless the player had some way to avoid this happening to his character I would have to say that it was a bad call by the DM to do this. I have a feeling the player could have done a few things differently as well as the DM.
Michaelot 07-27-04, 06:15 PM	I agree with Astanphaeus. Being a player this would tick me off. Also being a DM...there comes a point when you know that what you are doing is ticking everyone off and you just don't go there or you end up with no group, like what happened. It is the DMs job to make sure people are having a good time and that it's not all chaotic. Sure they get to run the game, but they do get to not force developments upon characters. And rape would be a serious character development. If the players were okay with this sort of thing happening, then okay fine, but obviously that was not the case and no consideration of the group was made. I am not sure why the DM did what he did. Personally I would not have done it. Any time I have came up with a challenging plot that I thought would be fun and upon running it I found out my players were not enjoying it as I hoped. Well sure that sucks being the DM, you put a lot time and effort into making something you think will be cool and fun. Sometimes people don't catch the vision you were trying to create or sometimes (hopefully not that often) the idea you had really does suck. But its part of being a good DM and a good person. You don't force situations on people they do not like. And if you have you admit you are wrong, making it right and moving on. A good DM has fun when his players are having fun. A bad DM makes the world evolve according to his desire and the players are puppets in his side show instead of being the main cast show.
bitnine 07-27-04, 06:16 PM	Taken from a similar thread: (note that in this case it is the PC that brought in the questionable material, not the DM - so read as such as reverse as necessary)If you have laid out certain boundaries that you don't want to cross in your game, it goes without saying that it's fine. If you don't lay down any boundaries I would encourage you to stop and calmly explain such should a situation that makes it relevant arise, instead of threatening, attacking, or expelling a player. Though, yes, if the player is just being an ass and throwing in things to make other people uncomfortable, particularly after the discussion of such boundaries, yeah, he likely deserves to get gone. If there are indeed boundary issues that need to be discussed, then by all means do so. Don't invent metagame bogeymen or unavoidable retribution to "teach a player what's what." That is no substitute to sitting down with your group and going over what is appropriate material for inclusion to a game, and what isn't. Are you going to completely disclude murder, rape, torture, and other actions from your players ability? Are you going to make it such that these actions never occur in your world? Are you going to "gloss over" such actions and have them left undescribed? These are questions that a player needs (and deserves) to know, especially if you want him to roleplay his character in a fashion that you'd consider agreeable. Some of this might be considered going without saying in a PG themed game, but in mature games in particular I'd stress defining these things with your players.
trapspringer 07-27-04, 06:25 PM	no offense but... The guy is a bit, different. I don't like to hang out with people who go out of their way to involve the concept of torture (particularly for the sake of torture) in thier lives. I find the concept to be truly disturbing and wholy unnatural. I think the best response was one of the earlier ones, involving stopping the game and asking what was going through the guys head. Most well adjusted individuals do not think like that. Inflicting pain on small (even conceptual) creatures who are designed to be cute, such as familiars, does not mesh smoothly with my train of thought. I'm no :censored:, I hunt, am for the death penalty, and don't particularly care if the scraggly-a__ pine trees out my back window are still there in the morning. But I shoot for a clean kill, hope for a quick and painless death to those deserving of it, and don't believe that the 100 yr old oak should be buldozed for a 10x10 shed which could easily be placed 10 feet to the right. With all that said, this sounds a bit unreal. How many people do you know that are so bold as to do this so early on? Humans seek acceptance invariably, and it would be more beleivable to think that this would surface much later, after he began to feel really comfortable with the group. Not when he was still a 'new DM.'
Michaelot 07-27-04, 06:55 PM	To Bitnine That is a good point and every DM should do this with his players before they start, but from what has been suggested this looks like completely the opposite from the DMs normal behavior. To starfire311 I see what you are saying. Sure you can give players no death, no rape, no torture etc. :bored: Now as the DM are you supposed to please everyone?...When I DM, do I please everyone? No. I make things realistic, bad things happen some times, but the PCs know there is a way out. The point of this thread is not about not having rape in a campaign. It is about handling sensitive issues with players when obviously it is not going over very well. It is about the DM handling the situation not very well. Two people have expressed cases of rape among their characters, it was how it was handle, not the fact that it was introduced into the game. It was something lame the DM did. There is rape, murder, torture in my games. Those things will and do exist, but having that happen to the main cast of the campaign? As the DM you have to be really careful especially with Kidnapping and then Rape or Torture. It make people feel helpless and everyone person that has invested anytime into their character is not going to like this. Players generally know they will get torture if they get caught in battle or that they could get killed, but walking into a church and then wham! you've been kidnapped and raped! That is lame and how does it build the plot? How does it help the overall evolution of the characters? When something like this could happen into my worlds that I DM as a courtesy I role play it. I do this to see how they will react to the idea of it. I don't just make it happen because I am the DM...I don't just dictate it to my players. That kind of game is boring and really you are just a pawn in the DMs hand if that is the case. How it should have been handled IMO: In this case, I would say after being kidnapped the DM would hint, you notice your abductor looking over you, it looks like he has desires (I would have them make a listen check) and then let them hear under his breath, "You are so hot!" Now what happens next. If my player freaks out that I would not carry it any further, if I found that my player was still even offended then I would make the NPCs suggestion be to about the armor they were wearing or the gold necklace/amulet around the players neck. You can easily change the intention and purpose of your NPC some time making it hilarious, where those not participating are laughing. That is about creating fun memories people enjoy, not crappy ones that make them want to stop playing. If my player was cool with it, then I would continue the treatment and I guarantee if the DM role plays the scenario with the group he will know when he needs to stop or he will know that the group and especially the player can take it well. So the NPC starts "touching" the PC...and the player freaks out. It is easy to have the NPC stop. "You hear a loud noise and the NPC looks and around and flees the room" The characters embarrassment has stopped and the player is a little shaken, but not stirred in anger as they helpless hear how their character was raped. That is a better way to handle it IMO. The DM really botched it up.
Salla 07-27-04, 07:01 PM	Perhaps my gaming group is an oddity, but sex simply never becomes a topic, at all. Not forced, not consensual. For all you could tell watching the game, every last character is a virgin from birth to death. And before anybody asks, we're all 21+ years old with no small children who could wander into earshot. My games would probably be PG-13 for violence and language, perhaps brief nudity (of course, if I were making it a movie, there would be plenty of strategic shadows and camera angles so nobody would actually see it). But no sex. It's just ... not something we choose to address.
Astanphaeus 07-27-04, 07:25 PM	Originally posted by starfire311 Really so prior to starting your game what do you do hand out a questionnaire with all sorts of dispicable acts, to find out what the players are comfortable with... or maybe you stop the game prior to something "sensitive" happening and ask everyone at the table if it is ok to proceed. There's a lot of ways it can be handled. Those are two options. I employ neither. It's enough to say that there might be adult content, and if they have any potential issues with that, they should let me know. What if players arent comfortable with player death would you get rid of that too... That's an implicit part of the game, much like killing monsters. what about players that arent comfortable with slavery would you get rid of that to... Get rid of it? No. Downplay it or have not be a direct factor in the life of a PC? Sure. However, slavery is par for the course in most popular fantasy settings. It's usually implicit. what about racism... See above. However, again, this is borderline implicit, given the existence of half-elves and half-orcs as character options, and the classical racial animosities found in most fanatasy settings. What about murder... Implicit. what about magic... Implicit. what about demons and devils... Implicit. what about flase gods... False gods? Implicit. the list goes on and on. But in reality, it's actually very small. all these can be "sensitive" subjects for people would you change your game to accomadate a player that doesnt want one of these things or even several of them... Most of what you've listed is implicit in the game. A person who had a serious issue with them wouldn't be playing in the first place. I mentioned this point in my last post on the thread, when bringing up the expected norm. The sensitive subject matter being referred to is not implicit. It is not part of the expected norm for the game, or as something a PC would have to deal with. Furthermore, the subject matter being referred to is generally viewed as being adult. That is to say, it should be treated with sensitivity and respect regardless of how you, personally, might feel about it. It is a matter of courtesy and consideration. If you are unclear on where the line is drawn, compare the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting to, say, the Book of Vile Darkness, or White Wolf's "Black Dog" products. I would probably listen to them and then ask a few of the players if they had similar concerns and then depending on what they said I would either change or inform tem that they need to look for another game... That's fine. The important thing is not foisting it upon them. However this has never happened to me. Good. You've lucked out. I would have trouble gaming with people that can not handle these "sensitive" subjects. Again... it's not a point of whether or not someone can handle it. It's a point of whether or not they want to. They can probably handle it just fine, they just don't want it intruding upon their imaginary world. I think they can be very interesting to explore and make for memorable moments. That's fine. I tend to agree. However, others do not, their view is valid as well, and it's simply good policy to be respectful of that. Moreover, some people have experienced things in real life that they would, understandably, not want to relive in a roleplaying game. Consideration for that should be extended as well. I can continue writing a dissertation on this topic but I choose not to do it right now... nor do I think this is the forum for such things. You're probably right, and if you can recognize that, you're probably well aware of where the line is crossed. However, a dissertation isn't required and it wouldn't make a difference. What I'm talking about is a long-standing practice and common courtesy within this pursuit (roleplaying games), and you'll find it emphasized in most products that deal with such subject matter. ~ A.
Astanphaeus 07-27-04, 07:46 PM	Double post.
ORC_Tuhteth 07-27-04, 08:34 PM	First, this topic really belongs on the Mature boards. Second, there is entirely too much person-to-person sniping going on here. Always restrict your comments to the topic, not the other posters. In any event, the thread is closed.