Especially in young children complicated diarreah can be a very serious business. It basically kills through dehydration. It's a leading cause of infant mortality in the developing world.

I highly doubt the GM made him roleplay the whole event out. More likely, I think he just said "Ok, you're under the influence of the camera, and you do this" and just left it at that.

I don't know for sure, since it happened in the game that occured just before I started attending again, but that's my theory given what I know of these guys, having gamed with them for a good four years.

I don't know of any GM in that group that would be so irresponsible as to make a player roleplay the gory details of something that terrible.

Hmm, let me play Devil's Advocate.

In US society there seems to be a Puritannical aspect where violence and death is okay but sexuality isn't; this is the old argument about why parents cover the eyes of their kids when James Bond has sex but not when Bond blows away someone in cold blood. This issue was brought to the forefront of my mind recently when an elderly man from the FSM asked me, "isn't it better that we show love than killing?"

So, I ask you...why is rape verboten because it isn't a "fictional problem", but murder and violence is okay when it clearly isn't a "fictional problem" either? I'm sure that there are many people in the US who have lived in slums with high crime rates at one point or another and perhaps had relatives murdered, or perhaps had traumatic experiences being the target of violence on the street. We also probably know a few people who are combat veterans and who may have had very traumatic experiences with violence

Since violence and brutality are most definitely not a "fictional problem" why does it fall in a seperate category from sexual assault. If I run a Shadowrun game where a character (even a NPC) gets captured by gangers and is savagely beaten and tortured why is that so much more tasteful and better than a similar incident with some sexuality added?

You've got to be fucking kidding me...

RAPE IS NOT ABOUT LOVE! It's about violence and brutality, and from what I've heard of the stories of victims it is a horrible violation that's a very different (and I'd venture to say more severe) form of violence than just killing someone.

Simply put, rape is a form of torture. And rapists seem to think like torturers do - "Killing you is too easy. I'm going to violate you in the worst way and let you live with that pain." THAT'S what makes it so much goddamn worse than James Bond shooting someone in cold blood.

I think it's offensive that you try to link a violation like that with "just some sexuality." And any respect I had for you just took a big fuckin' nosedive.

I guess you got emotional at this point. Firstly, logically, you can't really make that statment unless you claim to have interviewed dead people. Secondly, what about the systematic massacres that took place in Rwanda, or the insanely cruel mutilations in Sierra Leone? Surely, you don't mean to write all these things off just because they didn't always have a sexual element to them.

If I could explain why rape is a more severe form of torture, I'd be a psychiatrist, not a journalist. It just seems to be, for all intents and purposes, just that - a much more severe form of torture. Don't ask me to explain it, it's just...different.

And I know what playing Devil's Advocate is, and frankly I don't give a shit. I'm not in the mood to hear why people who have gone through something horrible in their real lives shouldn't be given consideration when they're supposed to be playing a fun RPG, hypothetical argument or not.

OF COURSE I'M NOT writing these things off! They're terrible, and they should never have happened.

See my post above - I can't explain it, it's just different, and I'm not a shrink so I can't really explain it.

Hey, you're a journalist? Sweet! I had a friend who was a journalist once. I once learned in a media advocacy class that if the press ever comes to me I'd better speak with them. Otherwise they'll video tape me running away and hiding my face and that just looks bad. On the other hand reporters usually want more material for a story so if I interview with them in good faith they'll probably try to present my argument which is better than showing footage of me running away.

Hmm, since you're a journalist, I'd better try to answer nicely and explain what I'm doing, instead of being acrimonious and logical like I usually try to be.

OK, here we go.

I made the post you got upset about to open up discussion on the issue of why most people would probably say that violence and brutality without sexuality is OK in a game, but with sexuality it's not OK.

This isn't a commentary on violence and/or sexuality in real life. This is instead asking people to explore why we make this distinction in a *game* when, as you yourself has put, distinguishing between rape and horrible mutilation and torture is pretty much an empty academic effort, isn't it?

Note that this has *nothing* to do with the issue of not granting special consideration. In fact, on the contrary, you'll notice that the post didn't dismiss the idea of special consideration, but rather asked why since there are possibly victims of violence among your gamers they also shouldn't be granted special consideration.

I think that you got emotional and projected something that wasn't written onto the post after reading a few words.

(Hardcore! Just clarified to a journalist!)

I think it goes beyond that. Yeah, putting one's fantasies into the open like that COULD creep everyone out - I really would not want to see everything that goes on in my GMs head in that regard - but in my opinion it's also about respect for those who have gone through something that horrible.

Let me put it another way: say a player was from, say, Sudan and had been through horrific torture (from what I've heard, it's commonplace over there). I think it would be a matter of respect to see if he was ok with going through a torture scene in-game. By that same token, I think rape should be handled the same way. The only reason it's a more delicate matter is, I suspect, because people in Europe and the U.S. are FAR more likely to have gone through rape than they are to have gone through a Sierra Leonne torture room.

As far as why killing in general is not treated the same way - I dunno. Maybe it has something to do with seeing it on TV all the time or in movies. I suspect people sensitive to that kind of thing (I mean seeing it on TV or in movies) wouldn't go for Shadowrun anyways, seeing as how it's an action game in a similar vein to a bloodbath-style action movie (which I also doubt they'd watch).

What does that mean (BBSW)?

Death is business, rape is a personal hate crime. I would have a problem with a character that shot every orc, or indian, or japanese person they saw just as much. I see death is sad and greivous but it has closure, rape doesn't until the victim gets to kill the purpotrator.

That's not true.

Funny, I'd be far more creeped out by someone pointing a gun (even a play gun) at me than the same person flirting with me. Of course, by your example, rolling dice for character contact is the same level as rolling for combat, which we generally do in place of props, but my point is that you're expressing a personal preference not everyone shares. I have no problem with flirt in play.

While I disagree that killing the perp brings closure, I'm pleased to see that you think killing for fun is just as bad as rape for fun. I will say I've had some odd stories were sex (debatably rape) was business, for instance in the case of inheritence or breeding particular traits. Would you feel Aztechnology's forced breeding programs are better than a rapist in the street because it's "just business"? What if business happens to include scare tactics?

Actually, no I wouldn't think that's any different. Just like I think Tamanous's forced implantation of embryos (described in the old Underworld Sourcebook) is little different from rape.

I have not read Aztechnology, so I was not aware of the breeding programs. But I would rate them inhumane and akin to rape.

I feel that in shadowrun, not everyone that is shot dies. I personally do not play savage killing machines, but when you are in the shadows it is basically like war. And there are casualties of war. People who die usually deserve it, people that die by my character's hands definitely deserve it.

What I just cannot seem to bend my head around is people's mindset. I see shadowrun as a strategy game, where roleplaying is one of the tools, etc. Roleplaying rape is something I cannot understand because I see it in the same light as shooting an innocent baby. (I have seen other PC's do this. Right before I Tk'd them) but just do not have the capacity to perform these acts anywhere in my body. I cannot fathom shattering someone like that. I have seen its effects far too often.

I guess I am not a good roleplayer/actor because I can't step too far out of my persona, but if you are roleplaying it, then it is for enjoyment, and if you enjoy doing something like that in a game you must have it somewhere within you, and I guess that is what bothers me.

Now I know that I can kill someone if I have to. I have been put into that situation before and thankfully I didn't have too, but I had to protect my wife and daughter. I guess I am saying that murder is ok if there is a reason. I cannot see any reason for a rape. (if I was to get paid to do it, I would not take the job and Mr.J would be dead)

Sometimes you're roleplaying it because it makes sense within the game. That doesn't mean you enjoy it, nor that you are a closet rapist, just that you're playing a game.

Nor am I. I made it up. But I think it would work in the context of the game. FASA/FanPro has avoided sexuality for the most part because rape IS such a taboo subject. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't take place in the world as it is set. Bunraku parlors anyone?

This is based on the assumption that the PCs are roleplaying the rape. No one in this thread thus far has suggested the PCs should roleplay out rape (except for you). Rather, rape was included as an aspect of the world, generally committed by NPCs or, in the example given, by a PC under an NPC's control. In the situation in question I also suspect the rape was just business, a means to draw another PC into doing something that meets the perps intentions. The example I gave was also 'just business' and didn't involve actions by the PC.

As I said, if you personally don't like rape, that's fine, it's easy to leave out of the game world. It isn't really integral to anything. However, your personal preference has no bearing on, objectively, whether rape should happen in the game world. Rape happens in our world, it will certainly happen in the future in all sorts of forms. Some of these will be cold business (at least from some point of view, including oftentimes the provider of victims), and for others it will be passion. Regardless, it will happen and there's no inherent reason it shouldn't be included.

If a PC engaged in rape, barring extenuating circumstances, I'd probably consider the PC mentally deranged in some form or another and would question how long he'll survive. I wouldn't begrudge any other PC who shot him dead (or, truthfully, any other PC who shoots the PC who shoots the rapist).

Can we get a complete list of the number of fallacies in that statement, both explicit and implied.

At this point I have:

Emotional Appeal
Enthymeme
Existintial Assumption
False Analogy
False Choice
False Delemia
False Necessity
False Premise
Ignoratio Elenchi
Package-Deal Fallacy
Reductio ad HitlerRapistum
The Fallacy of the Consequent
Wisdom of Repugnance

There are probably more.


The heart of this problem is the premise that people who fantasize about things and enjoy roleplaying them will always enjoy them in reality. This is obviously false.
In fact, it is quite possible for people to enjoy roleplaying things that they would find repulsive in reality. Take, for example, being the victim of torture. It can provide a great cathartic roleplaying experience, in my opinion. Of course, while I might enjoy having a character subjected to the electrified testicle clamps I would not take one bit of pleasure from it in reality. In fact, I would prefer to not be tortured in reality and would dislike it if I were.

Next is the False Analogy, the comparison of roleplayed "rape" to actual rape, The two could not be any more different. The act of roleplaying such a scene is, by definition, founded upon the consent of all involved. Without this real consent it ceases to be roleplay and become real. This real consent is shrouded by the characters' lack of consent but it is still always there for the performers.
This starkly seperates the act of roleplaying a rape scene from actual rape which is, by definition, non consensual.

And finally, the Package-Deal Fallacy. The assertion here is that the capacity to roleplay rape and the capacity to commit rape are mutually inclusive. This, however, is not at all true. According to studies referenced earlier, about 24% of men and 36% of women fantasize about rape. This percentage is no higher amongst convicted rapists than amongst the general population. Therefore, more than 2/3 of rapists are unable to fantasize about rape. Likewise, the number of people who fantasze about rape is far larger than the number of people who commit rape.

Seriously, at this point I recomend some research into BDSM, sexually roleplaying, and rape fantasy to help you better understand the difference between what people enjoy as fantasy and what people enjoy in reality. There are plenty of other example s I can give of people enjoying something as a fantasy but disliking it as a reality.
Age-play amongst people who are not actually attracted to children is a good example. Also, try vampire roleplaying amongst people who know that they aren't really vampires.

edit: added Wisdom of Repugnance to the list of fallacies.

That is an Ignoratio Elenchi. It is true and I completely agree with you. In fact, I stated so earlier in this very topic.

This is beside the point.

I was responding to Platnium's claim that everyone who enjoys roleplaying rape must want rape in reality. This common sense conclusion, like most common sense beliefs, seems correct on its face but is easily proven false. It is quite possible for an individual to enjoy playing a character who is a rapist without wanting to commit rape. In fact, one can enjoy being the dominant partner in rape roleplay while being so turned off by actual nonconsensual sex as to be psycologically incapable of commiting a real rape. Likewise, one can enjoy being the submissive partner in rape roleplay without asking for it in reality. That is my point.


I agree completely that players and GMs should respect each others boundries and that everone should understand the flavor of the game from the begining. Of course, it is possible for the flavor of a game to be inconsistant and a well roleplayed game can evolve in unexpected ways. This is why respecting everyone's boundries is so important.

In all but the most dangerous and least accepted BDSM roleplaying the submissive partner seems to give of a degree of control over the scene but in reality retains absolute control over it. At any time either partner can break character, use a safeword, and end it. The same mechanism can be applied to tabletop roleplaying. If events become intense for a player or for the GM that indivdual should be able to stop things and refuse to continue in that direction. Any gamer who doesn't respect such a decision should be shot, set on fire, shot twice more while still on fire, put out, and then set on fire again. In the BDSM community refusal to accept a safeword is the most heinous crime one can commit. So it should be for the P&P roleplaying community.


However, something important has been glossed over. HMHVV Hunter and Platnium weren't objecting to hardcore immersive roleplaying. They were objecting something so simple as a single informative sentence of the form "[PC's Name] rapes [inconsequential NPC]." Platnium seems to have been coming from the position that such a simple sentence should be grounds for orbital bovine bombardment before it creeps them out.

It seems that Platnium doesn't want anyone to go there. At all. Ever. Because it creeps Platnium out. They have the right to be creeped out and I certainly respect their boundries ... BUT ... Excuse me, there is an entire Law and Order series dedicated to going there and it gets consistantly high ratings despite being pitted against the best lawyer show William Shatner ever starred in. Every other episode of every other television series goes there. The fucking Sopranos went there Movies don't go there nearly as often but when they do they go their ten times bigger as is befitting the big screen. Ever watch the local news? It's all rape, child molestation, rape, murder, political corruption, child rape, sports, something funny, and weather. Rapes happen, yes, but the rate that they are reported compared to more important news is disproportionate to the rate at which they occur in relation to more important things. Just look at it. Kobe Bryant. The Michael Jackson trial. Just step back and look at it all. Rape sells. Rape sells because 24% of all men and 36% of all women are willing to admit that they enjoy rape and there's probably a shit pot load more who like it but are too scared to say anything.
And, of course, "But on SVU the rapists are the bad guys, we only like it because they go down in the end", someone retorts. To that I say, fuck you, you fucking fucking hypocrits. Oh, we all get to feel good about ourselves when the evil rapists gets his just deserts at the end of the episode but that isn't why so many people watch, not by a long shot. People watch so they can learn the juicy details. They get to identify with the heroes and feel all warm and fuzzy about their motives but the real vicarious thrill comes descriptions and the details of the crimes both explicit and implicit. It is the same reason televised trials are so captivating.

You're seriously misunderstanding me (or conveniantly forgetting things from earlier in the thread).

As a roleplaying element, I think it has it's place. I DON"T think that place is as a description of EVERY GORY DETAIL of the act. A one- or two-sentence description is more than enough.

I NEVER said that it should never be in RPing at all. I said that GMs NEED TO TALK TO THEIR PLAYERS ABOUT IT FIRST! GMs have to be sensitive to their players, and I think to do anything less is irresponsible.

My exact words were:

and:

I never said it should absolutely never be used in-game. Honestly, facing a villain capable of doing such things would probably make it that much more satisfying to bring him down in the most painful manner possible (I tend to lean towards playing justice-seeking type characters quite a bit).

He's finally lost it. Quoting himself and then shooting down the post. I guess it's only a matter of time before the urges turn inward, eh?

What the hell kind of scary-ass characters are you playing?!

Seriously though, about those situations:

A) I've never had the opportunity to RP a date, but if I did, I would sure as hell not RP a date rape (mostly because I don't make my characters with those kinds of character flaws, because I know I'd be uncomfortable RPing them)

B) No way in the thousand hells that a character of mine would do that either. The worst one of mine would do is a massive beat down, followed by letting the fucker bleed to death.

C) Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot?! See my comment about scary-ass characters above.

Don't take things out of context. I was quoting my previous statement to prove that I had previously agreed with Glyph's assertion. The entire assertion was unrelated to the point I was trying to make in the post that Glyph was referancing. (Just in case you really are that dense.)




HMHVV Hunter, I wasn't asking about what your characters would do, per se. Rather I was asking about what your reaction, as a player (and a GM), would be if someone else's character did these things.

I didn't mean to imply that the date rape was in RP. It could just as easily be part of the character's background that just comes up for some reason or another (victim seeking revenge, perhaps).

As for C, giving villians who are too dangerous to let live a second chance with new personalities is certainly better than killing them.

No use trying to cover it up. Your insanity has slipped through the cracks and that door can't be unopened.

Only if you think that having your personality and memories whiped away is different from death, but that's a whole other topic altogether.

O RLY

I'm glad we could discuss the appropriateness of the issue in the context of gaming in that calm, rational manner.

BS. If you enjoy it in roleplaying then there are elements that you will enjoy in real life. You might not like the sensation of electrified testicles, but I am sure the kink/bizarro factor would turn you on. Roleplaying gives you are safe way to experience scenarios, roleplaying just circomvents your inhibitions because it is not reality, but there still is some element of you that enjoys or wants to.

I have to completely disagree with this, but there's just so much crap in it I don't know where to begin. One question though:

Do you enjoy playing a game where you break into an office, steal some stuff, and then kill the security gaurd on the way out because he spotted you? If so, when do you plan on starting your career as a thief and a murderer?

Some people play characters that are themselves (or who they want to be) but with different skills and abilities. Some people play charaters that are nowhere near the people they actually are (or want to be).

I guess I keep thinking that if you are playing a character you have to be able to identify with them, and actually become them. I have played chars that are not at all like I am, but usually those are more mechanical, and wind up being more of a choose your own adventure than a roleplaying session.

My statistics come from Wikipedia which cites This Page which cites Knox, D. (1984). Human sexuality: The search for understanding.

This Knox fellow seems to have a decent reputation. http://www.wadsworth.com/cgi-wadsworth/cou...issn=0534363539

Actually, I am turned off by torture, despite my BDSM referances. A light spanking can be nice, but that's beside the point. My feelings for torture roleplaying as a cathartic release are as non-sexual as anything can be and is probably a mild form of Mary Sueism. You can't have a Mary Sue who doesn't endure tragic suffering.

So then you would enjoy the cold-blooded murder of someone who was just doing your job? There is something inside you that wants to see people die and have their children mourn them? How does that make you better than people who put a rape in their game?

Simply because you can't roleplay someone you can't identify with doesn't mean that everbody suffers from that inability. Or do you think that because Anthony Hopkins played a believable Hannibal Lecter he must somehow fantisize about and enjoy the idea of cannibalism?

So by that logic:

-Thomas Jane wants to be a vigilante (he played The Punisher in the 2004 movie)
-Brent Spiner wants to genetically engineer psychotic killers (playing Dr. Arik Soong who did just that in "Enterprise")
-Michael Douglas wants to cheat the stock market ("Wall Street")
-Stephen Dorff wants to drink blood ("Blade")
-Ron Livingston wants to be a major corporate thief ("Office Space")
-Alan Ford wants to be a psychotic crime boss that feeds people to pigs (Brick Top in "Snatch")

The list could go on forever, but I think you see what I'm saying.

no .... read this SLOWLY ... I said you have the capacity and you probably enjoy it on some minor level, not that you are going to become totally immersed in it.

Perhaps he's living by his sig. quote

Mainly just opinions based on what I have learned in psychology courses and discussions with several psychologists about roleplaying. Same amount of support you guys have.

So Stephen Dorf enjoys drinking blood?

You might be surprised at the kinds of things people will act out for 50 gajillion dollars.