I see a number of people claiming an absolute right to not be offended.
I see no one claiming an absolute right to offend.
I don't think so...
For myself, I'm not claiming any rights at all. What I'm doing is suggesting, if one
is genuinely offended, that it is better to bring this up in honest discussion rather than swallow that emotion and let tension and bitterness develop over it.
And, at the same time, I'm saying that if I discover I've offended somebody, I'll try and avoid doing so in the future, and that this is behavior I simply assume is a default for my friends and most civilized people.
But these aren't absolute positions. I certainly admit that there may be times when someone could be offended, and realize the issue isn't that big a deal, and simply move past it. And there are times when someone else might complain about my behavior, and I wouldn't agree that their complaints had merit. I just don't see that as particularly the case in most of the examples we've discussed.
Ok, that's good. Is it a matter of degree, or is the issue one of annoyance versus authorial privilege? Or do both enter into the examples you are putting forward? Help me understand where you would draw the line.
To sort of follow up on the above... I don't think an absolute line can be drawn. But as I've mentioned before in this thread, I do think one has a much stronger claim to objection over elements that they have been unwillingly connected to. Objecting to another PC's romance is very different from objecting to a romance being forced on your PC unwillingly.
The way I see, unless he actually does something to player B's pc, he's just roleplaying. Of course it's not in a vacuum; it would be silly to say it was. But player A deciding how his character feels about something is no more "doing something" to pc B than I'm "doing something" to a random person if I find them attractive, or for that matter than I'm "doing something" to a good friend that I'm pining over.
If the situation is literally imprisoned in Player 1's mind for the entirety of the game, then... yeah, I suppose. But that isn't the case, here. We actively see Player 1's PC acting on their love for Player 2's PC. This may be out of the sight of Player 2's PC, but not out of the sight of Player 2. They have to sit at the table and watch as their PC is subjected to behavior that, yes, can feel very much like being stalked.
If you are infatuated with a good friend, but never let it influence your relationship with them, that isn't a problem. But if they notice you are constantly doing favors for them, secretly paying for their meals, trying to handle disputes for them with other people, and happen to just be in the area around them at all times to make sure they are safe.... even if your intentions are absolutely pure, that behavior could absolutely bother them.
The original scenario seemed to be along these lines - Player 1's PC was in love with Player 2's PC, and because that love, went out of their way to protect and help them, and basically built their life around the other character. That is absolutely "doing something" to them - it is directing behavior towards them that Player 2 is not a fan of, and wants to stop.
If the situation is truly entirely within Player 1's head and never impacts the game at all, then sure, he can come up with whatever background elements he desires.
But it is Player B's objection that makes him mistaken. If Player B did not object, Player A would be on solid ground. So is the problem Player A's decision, or Player B's objection? That is the problem with trying to find fault in this situation.
Neither!
We've said this several times, yet it keeps getting overlooked. There is nothing wrong with Player 1 trying out some new roleplaying element. There is nothing wrong with Player 2 not wanted to be part of this roleplaying element. The problem is Player 1
persisting with the roleplaying element
in spite of Player 2's objections.
And yes, that will not universally be true, as we've tried to make clear. But I certainly find it to be the case in many of the examples we've looked at. There is no fault with either of them at the start - the fault comes from one player intentionally causing discomfort to another player, and that only happens once an objection has been raised and one player persists in spite of it.