WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[Micah Sweet]

And how often is this something that happens to a main character on-screen?

See, that's the difference between a TV show and an RPG. On a TV show, it's a backstory, or to show who the Bad Guys is. In a game, it's something that can happen to one of the players--one of the players of a game that is supposed to be fun.

If you are the GM, would you be able to point to one of your friends at the table and say "the bad guy rapes you," and expect it to still be fun for that player? If your GM told you that your character was raped, would you have fun?

Also, a lot of times when rape is used in a show or book, it's done really, really badly.

I don't think anyone here wants it to happen on screen in the game, but I am against removing it from existence as a concept. As I said, background elements and references to the evils of the bad guys, if done with prior awareness from the players, shouldn't be a global ban.

Session 0 fixes this issue.

 

[Zardnaar]

The reason why slavery is included here is because it's a mistake to think of slavery as a historical relic. Slavery is still a thing. It looks different in a lot of cases, and it is often linked to trafficking (as well as SA), but it's not gone. To say nothing if the fact that many locales in the Americas have not done a great job reckoning with the horrors of the chattel slavery practiced there, nor in addressing the very real generational trauma that still exists from the ancestors of their survivors.

When you frame things in terms of preventing/exacerbating trauma, which is really what we should be talking about (rather than "offense"), then lumping slavery in with SA starts to make a lot more sense.

Difference now is it's illegal in most of the world.

Enforcement and things slipping through the cracks though.....

 

[Alzrius]

And how often is this something that happens to a main character on-screen?

See, that's the difference between a TV show and an RPG. On a TV show, it's a backstory, or to show who the Bad Guys is. In a game, it's something that can happen to one of the players--one of the players of a game that is supposed to be fun.

If you are the GM, would you be able to point to one of your friends at the table and say "the bad guy rapes you," and expect it to still be fun for that player? If your GM told you that your character was raped, would you have fun?

Also, a lot of times when rape is used in a show or book, it's done really, really badly.

You're discussing it in terms of an on-screen, happens-to-the-PCs activity, which strikes me as being far and away outside of what anyone is advocating for. The mere acknowledgment that such a thing exists, which is much more often what's talked about in these discussions, seems no more notable than what's in an episode of L&O:SVU.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't think anyone here wants it to happen on screen in the game, but I am against removing it from existence as a concept. As I said, background elements and references to the evils of the bad guys, if done with prior awareness from the players, shouldn't be a global ban.

Session 0 fixes this issue.

Well, how would you feel if it happened to your character?

And how does having it as a possible thing to happen to your character make a published book or adventure better?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I get what they were going for, my question was it actually needed to sell the character? Was raping Sansa what made people hate Ramsay? Joffrey never raped her while she was held against her will in King's Landing and he was despised. Would the dothraki have appeared just as bloodthirsty if the woman they raped had begged for mercy and they killed her and laughed about it? Could Aegon have still appeared like a tyrant if he had the servant girl clean a spot on the ground and he kept pointing to a new spot that didn't exist before finally kicking the poor frustrated girl in the butt or something?

I've literally used that last bit for a NPC baron who ended up being the BBEG of a mid-level story arc and it worked to get the characters to hate him, while building sympathy for the poor servant who wasn't intended to be anything but the PCs went looking for her while finishing up that arc to make sure she was safe.

I never said it was the only way to show how evil the bad guys are, I said it was a way, and one which had strong historical precedent in the material that inspired GoT.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, how would you feel if it happened to your character?

And how does having it as a possible thing to happen to your character make a published book or adventure better?

I likely wouldn't use it in my own game, but I don't think the option to refer to it, even if just obliquely or through backstory, should be removed.

 

[Remathilis]

I likely wouldn't use it in my own game, but I don't think the option to refer to it, even if just obliquely or through backstory, should be removed.

No one is forcing you to remove it. They are choosing not to use it in OFFICIAL MATERIAL. WotC is choosing not to use such material in its game, but they don't care what you do with it at your table. Nobody cares what you do at your table. Have Rapey McSlaver be your main bad-guy. But don't expect that WotC is going to put out a villain like that in one of their APs.

 

[Faolyn]

You're discussing it in terms of an on-screen, happens-to-the-PCs activity, which strikes me as being far and away outside of what anyone is advocating for. The mere acknowledgment that such a thing exists, which is much more often what's talked about in these discussions, seems no more notable than what's in an episode of L&O:SVU.

Except that we are talking about it being an on-screen event because it's actually something that really happens to actual PCs in-game.

If you (meaning game company writers) say "the Evil Horde is raping their way across the countryside" as a way to show they're evil, then you're giving the DM carte blanche to have them rape their way across the PCs and friendly NPCs as well. It would be you (still meaning game company writers) say that this is fully OK to have at the table.

I've spoken to many, many people (during several different editions, both online and in person) who say that D&D's emphasis on combat rules proves that WotC expects PCs to only ever fight their way through situations, and exploration and social activities are to be put to the side. These are the people who would take the Evil Horde raping their way across the countryside as full permission.

And, as others have pointed out, there are many, many ways to show how evil the Evil Horde is having them also be rapists.

 

[Zardnaar]

I likely wouldn't use it in my own game, but I don't think the option to refer to it, even if just obliquely or through backstory, should be removed.

Pretty much what I do. Don't generally use it can't remember using it but if I did it might get referenced.

I just run my games PG13 with F bombs explained session 0.

All the bad stuff exists but won't directly happen to your character. Worst case scenario fade to black create new character eg being captured by a cult known for torture.

I might include the bad things but not gonna narrate it happening. Eg a Dwarf horde that wants to genocide Elves.

 

[Velderan]

No one is forcing you to remove it. They are choosing not to use it in OFFICIAL MATERIAL. WotC is choosing not to use such material in its game, but they don't care what you do with it at your table. Nobody cares what you do at your table. Have Rapey McSlaver be your main bad-guy. But don't expect that WotC is going to put out a villain like that in one of their APs.

You make me wonder if they'll edit Lost Mine of Phandelver at some point. There's a room in the Redbrand hideout labeled "Slave Pens" which has 3 villagers being held until they can be sold into slavery.