Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 692821" data-attributes="member: 8439">hmmm.... suggesting a correction.. like "In the interest of constructive criticism (and because it would be nice to have a mature suplement as long as it shows some maturity) I would recomend the following changes -Distinguish between unwilling as "I have a headache, I need to get this work done, I'd feel bad about cheating" from a condition in which a person does not under any circumstances wish to have sex with someone else. Grey areas are possible obviously, but the current one size fits all is all wrong.If a person is raped, reaction modifiers are switched from the normal direction. Some rape victims do have orgasms, it does not cause them to like their attacker. Having any of the above feats (unless the definition of unwilling is changed on some) strongly effects allignment."hmmm... thats what I said in the very first post I made to this thread.I'm going to try to breifly throw off my long years of USENET conditioning here. Reading through the thread thus far all at once and with little background on the mechanics gave me a very different perscpective than those working on this thread. Particularly, the combination of arousal checks, reaction modifiers, statuses and feats did at that time (I don't know what changes W has incorporated) make a system where someone who was really 'good in bed' could rape someone and they would like it so much they would forget they weren't willing and have a positive reaction to the rapist. I spelled the way this worked out in my second post. Considering how fundementally offensive this idea is, I did not pussy foot around it. However, I also tried not to outright accuse the thread authors of having that goal in mind (tone was apparently not the right word, but I'm sure 'implication' wouldn't have been taken any better, and my point was that this was the underlying system, not spelled out). From W's previous responses (which I was happy with until another poster started in) it seems that this mechanic is an accident of several ideas worked and reworked and not examined as a whole.for a more concrete suggestion, extrapolated and needing lots of work,Mental conditions the same until unwilling.Unenthusiastic - The character is disinterested in sex at this time, but potentially interested in the proposed partner. An unenthusiastic character cannot initiate sex or make an arousal check under normal circumstances. When trying to arouse an unenthusiastic character, you are at a -5 penalty, and may be penalized for use of counterproductive feats (such as powerful lover). Choice of which stat to use for the arousal check is also significant as use of str or con will have negitive modifiers; dex, int and cha will add no modifier; and wis will be positive.Unwilling - The character is not a willing participant in sex. Any attempt at sexual activity with an unwilling partner is an act of rape and will result in personal and societal reaction modifiers as appropriate to the setting and individual character. The character cannot be aroused by the standard definitions, though a result on the arousal check chart can be considered to represent the intensity of the expereince and result in equivelent negitive modifiers to reaction checks.Traumatised - The character is strongly emotionally distressed by the idea of sex due to some factor (experiencing or witnessing a rape, extremely painful sexual expereinces, *, etc). A traumatised character is likely to be considered unwilling in regards to most potential partners and unenthusiastic at best with those he or she loves or trusts (at the discretion of the person controlling the character). See the Sexual Healing sidebar for additional information on leaving the Traumatised status.*I was going to list 'catholic' here due to the complaints of friends raised in that religion, but it seemed iffy in terms of offense.Kahuna Burger</blockquote>

Verification