Help! My GM's trying to get me pregnant!

[Knightfall]

Well, that's 'cause you're a Rat Bastard, Piratecat.

Starman

I'm glad somebody said it. A slaad egg... that's just mean.

And as for pregnancy, I would never force a female "character" to become pregnant, regardless of the character's actions. I would assume that a female "character" would know to be careful.

However, male "characters" tend to act first, think not at all. And female NPCs aren't always as careful. One of my player's elf wizard had a tendency to "seduce" barmaids wherever he went.

Thus, I started rolling random pregnancy checks. Eventually, he got a human barmaid pregnant. He, "the player", was annoyed, but he, "the character", became more cautious.



KF72

 

[Darkness]

And as for pregnancy, I would never force a female "character" to become pregnant, regardless of the character's actions. I would assume that a female "character" would know to be careful.

I generally agree, but unless the OP can convince his DM of this viewpoint, that's cold comfort for him...

 

[Sejs]

Unless, of course, you do what an elf PC once did IMC and run around talking random goblins into letting you polymorph them into elves.

*cough* Yoink!

 

[Turanil]

Help! My GM's trying to get me pregnant!

why shouldn't men be just as likely to get pregnant?

the netbook of sex. It's free, it's good.

I just hope we're talking Pen and Paper here and not LARP!

LOL!!

 

[Knightfall]

I generally agree, but unless the OP can convince his DM of this viewpoint, that's cold comfort for him...

So true. It's too bad when DMs try to force a player to accept an obvious "roleplaying" option.

 

[fusangite]

And as for pregnancy, I would never force a female "character" to become pregnant, regardless of the character's actions. I would assume that a female "character" would know to be careful.

Thanks for giving me an opener to make my usual belligerent point (made previously in this thread but perhaps in too few words). The real issue here is a debate about female sexuality between a male GM and a male player.

In campaigns like mine and TB's, where men are not allowed to play women, something like this wouldn't arise. No male GM could sustain the nerve necessary to argue with a female player that her character has been impregnated against her will. However high the social "ick" factor is here, it would be ten times higher in this other situation and would immediately make apparent how inappropriate a plot line like this really is.

The only reason this is even a debate in your campaign is that you, as a man, are not viewed as a legitimate gatekeeper for female sexuality. Your character's sexuality is so removed both from you and your GM that it has become fodder for some very inappropriate plot hook.

Thus, I started rolling random pregnancy checks. Eventually, he got a human barmaid pregnant. He, "the player", was annoyed, but he, "the character", became more cautious.

But here, what is going on is much more disturbing: the GM is essentially forcing a female character first to be seduced and then to be impregnated via some lame game mechanical device. The male player is trying to defent his character but is so sexually and personally removed from the character's sexuality that the GM refuses to view his non-consent as legitimate or real.

What we are witnessing here is a bizarre inversion of a rape scenario: because the character's player is male, she can be sexually attached to an NPC without her consent and then, subsequently, impregnated without her consent. Were her player female, she would have been protected from this unwanted sexual attention but because he is male, she is not.

Things like this weird gender inversion of a rape scenario are, sadly, not really that uncommon when men play women in D&D games.

I'll say it again: let the GM have his way and retire the character. You only have more creepy sexual dynamics to look forward to otherwise.

 

[Darkness]

(edit - This is in reply to Knightfall 1972.)


Yeah. I can even see that a DM might want consequences to actions, or story fodder or whatever - but insisting that no contraceptives exist and magic to that effect still has to be researched is IMO not a very useful decision unless it is intended to railroad along a certain plot (which I'm not a big fan of either). Throw your players a friggin' bone, man...

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'll say it again: let the GM have his way and retire the character. You only have more creepy sexual dynamics to look forward to otherwise.

Woo hoo!

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Alright, so.... You're still adventuring, right? So, after coming back from an adventure, start asking for information. Act all obsessed. What was he doing, where did he go, did anyone head over? Then, accuse him of cheating on you. If he defends himself he's a liar, so kill him. If he admits it, kill him anyway. After this, make a vow of 'no touching' as it all leads to sorrow anyway, and continue upon your adventuring ways.

Problem solved, in an equally gratuitous, heavy handed manner. And hopefully the problem won't come back up.

 

[Aydin of Bastok]

Quite possibly so, but I think supply is generally hard to come by.

There's also the "this hottie is older than your grandmother" ick factor for many shorter-lived races.

It's a railroad and a pretty common, and stupid one, at that. I've only dealt with PC pregnancy once, and that was a very different campaign (in system used and tone/style) from the case here - and that was only with the (female) player's permission and setting certain ground rules about it.

- Ma'at