Players, GMs, and "My character"...

[ProfessorCirno]

Where I, on the other hand, would be disappointed if they (or the game itself) didn't somehow make me uncomfortable now and then; I'd rather push envelopes than live within them. I don't subscribe to this "lowest-common-comfort-denominator" theory.

It has nothing to do with the "lowest common comfort denominator," and your smugness is not helping your argument. This is D&D, not Adventurers: the Angsting.

Yes it does. If they're affording me so little trust to assume I'm a "creep" then why should I afford them enough trust to assume the stated "discomfort" is real and not just an act intended to annoy me?

Maybe they don't trust this player in the example because, hey, they're acting like a creep?

If a player tells you "stop doing that to my character, it makes me uncomfortable" and you refuse, guess what? That's creep behavior. Literally, that is the definition of a creep.

Ah, but here you hit on the key. The other PCs can do and say what they bloody want, and if they catch my PC stealing from them it's probably - in fact, quite likely - the end of the line for him. But it's kept in character, exactly where it should be.

So if I changed "PC" to "player" it would completely be horrible and unjustifiable? Players aren't allowed to be mad at another player who is disrupting the game?

But my PC attempting an in-character romance should not so quickly lead to me-as-player being labelled a real-life creep.

No, but trying to force the romance when the other player doesn't want you to does.

Sure, the PC I'm chasing can ask me to stop, or tell me to get lost, whatever; and I'll react in character in one of an infinite possible number of ways depending on the characters and circumstances. That's what roleplaying is.

And sometimes not being a creep is telling the roleplayer to step back because they're intruding on personal bounderies, as it is in every social convention. Roleplaying doesn't exist in a bubble. Playing with others is a social contract just as most things are, and intruding on boundaries or purposefully intruding on someone else's space is creep behavior, no matter where you're doing it.

But the thought of something as banal as this making a *player* uncomfortable enough to stop a session (other than to crack a few jokes) is just beyond my experience. Hey, maybe my crew is just a bit more liberated than some...

What works for your group works for your group. It doesn't matter. Your group is fine with it - great! It works out fantastic for you!

But when someone is not ok with it, it's creep behavior to tell them to suck it up and deal with it.

 

[pawsplay]

What works for your group works for your group. It doesn't matter. Your group is fine with it - great! It works out fantastic for you!

But when someone is not ok with it, it's creep behavior to tell them to suck it up and deal with it.

What you are saying is that Lanefan would be wrong to create a group that enjoyed his playstyle, if it meant excluding any person. Would it be creepy for every person in that group to simply leave the game, then form a new group without Player 2? Why is it okay to tell Player 1 to suck it up and deal with it when Player 2 won't roleplay a situation out?

The position you are arguing for has been phrased as something along the lines of, "Any time you do something that makes someone uncomfortable, withdraw." But someone who simply stated that position would make some people uncomfortable. There is simply no way to square such a rule with logic. It's a "rule" based on very limited experiences. It makes no admissions of context.

Certainly, I think most people would agree that if Player 1 were a long-time, valued group member and Player 2 is a newcomer who wants to change the group's style, Player 2 does not have a solid basis in etiquette or justice. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" describes what I would consider the most common interpretation for how to proceed from a social standpoint. And ethically, I think most people would agree we do not have a right to compel others to form groups to play games that fit our preferences.

This has been stated and restated in various ways throughout this thread. I am kind of frustrated that a supposed "rule" has been stated several times without any justification as to why it is a rule or where it is come from, whereas I think I and others have pointed out ways in which it leads to self-contradiction, suggesting it doesn't cover all situations, only some situations. Certainly, I can think of nothing, off-hand, in the major ethical systems and religions of the world that suggests you should not offend people simply because they are offended, and numerous examples of when it is suggested that people may have to simply accept being offended. The Golden Rule suggests that the situation should be dealt with in a way that benefits everyone equally, not to the sole benefit of the person who chooses to be offended.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You missed kinda heavily what I've been saying.

There will come topics or moments in game where not everyone is on board. These you hash out with the group. Certain topics are pretty much never ok (if you hear or think about rape and tabletop gaming coming together and you think "Hey sounds good," please leave my hobby). Others are a bit iffy - the players encounter a large group of evil spiders, woops one of the players is arachnophobic. On the iffy ones, you have to ask just how important that subject is to the game to yourself (Can I ditch evil spiders and the game is still fine? Most likely yes. Ok, time to leave behind the spiders). Likewise, if romance between others is going to be a major theme in game, and the person doesn't like that, you should probably tell them it's going to be a major theme and let them decide if they want to stay or not.

But no, what I've been talking about is this idea that if PC A hits on PC B, it's Player B's fault of they find it uncomfortable, and that they should just get over it. I'm sorry, but no. If you are actively doing something to someone else's character and they find it uncomfortable and want you to stop, you stop. It's that simple.

 

[Hussar]

I wanted to add to this thread, but ProfC has pretty much said everything I wanted to say and I can't posrep him again. But, just to reiterate:

Yes it does. If they're affording me so little trust to assume I'm a "creep" then why should I afford them enough trust to assume the stated "discomfort" is real and not just an act intended to annoy me?

You are not a creep for trying something new.

You are a creep for forcing elements onto another player when that player has said no.

Let's break down the steps here:

1. P1 decides to do the romance thing with another PC. - No problems.
2. P1 decides to keep this secret from the other PC's. - Possibly problematic. For one, it's dishonest and can cause problems down the road. But, possibly fine. There is certainly room for characters with secrets.
3. P1 acts on his background. - No problems.
4. P2, the recepient of the actions, doesn't like where this is going and asks player 1 to stop. - No problems. ((And this is the one place I think everyone agrees))
5. P1 ignores or over rules P2's concerns and continues as before. - Problem. Isn't this the definition of "griefing"? It's harrassment at the very least.
6. Situation continues and P1 kills P2's character. Problem. Does anything think this isn't a problem?

Up until Step 4, there's no problems. But, at Step 5, it all comes down to cost/benefit in the end. Is it worth losing a player over this? Is this element so important that one (or possibly more) player should be excluded from the game, either voluntarily or not?

In this specific case, I would say absolutely not. Not allowing you to romance another PC is not any reason for anyone to leave a game. Note, nothing has been said about not allowing any romance, but, since romance is not an expectation of a D&D game, it's an additional element that can be dropped. Just because you can't romance a PC this campaign, shelve the idea and try again next time around.

As I've always said, this sort of thing never happens at my table anymore. We create our characters as a group, precisely to avoid any of this kind of drama. We never get the "I steal from other PC's" crap, or killing other PC's or any of the other things like that. Is it playing to the "Lowest Comfort Level"? Maybe. Then again, I play with people who have pretty high tolerances and share my playstyle, for the most part.

On a mechanical end, Chronica Feudalis has the best solution I've ever seen to this. In CF, you have what is called "Backgrounds". This isn't character history. What it is, is elements of your character that are true in the game world, but are not brought up at the table by anyone other than that player. So, if you put, "I have a big family" in your Background, the DM can never kidnap your family or otherwise make them the center of the scenario. But, as a player, I can bring up staying with my family, tell anecdotes about my family and generally use "My big family" in any reasonable way.

To me, "I have a romance" is a perfect Background element for a group that is not comfortable playing out romance during the game. The player who wants the romance sticks it in his background, he can reference it from time to time, but, it's never actually played out.

Makes for a nice compromise.

 

[WayneLigon]

If you don't occasionally get uncomfortable with the pervasive violence in D&D and its implications and outcomes, I don't know what to say.

Never yet in thirty + years of gaming has anyone - male, female, young, older - ever mentioned being uncomfortable with it, or even noticing it enough to comment about it. If they did, every single one of them held their tongues, sometimes for decades.

It didn't take to many times killing the goblin whelps and what not in B2 before everyone at the table got wierded out and said, "What are we doing exactly?" That's part of the game.

Nope, it's not.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Boy this thread got weird.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What works for your group works for your group. It doesn't matter. Your group is fine with it - great! It works out fantastic for you!

But when someone is not ok with it, it's creep behavior to tell them to suck it up and deal with it.

and

What you are saying is that Lanefan would be wrong to create a group that enjoyed his playstyle, if it meant excluding any person.

and

You are a creep for forcing elements onto another player when that player has said no.

Let me just say this: if you create a situation in game that makes someone uncomfortable enough after they have explicitly stated that such a situation would be extremely upsetting, you're not just being a creep, you're potentially opening yourself up for liability.

I'm not kidding- its called "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

If you feel that the situation you wish to interject into the game is important enough to the campaign that you intend to do so over someone's explicit protest, you're far safer (legally) and on better moral/ethical turf if you explain to them that you intend to put that situation into the game, and if they don't like it, they can leave. Permanently, if needs must. If you don't give them the heads-up?

Well, you've been warned.

 

[fanboy2000]

Certainly, I can think of nothing, off-hand, in the major ethical systems and religions of the world that suggests you should not offend people simply because they are offended, and numerous examples of when it is suggested that people may have to simply accept being offended. The Golden Rule suggests that the situation should be dealt with in a way that benefits everyone equally, not to the sole benefit of the person who chooses to be offended.

I'm surprised. Maybe you're not looking in the right place.

Tort law has a concept called a "dignity tort." Back in the old days, battery and assault constituted dignity torts. They're a kind of intentional tort.

§ 8A Intent

The word "intent" is used throughout the Restatement of this Subject to denote that the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.

The important part is that last clause, that the person committing battery doesn't desire the result of the tort, but believes that the consequences are substantially certain.

The Restatement of Torts is an attempt to catalog, in a scholarly fashion, the common law (or judge made law) of various jurisdictions in the U.S. It's part amalgamation of the law of all the states, part reform effort. To my knowledge, the Restatement's definitions of intent, battery, and assault are fairly accurate.

§ 18 Battery: Offensive Contact

(1) An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
(b) an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.

(2) An act which is not done with the intention stated in Subsection (1, a) does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact with the other's person although the act involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it and, therefore, would be negligent or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm.

Note the idea of harmful or offensive contact. It doesn't have to cause injury, it can simply be offensive to the person.

The American Law Institute (the body that writes the Restatements) comments on the various sections that are supposed to constitute "the law." One of the comment to section 18 is particularly interesting. (It also contradictions something I said earlier.)

d. Knowledge of contact. In order that the actor may be liable under the statement in this Subsection, it is not necessary that the other should know of the offensive contact which is inflicted upon him at the time when it is inflicted. The actor's liability is based upon his intentional invasion of the other's dignitary interest in the inviolability of his person and the affront to the other's dignity involved therein. This affront is as keenly felt by one who only knows after the event that an indignity has been perpetrated upon him as by one who is conscious of it while it is being perpetrated.

So, if someone offensively touches someone and they don't find out till later, that person is still on the hook.

But battery requires touching, what if there's no touching? Is someone who makes a move to offensively touch someone still libel under a dignity tort? Yep, the tort of assault.

§ 21 Assault
(1) An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if:
(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
(b) the other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension.

In this case, almost the entirety of the tort is in the person's mind. If the person feels imminent apprehension, then assaulter is libel. If there is no imminent apprehension, there is no assault.

Of course, both of these torts involve either physical contact or the threat of physical contact (neither are something covered by Lanefan's original scenario).

So what about non physical contact? Can someone be libel under the law for causing someone emotional distress? Yes. It's a newer tort, but it's available in many jurisdictions.

§ 46 Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress

(1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.

Notice that bodily harm isn't necessarily a requirement. (Though some states might require that.) Also, I believe that recklessly isn't an element in many states that have this tort. Still, it exists.

Fortunately, American Law Institute has helped us with example about what, in their opinion, would constitute outrageous conduct.

Illustrations:
f. The extreme and outrageous character of the conduct may arise from the actor's knowledge that the other is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress, by reason of some physical or mental condition or peculiarity. The conduct may become heartless, flagrant, and outrageous when the actor proceeds in the face of such knowledge, where it would not be so if he did not know. It must be emphasized again, however, that major outrage is essential to the tort; and the mere fact that the actor knows that the other will regard the conduct as insulting, or will have his feelings hurt, is not enough.

11. A, who knows that B is pregnant, intentionally shoots before the eyes of B a pet dog, to which A knows that B is greatly attached. B suffers severe emotional distress, which results in a miscarriage. A is subject to liability to B for the distress and for the miscarriage.

Pretty bad stuff. In case you are reading this posting thinking "that's outragious, I've cause people 'emotional distress' a million times!" Note that the conduct has to be really outrageous. Your typical hijinx aren't enough.

13. A is an otherwise normal girl who is a little overweight, and is quite sensitive about it. Knowing this, B tells A that she looks like a hippopotamus. This causes A to become embarrassed and angry. She broods over the incident, and is made ill. B is not liable to A.

The notion that you shouldn't offend people simply because that they would be offended is found in law that's been around for literally centuries.

Mind you, I'm not talking about crimes. Yes, there is a crime called battery, but I'm talking about torts. If Player 1 intentionally hits Player 2 and Player 2 is offended, Player 2 can sue for battery. The standard of proof isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" it's more likely than not, or about 51%.

While I'm at it, don't forget about libel and slander.

Also, I'm not a lawyer, no one reading this is my client. This is about as close to legal advice as my cat is to being a martian.

 

[pawsplay]

There is a big difference between intentionally and knowing inflicting distress on an unsuspecting person, and simply offending or bothering them. If you want to talk tort rubbish, I'll call you and raise you a "consent;" roleplaying is a reasonable and expected hazard of, you know, playing a role-playing game. Sure, if Blackleaf's player kills herself because of something you did, and you have reason to suspect said player would be strongly effected, I guess there might be some kind of lawsuit in there. But we really, really aren't talking about that.

This is a thread about a player's ability to define their own character's existence. As I think has already been established, for the most part a player has the right to define their character's past and their attributes, within whatever parameters are agreed upon in the group. The question is whether another player can decide their PC is in love with this player's PC without their consent.

Not whether a player is allowed to intentionally inflict significant psychological harm on someone else. That is a different topic, and I hope we can all agree that that is not permissible.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IOW, when in doubt, DMs should be guided by Wheaton's Rule: Don't be a dick.

Suppose you have a player whose background includes events that makes him extremely sensitive to plotlines about kidnapping...and knowing this, you kidnap his PC in game.

You've just violated Wheaton's Rule. Furthermore, for purposes of illustration, you also trigger a PTSD event that lands the player in the hospital. Guess what? Your odds of losing a civil trial are high.

And for what? A game.

Now, fact of the matter is that this is one of those areas of the law that is HUGELY fact sensitive: actions that may lose one case may not rise to the level of being able to support a different one.

But why take the chance? Especially for so small a payoff.

The question is whether another player can decide their PC is in love with this player's PC without their consent.

I'd follow the same guidelines above: if you know or strongly suspect that such a plotline would seriously offend or negatively affect the other player, Wheaton's Rule applies. If you MUST have that aspect of the PC, make that love the kind that is secret and unrequited.