Satyr - An excuse for rape, or an interesting creature?

[Alzrius]

IMO, this creature's basis is -sex-. The origins of it are sexual. The mythos, legend, art, and architecture of this creature are sexual in nature, and often deviant at that.

Does this creature have a place in D&D?

Yes. The problem you're describing is your problem; it is not a problem with the game.

The fact that the satyr is mythologically described as a creature that is, at best, very aggressive with its sexuality doesn't mean anything in terms of how the creature is used in the context of D&D. The same way D&D dragons don't go around eating virgins, D&D rakshasas can't be frightened off by yelling "uncle!" at them, and D&D vampires don't need to obsessively count grains of rice or poppy seeds, D&D satyrs don't need to be perpetually-horny, enspell-you-and-then-do-you fey.

You find the idea of a creature that has an implied libido and that can use sleep and charm person to be uncomfortable (which must make it problematic to use ogre magi; as they're based on oni - or for that matter a sixteen year-old 1st-level sorcerer who knows those spells), which means that the problem isn't one inherent in D&D, as you seem to be indicating. Please don't ask if "D&D really needs" the things that you personally don't like.

If you don't like something, just don't use it.

 

[Vorput]

"can deal" "incapable of dealing" etc place a strong negative value judgment on not wanting to have rape in your roleplaying game, or even a natural reaction of being disgusted by it. As much as I wouldn't play with a DM who introduced rape or torture themes*, I wouldn't play with one who was condescending to me acting as though he was holding back because I couldn't handle it, or any other such tripe.

Have we become so de-sensitized to violence as a culture that rape is WORSE than murder? Maybe it's just because death is an accepted part of D&D, but geeze- players can be killed left and right but heaven forbid rape gets mentioned?

I'm not AT ALL trying to say rape isn't bad. It's awful, I've had experiences in my own life that... n/m, not worth getting into. The point is, I know it's terrible, and degrading, and can ruin people's lives. But so is death. So is human sacrifice. So is trapping someone's soul in a shambling mound of flesh and forcing it to carry out the creator's will. Now the latter two people probably haven't experienced, but I'm sure plenty of people have experienced someone dying- and there aren't many people advocating a campaign without death in it.

I could also point out the writings of Katherine Kurtz, Richard Adams, and probably a few others if I took the time to think about it. While perhaps not "mainstream" fantasy like Lord of the Rings, they are all still part of the fantasy genre.

More recently, Terry Goodkind's bestselling Sword of Truth novels make mention of it left and right as well.

 

[Kapture]

I think the real problem here is that the OP allowed his imagination to be railroaded.

I find that with mythological creatures, people can be curiously literal. With all the vampire stories around, I keep having this conversation with my wife:

"I thought vampires couldn't do (such and such)."

"Which vampires are you talking about?"

Gorgons only ever sat on their island and turned people to stone. The Minotaur stayed very tamely in his labrinth.

But in the DMG, minotaurs are community based humanoids, and medusaes use bows. I replace Yuan-Ti with medusas, have made minotaurs plains dwellers, given dryads class levels, and made satyrs half vampiric with a blood transfusion. The satyrs are marksmen as well as charmers, and could use sleep, charm, and fear to drive invaders away from the woods they guard. Make the group go to sleep, shove them in a cart, and leave them at the edge of the forest.

Fauns usually make me think of the little half-cherubs from fantasia. They're lanky half fey in my game. Myths are meant to be reinvented.

(Edit)

Well, Hell. It looks like Alzrius just covered the same territory. Doh.

 

[zen_hydra]

I feel that the gaming group's social contract (formal, or otherwise) should be where the appropriateness of "sensitive" topics is discussed and settled upon.

I am perfectly comfortable playing a character that has been raped. I feel that kind of event can add gravitas to a character. I also understand (and respect) the feelings of others who do not feel the way I do. Neither view is any more valid, or correct, than the other.

However, political correctness is, without a doubt, out of control in Western society. The Satyr of myth came from a time that was much more comfortable with the reality of daily violence, and death, and much less concerned with guilt and "feelings". Is your campaign world a violent, brutish place like that of the ancient Greeks, or is it the happy, shiny, modern world with the serial numbers filed off?

 

[Glyfair]

Have we become so de-sensitized to violence as a culture that rape is WORSE than murder? Maybe it's just because death is an accepted part of D&D, but geeze- players can be killed left and right but heaven forbid rape gets mentioned?

Discussing this area as a generality is almost certainly crossing the line of acceptable ENWorld discussion. I believe that, at least here in the U.S., this is the case. The reasons why, or whether it is appropriate or not isn't appropriate for these forums, though.

For purposes of what happens at the gaming table. It's a matter of player's likely response. Rape victims are very sensitive to reliving their experience when confronted with things that remind them of it. If a victim of violence has the same reaction then they probably shouldn't be playing in D&D, or find an outlet of roleplaying where violence isn't so central. Rape isn't central to D&D.

 

[Desdichado]

I could also point out the writings of Katherine Kurtz, Richard Adams, and probably a few others if I took the time to think about it. While perhaps not "mainstream" fantasy like Lord of the Rings, they are all still part of the fantasy genre.

Terry Goodkind. Glen Cook. Stephen R. Donaldson. Stephen Erikson. China Mieville. Michael Moorcock.

To name just a handful off the top of my head. The presumption that GRRM is somehow unique in having rape be an element of his setting and of his plots is absurd. In fact, in some of those, it's not even presented as necessarily evil: the protagonist of Moorcock's Gloriana tried the entire book to achieve orgasm, but can't until the ending where she's raped. That's offensive. Der_kluge's situation: not so much.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Have we become so de-sensitized to violence as a culture that rape is WORSE than murder? Maybe it's just because death is an accepted part of D&D, but geeze- players can be killed left and right but heaven forbid rape gets mentioned?

Many people consider rape to be more invasive than death. Death is permanent (at least in real life), while rape is something someone has to endure and then live with for years afterwards.

 

[ivocaliban]

I can see a scene where the female PC wakes up in a lush, secluded glen with her host setting out copious amounts of wine and fruits. He plays a flourish on his pipes, and then 'presents' himself in full exposure, with a look on his comically ugly face of "So whaddya think, baby?" Then our heroine has to extract herself from the situation without violating the creature's undoubtedly inflated sense of the rules of hospitality. Farcical, but still a little dark... and more tale-worthy, don't you think?

This is more like it. Unless you are playing in a starkly real game with players that are comfortable with and want to engage in the darker side of human nature, I think having a character violated in his or her sleep is uncalled for. Rape is not about sex, generally speaking, it is about power and control. Satyrs are about freedom, lust, and wild abandon...not control and force. So, I don't think the question from the OP is a problem with the satyr, at all, I think it's a problem with the DM.

Yes, I think satyrs are and should be portrayed as lusty creatures, but I don't think intercourse (particularly forced intercourse) itself is necessarily their raison d'etre. There is a game to be played with satyrs and they want others to play it. Sure, they might bend the rules in their favor, but I think for satyrs the challenge is half the fun. Violating someone who is a asleep isn't very "satyr-like" in my opinion. Satyrs like a challenge. They might like their sex rough and spontaneous, but they're as much about the journey as they are the goal.

Even the fairly risque Book of Erotic Fantasy steers clear of rape stating "[it] does not condone non-consensual sex in any manner." It also contains the following warning: "This sort of behavior is almost always relegated to the actions of evil NPCs, and you, the DM, should be extremely wary about allowing it into your game." Notice it doesn't warn us about satyrs, but about the DM. Again, I think that's who bears the responsibility here. There are a multitude of ways to use satyrs effectively without making them into rapists.

 

[JustKim]

No. Massively the same.

You are wrong.
A character's death is unfortunate, but it can be dramatic. It can be moving. It can enhance the game. Rape is simply crude and I will not sit around for, much less derive any enjoyment from, depictions of a character being raped. It is something completely different.

 

[Desdichado]

You are wrong.

No I'm not.

A character's death is unfortunate, but it can be dramatic. It can be moving. It can enhance the game. Rape is simply crude and I will not sit around for, much less derive any enjoyment from, depictions of a character being raped. It is something completely different.

Thanks, but maybe you thought I was wrong because you attributed a position to me that has nothing to do with what I've said in this thread to date? Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.

1) I didn't compare rape to death, I compared it to torture. 2) I've been pretty clear that I wouldn't ever have rape (or torture, for that matter) show up "on screen" in my game, and 3) I've been pretty clear that except in extremely unusual circumstances, I wouldn't have rape of a PC be a situation that ever happens in one of my games.

That said, you are wrong. With the right people and in the right situation, rape can be just as dramatic and moving and enhancing to the game as death. Otherwise, it wouldn't ever happen in fiction either, and as it turns out, it does happen frequently in friction precisely because of the dramatic potential. It's not---however---something that I'd be comfortable doing. But I'm equally uncomfortable claiming that it's never appropriate to anyone ever.