The elven enchantress in Morgenstein's party

[RobbyPants]

In the OP, yes. But you got somewhat defensive about the MC's decisions in later posts.

[Molochio]

I suppose there is truth in that. At the end of the day, MC is still my friend.

[Orion]

1: You didn't start the post with "here's something really fucked up that happened," but instead with a "high-style" "gather round children and hear my tale" intro. It's really inappropriate to tell a rape story without warning people.

2: You might want to watch your tone and the way you characterize things, because your characterization of the players involved comes off as deeply creepy. The discussion of the character's "sadistic" pleasure is really unfortunate when we learn that the player is 16 and even more when we learn how the story ends. You would have done well to keep the end of the story in mind and choose a more sympathetic descriptor.

3: You seem to refer to the player and the character, interchangeably, as "kareemna," implying perhaps unintentionally that a 16 yo abuse victim is a sadistic sexual manipulator.

4: Ultimately, you're writing just isn't that *clear*. I've read your posts in a number of threads and come away not sure what your point was or how you felt about the subject you were discussing. Almost every topic you post on has been about rape, incest, or other "taboo" topics. Because I can't tell what point you're making, I am tempted to assume that you are simply trying to make others uncomfortable. If that's not the case, please try harder to make your communication clear when dealing with emotional issues.

[Molochio]

@Orion: Your points are clear and concise. I like that and shall address them to the best of my ability.

1. In my short time here, I have seen stories and deliberations on subject matters as twisted or more twisted than this particular tale, but have not seen you crusade against their presentation with the same fervor.
As for the propriety of it, what is and is not socially acceptable varies from place to place and culture to culture.
There are some lands where they will STONE a woman for showing her ankle.
Given some other subjects here, the general propriety spectrum seems very broad, thus my subject is not out of line.

2. You are the only person who seems bothered by the tone of my tale and I would argue that the tale, by your standards, will remain "creepy" regardless of how it's told.
In general though, I suspect you are a far more emotional person than I am and would do better at writing in a sympathetic fashion.

3. I do, as she was essentially playing as herself with magical powers.
And she was, tending to enjoy cruelly teasing and manipulating boys with her sexuality, particularly my younger brother. Though in retrospect her behavior is somewhat understandable.

4. I do apologize if I have lacked clarity in the past, I was unaware.
However, I do not actually set out to maliciously make others uncomfortable. I share simply what I know to be fact on a matter and beyond that, I don't particularly care how you feel.

[Endovior]

Hmm.

Well, I get your point, in that you are, purportedly, attempting to tell us about certain things in a neutral and unbiased fashion... but the problem here is, that 'normal' people wouldn't generally take such a tone when discussing such subjects. The fact that you do, and do so repeatedly, is unusual enough to be worthy of comment.

It seems weird, that all the things you talk about are that same kind of 'taboo' sort of topics, but you maintain the same overtly dispassionate stance. It presents a strange impression, like... how can I put this...

Like a perverted Vulcan, who is actually fairly twisted and creepy, and fixated on his own specific deviant views... but nonetheless maintains a veneer of neutral dispassion, whose falsehood is nonetheless apparent on account of the unswerving nature of his presentations.

You claim to be neutral and disinterested in all of this, and just presenting facts as you see them... but the nature of those facts and stories you persist in sharing suggest an ulterior motive. Add that to the highly atypical nature of your presentation... since 'normal' people generally would not frame such topics in such light with such artful dispassion... and you come off more as a creepy pervert then a neutral observer, whatever your intentions.

[Molochio]

@Endovior: The problem with your view lies in the importance you place upon normalcy. I don't subscribe to normalcy. People who change history are not 'normal.' Many of the greatest innovations are not 'normal.'
All too often normal = mediocre.

However, I'll keep what you said in mind.

[Cynic]

@Orion: Your points are clear and concise. I like that and shall address them to the best of my ability.

1. In my short time here, I have seen stories and deliberations on subject matters as twisted or more twisted than this particular tale, but have not seen you crusade against their presentation with the same fervor.

Aside from the stupid dog rape thread, what the fuck have you seen on this board that comes even close to being about sexual molestation and abusive sexual power play?

--
Also in response to your idea behind normalcy, I hope you don't connect being dispassionate towards human suffering and the idea of being a history changer, a mover, a shaker. If that is the case, you are basically saying that caring for or feeling bad for human suffering is normal and therefore mediocre.

--

Also please don't present "He who has not sinned cast the first stone" as a defense. Just because someone commits a crime does not mean they cannot point it out. Just because I eat meat, doesn't mean I can't point out the cruelty in the methods of hunting.

---

[Endovior]

@Endovior: The problem with your view lies in the importance you place upon normalcy. I don't subscribe to normalcy. People who change history are not 'normal.' Many of the greatest innovations are not 'normal.'
All too often normal = mediocre.

However, I'll keep what you said in mind.

Honestly, I tend to agree; but you've missed my point entirely.

The 'normal' I'm referring to is a matter of social norms. The consequences of notably and obviously violating these social norms are entirely social; as those who find your violations disturbing will seek to disassociate themselves with you, and will inherently be less inclined to see you as reasonable or credible. Whether or not this is fair is beside the point; social programming is what it is, and blatant opposition to it is a thankless task.

If you accept this, that is your choice. But if you do plan on intentionally doing this, you can hardly complain when the price of your actions comes due. Treating such matters with a veneer of dispassion comes off as abnormally creepy. If you're fine with being seen as abnormally creepy, go right ahead; just know that such lies among the consequences of your approach. If you have goals other then simply demonstrating your defiance of social norms, then you will find your pursuit of such goals more effective if you make even a token effort to defer to social expectations. If not... well, keep shouting, then. A sprinkling of iconoclasts keeps the culture fresh, though they are seldom appreciated for their efforts.

[Molochio]

@Orion: Your points are clear and concise. I like that and shall address them to the best of my ability.

1. In my short time here, I have seen stories and deliberations on subject matters as twisted or more twisted than this particular tale, but have not seen you crusade against their presentation with the same fervor.

Aside from the stupid dog rape thread, what the fuck have you seen on this board that comes even close to being about sexual molestation and abusive sexual power play?

--
Also in response to your idea behind normalcy, I hope you don't connect being dispassionate towards human suffering and the idea of being a history changer, a mover, a shaker. If that is the case, you are basically saying that caring for or feeling bad for human suffering is normal and therefore mediocre.

--

Also please don't present "He who has not sinned cast the first stone" as a defense. Just because someone commits a crime does not mean they cannot point it out. Just because I eat meat, doesn't mean I can't point out the cruelty in the methods of hunting.

---

I have seen deliberations on how a dragon goes about confirming a girl's virginity, and wolf/dog rape (which appears to be a subject matter that has already occurred here numerous times.)
Arguments which pose the question, why is it wrong to molest a child and of course the "Shub Niggurath sex cultists rape tale" mentioned earlier.
I am not the originator of these things.

My idea of being disconnected from human suffering is not abnormal or unique. People drive by the homeless everyday and do nothing. I am simply honest about my feelings whereas most people hide behind a facade.

Pointing out a mistake is fine but condemnation of a friend is not a matter I take lightly. No man/woman is infallible and it is important to recognize that quintessential truth.

[mean_liar]

Look, its pretty clear that Molochio is on the autism spectrum so we can cut him some slack there. Some.

Meanwhile, I too have raped a PC while GMing. It was a jaw-dropping moment for the (male) player and the group despite our having played together a long time. I didn't feel it was inappropriate to the game at the moment - it was the final act of torture in a very medieval and grimdark setting with a character that refused to offer up information - and the player and group, though they were appalled, were also on-board once the initial shock wore off: they really, REALLY wanted to get revenge and that was their only real take-home from the event, rather than trauma or out-of-game disgust.

That said, that scene took place 12 years ago and I (probably) wouldn't do it again. I think I'd just brand them or something permanent but not so icky.

[Calibron]

Look, its pretty clear that Molochio is on the autism spectrum so we can cut him some slack there. Some.

Ugh. To be deliberately dispassionate or disconnected from typical morality structures, in the medium of fucking plain-text no less, is not a sign of mental dysfunction.

[Midnight_v]

Man, if I'd seen this thread earlier I'd have had much less patience with Moloch.

Right because its a little known fact that we at the den actually wait on pins and needles for the indulgence of Orions patience.
I'll keep this brief, because the pretentious, false morality gangs that troll the world, litterally make me vomit a little in my mouth when they start condemning and sermonizing.
So here's the deal. . .
Molochio clearly has a different squick level than you, and now that cat is out of the bag. So, best answer, put him on ignore or don't reading his shit... but whining about his "Tone" in a way that makes it sound like he tricked you into having tranny sex or something is just worthless from all objectives. Moreover, fuck you. Fuck you for demanding "Clear Condemnation", fuck you for taking to task the new guy who walks onto the boards and see's 4 morality threads in the IMHO, all of which are asshole-ish and 2 of which are about wolf-dog rape and pretenting that the boards are some kind of place of high social taboo.
Fuck you for this hypocisy espcially:

Just because I eat meat, doesn't mean I can't point out the cruelty in the methods of hunting.

No, it doesn't but the second you KNOW that the methods of hunting are based in breaking baby lambs legs when they're born then releasing the in wild for later hunting and consumpition. . . and you sit down for "chops" you become part of the problem, cause you're supporting the institution that keeps that shit going.
Lastly... I know that stories happens to be true. Which sucks. I personally would never have anyone's pc raped in one of my games. Not that there aren't grimdark fantasy realms where that shit exists and Dm's that will use it like Mean Liar relates, for instance. Though by no means will I be like "OOOMFGBBQQ! SQUICK! You're sick and so are the people you game with!", but if I had to guess... I'd say molochio placed that there to see what other people thought about it in some why, with the attempt to not be "leading" in a moral direction. Well now you have your answer.
Myself, I see now why talk of morality gets banned so much on boards. It's annoying to have to read through 3-X pile of people drivel concerning how they "Feel" about a certain subject. Thankfully here at least you can just press ignore. Feel Free.

[ubernoob]

I met Molochio and Midnight_v something like two years ago. Neither is on the autism spectrum from what I remember, but they basically talk like gangsters verbally. Online, they try to keep their language style a little more refined, but you've got to realize that the reason it sounds funny is that it is simply not how either one actually speaks.

If you don't write like you speak, it's not going to sound normal. Is suspect this is JE's problem as well since absolutely nobody understands what the fuck he's ever trying to say.

[Darth Rabbitt]

Look, its pretty clear that Molochio is on the autism spectrum so we can cut him some slack there. Some.

Ugh. To be deliberately dispassionate or disconnected from typical morality structures, in the medium of fucking plain-text no less, is not a sign of mental dysfunction.

Not to mention that being on the autism spectrum doesn't necessarily indicate that the person in question can't participate in society.

Most Aspies I've met, for instance, seem like pretty functional, if eccentric, people to me.

But back to the topic at hand...

Rape has never come up in any game I've been in.

The closest to it that's come up is castration (because the character in question liked whipping out his dick too much, and it was getting in the way of the game).

I think I mentioned it in a thread here.

And I'd consider even that rather extreme for most games.

Rape would be straight out.

[Orion]

Molochio,

I am substantially comforted by your reply. I may have been inappropriately harsh with you originally--please understand that because you are new, I viewed you with more suspicion than I would a regular. I don't think you're a troll, and you have my apologies. However, there are still aspects of your behavior that trouble me. Please give them whatever weight you feel is appropriate.

--I strongly suspect that I am not, as you say, the "only person" bothered by your story. I am the only person who spoke up (except possibly for Endovior.) You posted a number of comments on the dog-rape thread which, as far I can remember, no one responded to in any way. When you post that much on one topic without getting a response, it's usually a sign that you have misread the situation and aren't participating in that discussion in an appropriate way.

--Your suggestion that I am "far more emotional" than you amuses me. I don't know how I come off on the Den (I'd love to hear what people think, actually), but in person the impression people get from me is that I am affectless to the point of seeming "creepy" or "sociopathic." I can discuss almost anything without getting squicked.

In this case, I'm not asking that your post include more emotional cues (feel sad, feel angry, feel amused) but rather more philosophical tags. I want to know what you *think* of the stories you recount--who are the good guys and bad guys in that episode. This is important to me because without any more explicit communication, the story itself implies thigns about your values that I find unappealing.

--I am especially unimpressed by your claim that you "simply share what you know to be a fact on a matter." Speech is always made with purpose. Communicating is work, and people don't do it for no reason. They want to inform someone about important issues, impress someone, shame someone, make a point about how life works, or whatever. To claim that you are simply "sharing facts" is to claim that your speech is purposeless--that is, that you are trolling. I don't believe that, so I would suggest you think about what you are trying to accomplish.

I find it especially strange that you repeatedly discount the importance of emotions the medium you've chosen is storytelling. The role of a storyteller is generally to evoke some kind of emotional response from the audience, and audience members will generally get very confused if a story doesn't give them strong cues about how to feel. This is especially true because you framed your story as a fable/fairy tale in your opening lines.

Finally, I'll note that in your reply to me you again brought up a morally charged situation without tagging it appropriately. IN your example of how "different cultures have different customs" you mentioning stoning women. Since your point appeared to be that different places have different customs and that is okay you might not want to use sexual violence as your example of a difference.

[Midnight_v]

Orion has some very strong points there. Strong points that I actually agree with all across the board.
The thing that irk'd me is... "Why that story?" you got plenty of stories, if it really was for the squick value or whatever... the thing that seems flawed is that now, its no longer about the virtues/horror of bad dm's but more about an analysis of "you". This has to be some kind of fail on the behalf of the author. I know you're not the dm here, I know you're not at fault for what happened to that girl in real life... but I'll agree that there needs to be more than "This is what happened" you're in the trenches but even war reports have decided slants on what they feel.
Being emotionally detatched is your thing but being overly so will cause people to react negatively in many cases.
@ Ubernoob... I'm bothered by your assertion that I talk like a gangster, thats... thats a very lets say Unique opinion to have developed. Considering your relatively sheltered and suburban life, I'm going to take it for granted that you don't really have a grasp of what gangsters "actually" talk aside from what you see on t.v. though I'd love to hear some elaboration on this. Feel free to p.m. me, or call if you like, but it's best to leave that type of personal observation out of public threads for everyones sake, most likely. -M

[Cynic]

You best know what I'm talking about, see. I'm a gangster, see. I stand on the side of a Rolls Royce, see. I fire tommy guns, see.

I would love to meet Midnight if he really does talk like that, see.

[ubernoob]

@ Ubernoob... I'm bothered by your assertion that I talk like a gangster, thats... thats a very lets say Unique opinion to have developed. Considering your relatively sheltered and suburban life, I'm going to take it for granted that you don't really have a grasp of what gangsters "actually" talk aside from what you see on t.v. though I'd love to hear some elaboration on this. Feel free to p.m. me, or call if you like, but it's best to leave that type of personal observation out of public threads for everyones sake, most likely. -M

No, I'm specifically referring to the pop culture image here. I'd almost describe your speaking style as clipped and jumbled.

[Orion]

Ubernoob, I have no idea what you're talking about. There are a *lot* of different pop culture gangster images, and none of them are springing to mind re: clipped and jumbled. So, Midnight, your reputation is safe: I literally don't know what is being said about you.

[Molochio]

Molochio,

I am substantially comforted by your reply. I may have been inappropriately harsh with you originally--please understand that because you are new, I viewed you with more suspicion than I would a regular. I don't think you're a troll, and you have my apologies. However, there are still aspects of your behavior that trouble me. Please give them whatever weight you feel is appropriate.

--I strongly suspect that I am not, as you say, the "only person" bothered by your story. I am the only person who spoke up (except possibly for Endovior.) You posted a number of comments on the dog-rape thread which, as far I can remember, no one responded to in any way. When you post that much on one topic without getting a response, it's usually a sign that you have misread the situation and aren't participating in that discussion in an appropriate way.

--Your suggestion that I am "far more emotional" than you amuses me. I don't know how I come off on the Den (I'd love to hear what people think, actually), but in person the impression people get from me is that I am affectless to the point of seeming "creepy" or "sociopathic." I can discuss almost anything without getting squicked.

In this case, I'm not asking that your post include more emotional cues (feel sad, feel angry, feel amused) but rather more philosophical tags. I want to know what you *think* of the stories you recount--who are the good guys and bad guys in that episode. This is important to me because without any more explicit communication, the story itself implies thigns about your values that I find unappealing.

--I am especially unimpressed by your claim that you "simply share what you know to be a fact on a matter." Speech is always made with purpose. Communicating is work, and people don't do it for no reason. They want to inform someone about important issues, impress someone, shame someone, make a point about how life works, or whatever. To claim that you are simply "sharing facts" is to claim that your speech is purposeless--that is, that you are trolling. I don't believe that, so I would suggest you think about what you are trying to accomplish.

I find it especially strange that you repeatedly discount the importance of emotions the medium you've chosen is storytelling. The role of a storyteller is generally to evoke some kind of emotional response from the audience, and audience members will generally get very confused if a story doesn't give them strong cues about how to feel. This is especially true because you framed your story as a fable/fairy tale in your opening lines.

Finally, I'll note that in your reply to me you again brought up a morally charged situation without tagging it appropriately. IN your example of how "different cultures have different customs" you mentioning stoning women. Since your point appeared to be that different places have different customs and that is okay you might not want to use sexual violence as your example of a difference.

While I am pleased that you are able to view me in a more appropriate light, devoid of character bias based upon my relative newness to this congregation, I would like to rewind the entirety of this consideration because something you've said confuses me:

"in person the impression people get from me is that I am affectless to the point of seeming "creepy" or "sociopathic." I can discuss almost anything without getting squicked."

Now if this is actually the way you are as an individual, then your emotional type is really no different than my own. That is to say you are not the least bit BOTHERED by the story I told, and find such a thing no more disturbing than I would find a surprise deliberation about whether or not cannibalism was appropriate among the crew of a flight that went down in the mountains during winter.
I.e. Not disturbing at all.

Since your confession of being emotionally similar to me throws your premise out the window, what was your REAL purpose of turning the focus here away from my story and making it about my moral fiber?

I can only conclude that:
A - You're an asshole.
Or
B - You're attempting to apply some manufactured moral constraints unto me by which to manipulate and or control my behavior for your own personal enjoyment.

To which my response to either conclusion is; fuck you.
My actions and moral autonomy shall remain my own.

Now with regard to why I chose to tell this particular tale, it is because I have a personal fondness for tragedy. Not comedy or romantics but tragedy, so given the option to share an unforgivable gaming experience I, of course, chose a tragic one.

If I ever decide to write for Theatre, you'll know what to expect.
Being that it was a tragic story, I expect those reading it to feel a degree of sorrow and if I have achieved that, then the story was "good."

Now as for my feelings on it, it was her fate.
Her father was a monster who deserves to die, MC made a poor judgement call, and the who fiasco was really quite unfortunate.
However, humanity is often vile and I've come to accept that fact.
These things are a part of life.

On the matter of bringing up "a morally charged situation without tagging it appropriately" you appear to assume that moral charges are universal. They are not. If I was a man from a land where women are valued as worth less than a healthy bull, I wouldn't begin to know how to do as you suggest.
Thus the course that you espouse is not applicable to all peoples.

Now that those things have been addressed, can we please return to the topic?

What is it that makes DMs such as my own, Mean_liar, and others I have read of in these threads do as they do with such commonality, even though we KNOW no one desires this for their PC?

Is there some universal rubric that triggers the thought, "Hey, I know! Let's brutally ass rape the PC with demons, torturers, sex cultists, ect!"
And why do we allow it?

Answers...

[Midnight_v]

Dude you're overreaching there, Orion is pretty cool actually. He almost never goes off on anybody and has some pretty good insight most times.
I see he's triggered a nerve but you should likely take this time to disarm rather than persue further conflict since no ones actually ranting either way right-this-second you have to allow for that.
Otherwise, people really will start veiwing you in a messed up light and you'll find yourself on ignore for a whole different set of reasons.

[Molochio]

So be it.

[Orion]

I'll try once more to clarify where I'm coming from, then do my best to let the matter rest. Again I need to being with an apology. In your latest post you say that you were asked to share this story. I was not aware of that and if I had that context might not have been as disoriented. In the future I would be grateful if you would include links when carrying a conversation over to a new thread. That said, I am still bothered by a couple of things.

First, it seems to me that you are misrepresenting (perhaps due to misremembering) the content of the original post. In your latest reply you say that you created this thread to discuss the issue of rape in RPGs a and why DMs do it. Let me say that I think that's an entirely legitimate conversation to have. However, it's not what the original post was about. You ended the original post with a question for the audience: "do you play to mirror your life or become what you are not?"

What your post apparently invited people to do was post reminiscences about how they play barbarians despite being geeks, or paladins despite being ordinary schlubs, or diplomancers because that's how they approach real life. That's an interesting conversation worth having, but I don't think it's a conversation that benefits from the addition of rape. Frankly, anyone joining that conversation would be trivializing rape by treating it as unremarkable. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who felt that way because, as you'll notice, not one poster replied to the question you actually asked; they all posted about rape. The inclusion rape, if nothing else, made your communication ineffective.

---

You've also questioned my motives, so let me explain them. First, let me say that your assumptions based on my self-description are not corrected. Being emotionless and immune to squick does not mean being bothered by nothing; "bothered" is a really broad concept that can apply on multiple levels.

I don't like and don't approve of sexism. I try to discredit sexist ideas when they are spread in my community, I try to socialize and relax primarily with relatively non-sexist people, and I don't want my reputation tarnished by association with sexism. So when someone on the Den appears to be behaving in a sexist manner, it "bothers" me. It affects the Den's reputation, it harshes on my mellow, and it creates work for me because I have a moral duty to take action. I would not characterize this as "emotional" reaction. I am not shocked and horrified, my heart doesn't beat faster, I don't see red. I can read descriptions of apalling crimes and feel no desire to cry or shout. That doesn't mean I can't form preferences.

---

How does this apply to you? Your original post in this thread created an appearance of sexism. The tone of your descriptions and the segue you made seem to imply beliefs about rape and female sexuality that I find sexist. I want to be clear that I'm talking about the content of the post, not impugning your character. I'm entirely willing to believe that you did not intend to communicate the ideas that I received from your post. For that reason, I've tried to explain to you why I found it troubling.

However, in the course of this conversation, you have repeatedly referred to sexual violence against women in a neutral-to-positive light. Every time you do this you diminish my confidence that I am interested in talking to you or being active in the same forum as you. I am hoping that you will put enough value on my preferences that you will modify your behavior, although I obviously cannot demand that you do so.

I also feel that your latest analogy misses the mark. Different societies have different moral beliefs, of course, but you are only interacting with one society at any given time. This forum is populated primarily by Americans, Australians, and UKers, with a sizable liberal/feminist contingent, and I think almost every poster here would agree that "treating women like cattle" is wrong. Therefore, if you are indeed a moral relativist, you should take that maxim to be governing for your conduct here. (Also, I strongly hope we can agree that societies which treat women like cattle are wrong).

---

PS. I have nothing against the kink community, rape fetishists, or people who enjoy the idea of sexual abuse in fiction and roleplaying. If you are interested in these discussion because that is your fetish, more power to you! However, I do think that such things are best kept either in a kink-specific space. (Try FetLife or Elliquiy). Failing that, I believe people discussing their fetishes should clearly differentiate them from their politics, and state explicitly that their fantasies are not something they would advocate in real life.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Failing that, I believe people discussing their fetishes should clearly differentiate them from their politics, and state explicitly that their fantasies are not something they would advocate in real life.

Unless you want things to get a little... sexy.

[Molochio]

@Orion: You make some very good points and addressing them all would likely spiral this talk into a long drawn out sociology/morality type discussion which, while I do enjoy, ignores the OP, so I try to condense my response.

•Word "rape" is a wall to all other thought and deliberation not related to it. Lesson learned. Thank you. (modified OP query stems from that fact is now fittingly, "why does MC brutally ass rape the PC?)

•You may take comfort in the knowledge that I am not sexist and are large number of my friends are women from various cultures and walks of life. My views encompass humanity in full equality.
Societies which treat women like cattle are wrong, just as the ones that treat Jewish, blacks, and children are.
I do, however, view sexual violence (against men AND women), murder, torture, ethnic cleansing, ect, in a neutral light due to their prevalence and sheer normalcy in life, and my inability to single-handedly change that rubric. Frankly, if I did not distance my heart in these regards, I would be a severely depressed individual.

•Being new, I do not know the general demographic or morality of the den and fear that having walked in to a massive deliberation on dog rape as one of my earlier experiences may have given me the wrong impression i.e. This is a Den whereby people regularly discuss the taboo.
If it is, so be it.
If not, that is fine as well.
I don't particularly care about how depraved a deliberation is.
Surely, however, you can understand how one might draw an erroneous first impression?

•In conclusion, you are a reasonable individual and I will give some consideration to your preferences.