The Gaming Den

silva wrote: Its not a problem of modern internets. Its a problem of christianity and abrahamic cultures. The lesser the degree of (abrahamic) influence and fanaticism, the more open and natural to sex such a culture is. See Europe vs America in this regard.

Are you really equating bring ok with sex with being ok with rape?
If so, please slip in the bathtub and die.

Starmaker wrote: But there's no way whatsoever the world could be improved by magically raping the right people. And because fiction is mostly sensationalist, beneficial murder is way overrepresented in it, so "in this story, Alice murdered Bob" isn't an automatic damnation of Alice's character that "in this story, Alice raped Bob" is.

Once you throw magic into the mix, there are actually a lot of situations were raping someone is the better choice than not raping them. Heck, you don't even need magic, it happens in real life.

Lets say that you're on the wrong side of an ethnic cleansing. Soldiers with guns barge into your house and tell you to rape your daughter in public in front of the entire neighborhood or else they'll kill you and your daughter and the rest of your family as well. In that situation, rape is absolutely the ethical choice. The scenario isn't even unrealistic. It's distressingly common. Sometimes the soldiers then kill you and your entire family anyway, because they were always going to kill you and were just having fun at your expense, as in Nanjing. Sometimes the soldiers don't kill you, because forcing you to publicly violate the taboo, and the effect that on others, is the point. You're more effective as a living example than a dead one, when it comes to driving fearful people out of their homes.

So if someone learned that the God of Virginity was trying to destroy the world, and the only way to depower him was to devirginize everyone on the entire planet, and that person had access to a mass rape spell. Well, convincing every virgin on the planet that they need to have sex is difficult enough, and morally problematic because many of those virgins are underage. It's simply more practical and probably less immoral to cast the spell and magically rape billions of people than it is to either let the world be destroyed.

It's trivially easy to conjure scenarios were rape is the morally correct choice. This is true of any crime, because at the end of the day, you can always conjure up worse consequences.



But having your game center around your rape fetish isn't something that a good DM does, just like a good DM with a watersports fetish doesn't fill their campaign world with piss trees and whizzards. Unless, of course, the players all have the same fetish and they brought their own lube. But in that case the fetishy parts are the entire point of the game.



This is why people don't like rape in their games. People don't like piss trolls, either. When the DM tells you that rape give your character a massive game mechanical advantage to the point that not raping is detrimental, he might as well be filling his magical world rapetrolls that only let you pass if you rape them.

Omegonthesane wrote: Current statistics will significantly underestimate rape, because only a fraction of victims come forward and not all of those are believed. Murders, by contrast, leave an undeniable Dead Person.

Even if they are not believed I am pretty sure they are still counted. Those statistics are supposed to be derived from rape accusations brought to the police not convictions. Unless it is common for police to dismiss the victim so thoroughly they don't even file a report?

If you want to make this argument then you also have to take into account false accusations (not common but does happen) and the shocking amount of missing persons per year. Some of those are murder victims whose bodies were never found. There's no way to be absolutely certain just how underreported rape is any more than we can know how many missing persons are actually dead. So while it's true statistics aren't perfect that doesn't mean the numbers are meaningless.

hyzmarca wrote:

Starmaker wrote: But there's no way whatsoever the world could be improved by magically raping the right people. And because fiction is mostly sensationalist, beneficial murder is way overrepresented in it, so "in this story, Alice murdered Bob" isn't an automatic damnation of Alice's character that "in this story, Alice raped Bob" is.

Once you throw magic into the mix, there are actually a lot of situations were raping someone is the better choice than not raping them. Heck, you don't even need magic, it happens in real life.

Lets say that you're on the wrong side of an ethnic cleansing. Soldiers with guns barge into your house and tell you to rape your daughter in public in front of the entire neighborhood or else they'll kill you and your daughter and the rest of your family as well. In that situation, rape is absolutely the ethical choice. The scenario isn't even unrealistic. It's distressingly common. Sometimes the soldiers then kill you and your entire family anyway, because they were always going to kill you and were just having fun at your expense, as in Nanjing. Sometimes the soldiers don't kill you, because forcing you to publicly violate the taboo, and the effect that on others, is the point. You're more effective as a living example than a dead one, when it comes to driving fearful people out of their homes.

So if someone learned that the God of Virginity was trying to destroy the world, and the only way to depower him was to devirginize everyone on the entire planet, and that person had access to a mass rape spell. Well, convincing every virgin on the planet that they need to have sex is difficult enough, and morally problematic because many of those virgins are underage. It's simply more practical and probably less immoral to cast the spell and magically rape billions of people than it is to either let the world be destroyed.

It's trivially easy to conjure scenarios were rape is the morally correct choice. This is true of any crime, because at the end of the day, you can always conjure up worse consequences.



But having your game center around your rape fetish isn't something that a good DM does, just like a good DM with a watersports fetish doesn't fill their campaign world with piss trees and whizzards. Unless, of course, the players all have the same fetish and they brought their own lube. But in that case the fetishy parts are the entire point of the game.

This is why people don't like rape in their games. People don't like piss trolls, either. When the DM tells you that rape give your character a massive game mechanical advantage to the point that not raping is detrimental, he might as well be filling his magical world rapetrolls that only let you pass if you rape them.

Prak wrote:

hyzmarca wrote:

Starmaker wrote: But there's no way whatsoever the world could be improved by magically raping the right people. And because fiction is mostly sensationalist, beneficial murder is way overrepresented in it, so "in this story, Alice murdered Bob" isn't an automatic damnation of Alice's character that "in this story, Alice raped Bob" is.

Once you throw magic into the mix, there are actually a lot of situations were raping someone is the better choice than not raping them. Heck, you don't even need magic, it happens in real life.

Lets say that you're on the wrong side of an ethnic cleansing. Soldiers with guns barge into your house and tell you to rape your daughter in public in front of the entire neighborhood or else they'll kill you and your daughter and the rest of your family as well. In that situation, rape is absolutely the ethical choice. The scenario isn't even unrealistic. It's distressingly common. Sometimes the soldiers then kill you and your entire family anyway, because they were always going to kill you and were just having fun at your expense, as in Nanjing. Sometimes the soldiers don't kill you, because forcing you to publicly violate the taboo, and the effect that on others, is the point. You're more effective as a living example than a dead one, when it comes to driving fearful people out of their homes.

So if someone learned that the God of Virginity was trying to destroy the world, and the only way to depower him was to devirginize everyone on the entire planet, and that person had access to a mass rape spell. Well, convincing every virgin on the planet that they need to have sex is difficult enough, and morally problematic because many of those virgins are underage. It's simply more practical and probably less immoral to cast the spell and magically rape billions of people than it is to either let the world be destroyed.

It's trivially easy to conjure scenarios were rape is the morally correct choice. This is true of any crime, because at the end of the day, you can always conjure up worse consequences.



But having your game center around your rape fetish isn't something that a good DM does, just like a good DM with a watersports fetish doesn't fill their campaign world with piss trees and whizzards. Unless, of course, the players all have the same fetish and they brought their own lube. But in that case the fetishy parts are the entire point of the game.

This is why people don't like rape in their games. People don't like piss trolls, either. When the DM tells you that rape give your character a massive game mechanical advantage to the point that not raping is detrimental, he might as well be filling his magical world rapetrolls that only let you pass if you rape them.

I could give a detailed rundown, but I'm not sure what portion of the post this image macro refers to and I don't want to repeat myself.

But if you mean the Whizzard, it's from a webcomic called gunshow.

http://gunshowcomic.com/471

No, I mean your assertion that rape is ever the better choice than not raping.

Prak wrote:No, I mean your assertion that rape is ever the better choice than not raping.

It's rather simple utilitarian calculus. If you don't rape person A, he will die. If you do rape person A, he will live.

In order for rape to be the worse option, you must assume that rape is worse than death. This is a rather dicey proposition.

And even then, you can add onto it. If you don't rape person A, he will die and so will 5 other people. And they will all be raped, anyway. At which point, choosing to commit rape yourself results in both less death and less rape.



This isn't even a wildly implausible hypothetical situation. This is something that actually happens, sometimes in developed countries even. A bunch of teen thugs break into a house, rape a young single mother, and then force her very underage son to rape her under threat of death. That happened in Florida in 2007.

Furthermore, my reference to fathers being forced to rape daughters was something that actually happened during the Rwandan genocide. It's fairly well documented. Forced incest was seen as a way to destroy Tutsi families and communities. It's also documented to have happened during the rape of Nanking, but the Japanese soldiers had a tendency to just kill the entire family, anyway.

On a more practical note, you're also significantly more likely to be playing with someone who's been raped than with someone who's been murdered.

Except that your own scenario admits that person A might die anyway. Also, It's simple utilitarian ethics to say that rape is always the worse option because of the effects of rape. Lets use your example scenario of soldiers knocking on a family's door and saying "rape your daughter in the street or we'll kill you all."

If the daughter is not raped, there is a certain outcome: Everyone dies.
If the daughter is raped, there is a promised, but uncertain outcome: people do not die.

However, there are other outcomes of raping the daughter- she will never trust her rapist again, she will be traumatized such that heavy therapy is needed to even just cope, therapy which is unreasonable to assume is available in such a setting, the community will shun the family, both the daughter for being raped and the rapist for raping her.

If she is not raped, there is a very simple outcome. She dies. If she is raped, maybe she doesn't die, but she will suffer for the rest of her life.

The simple utilitarian "right" choice is to tell the soldiers to go fuck themselves. They will kill them all. This is regrettable, but preferable to a lifetime of psychological trauma. It is possible the soldiers will rape the daughter first and then kill her. This is still the "better" choice, because if she dies, she escapes a lifetime of suffering. It's fucking horrible, and not being raped to death is always preferable to being raped to death, but the larger picture says that the better choice for the family patriarch to make, both for himself, and for his family, is to tell the soldiers where they can stick their martial law, because it means his family suffers for a shorter time than their entire lives.

Your suggestion that rape is ever the "better" choice is absurd, despicable, and horrific.

Even the scenario of "the God of Virginity will kill everyone and is powered by virgins" doesn't give you license to rape everyone. The first thing to do is find out why the god of virgins is pissed. If they're pissed because people are fucking too much, raping everyone is the absolute worst possible choice. Even killing everyone on the planet is better, because at least then you are not violating people in such a traumatic way as rape, and you're robbing an insane god the pleasure of wiping out humanity. But you don't even have to do that. If the god of virginity is just nuts, and it doesn't correlate to the amount of sex people have, and "moar sexin" is a legitimate way to solve the problem, that still doesn't lead immediately to "RAPE E'RYONE" it leads to "convince people to devalue virginity and have more sex earlier."

Prak wrote:Except that your own scenario admits that person A might die anyway. Also, It's simple utilitarian ethics to say that rape is always the worse option because of the effects of rape. Lets use your example scenario of soldiers knocking on a family's door and saying "rape your daughter in the street or we'll kill you all."

If the daughter is not raped, there is a certain outcome: Everyone dies.
If the daughter is raped, there is a promised, but uncertain outcome: people do not die.

However, there are other outcomes of raping the daughter- she will never trust her rapist again, she will be traumatized such that heavy therapy is needed to even just cope, therapy which is unreasonable to assume is available in such a setting, the community will shun the family, both the daughter for being raped and the rapist for raping her.

If she is not raped, there is a very simple outcome. She dies. If she is raped, maybe she doesn't die, but she will suffer for the rest of her life.

So, what we're saying is that we should kill all rape victims because their lives are no longer worth living?

No, you fucking idiot monster. You're trying to assert that raping is a "good thing" in some scenario, and I'm refuting that. I'm saying that "allowing the soldiers to make their own hateful decision is better than choosing abhorrent action for your own part" because it leads to less suffering.

You're a fucking disgusting shit heel. I can't wait for you to get banned like Shadzar.

Prak wrote:No, you fucking idiot monster. You're trying to assert that raping is a "good thing" in some scenario, and I'm refuting that. I'm saying that "allowing the soldiers to make their own hateful decision is better than choosing abhorrent action for your own part" because it leads to less suffering.

You're a fucking disgusting shit heel. I can't wait for you to get banned like Shadzar.

I also believe that Batman should kill the Joker. The soldiers have already made their decision, you can't sway them. You can only choose between two abhorrent actions. Inaction is, itself, action. When Batman chose not to kill the Joker, he is choosing to kill innocent people. He might not be pulling the trigger personally, but he knows that the Joker will. If you know that inaction will certainly cause deaths, then choosing inaction is the same as actively killing.

Performing unnecessary surgery on a healthy person is a terrible thing. Performing life-saving surgery on a sick person, isn't. The doctor who saws off legs to prevent lethal infection isn't the same as the doctor who saws off legs because he likes to saw off legs. We can agree that sawing off legs is a bad thing. But it's sometimes less bad than the alternative.



Most people presume that emotional is less bad than death. It's something that a person can cope with. But no one has ever resurrected themselves.


And for a person put in that situation, with a literal gun to their head, it's certainly not an easy choice. Most still pick the chance at life, rather than the certain death.

Is it overstepping my bounds to request that this particular line of conversation cease?

No, it really shouldn't have ever started.

What the fuck.

-Username17

Princess wrote:You mean that many RPG players have personal experience with rape?

Yes, trivially and obviously yes. 1 in 3-4 women report being raped.

If you don't know anyone who has been raped, then you actually know tons of people who have been raped, they just don't talk about it. So don't put it in your games.

Shady314 wrote:

Omegonthesane wrote: Current statistics will significantly underestimate rape, because only a fraction of victims come forward and not all of those are believed. Murders, by contrast, leave an undeniable Dead Person.

Even if they are not believed I am pretty sure they are still counted. Those statistics are supposed to be derived from rape accusations brought to the police not convictions. Unless it is common for police to dismiss the victim so thoroughly they don't even file a report?

If you want to make this argument then you also have to take into account false accusations (not common but does happen) and the shocking amount of missing persons per year. Some of those are murder victims whose bodies were never found. There's no way to be absolutely certain just how underreported rape is any more than we can know how many missing persons are actually dead. So while it's true statistics aren't perfect that doesn't mean the numbers are meaningless.

Uh... Is it even possible for people to know this little about rape crimes? Yes, of course the police discourage reports, because they hate investigating rape crimes for any number of reasons misogyny, rape culture (for example, believing false reports are even actually a thing that really happens on any noticeable level, believing she was asking for it, ect.), the complete inability to investigate and prosecute many such reports, just being lazy, ect.

Also, the number of crimes committed statistics almost certainly does not include rape reports, because if nothing comes from a report, then they don't "know" that a crime happened. Even if they really do.

It doesn't matter that we can't know exactly how under reported rape is, because even the most conservative estimates make it way more prevalent than murder, and even on top of that even if we hypothetically assumed that only one person in the entire universe had ever been raped, there is still an infinitely greater chance that a person at your gaming table has been raped than that they have been murdered. You can say, "what about attempted murder" and I can say "what about sexual assault" and you can be just as wrong about statistics all over again.

Prak wrote:I'm saying that "allowing the soldiers to make their own hateful decision is better than choosing abhorrent action for your own part" because it leads to less suffering.

That is not utilitarianism. You can be a not utilitarian if you want, but asserting that choosing an "abhorrent" action for yourself is always worse than not doing so is not utilitarianism.

In hypothetical Rape or the victim gets murdered cases, rape is the utilitarian action, just like in hypothetical trolley problems you should push some guy under the wheels, even though we have many good reasons to believe that in almost all cases the real world differs from those.

Having personally spoken to multiple rape victims, I have heard many people say they wished they were dead immediately after, and every single one of those has been glad they didn't die years later. Anecdotes are anecdotes, but it is probably better to be raped than murdered.

Fair enough. I have "philosophy of religion" class in my background, not any classes that actually examine various schools of philosophical thought. So I misunderstood utilitarianism.

hyzmarca wrote:

Starmaker wrote: But there's no way whatsoever the world could be improved by magically raping the right people. And because fiction is mostly sensationalist, beneficial murder is way overrepresented in it, so "in this story, Alice murdered Bob" isn't an automatic damnation of Alice's character that "in this story, Alice raped Bob" is.

Once you throw magic into the mix, there are actually a lot of situations were raping someone is the better choice than not raping them.

But that's it: It can be the better choice, because of course it can be. You can always make up a situation where something is a better choice, because you can always say "do x once, or it will be done y times". And then raise y until most people agree "ok, now its the better choice". But that doesn't make it a GOOD choice, just less bad than the alternative.

But if you had a timemaschine, than traveling back in time and shooting Hitler in 1919 would be murder. And people would tell you that that is a good thing you just did. Not "well, you had no other choice", but "good job, hero". And that will never happen with rape, not even in fiction, not even with magic and godlike powers and stuff, because the only scenarios you could come up with are scenarios where either you commit "good" rape by not really raping people ("I must rape you to save you from the spell, exept you will fall in love with me and forget everything that happened and will never be scared and everyone is A-Ok with this because power of love") or "worse choices".

Prak wrote:Nearly every woman I know has been raped or molested in their lives. Failing that, they've been subjected to harassment that was very close, or seemed like the beginning of same. And I live in the capital city of Califronia, Sacramento, not Hell's Kitchen. Hardly anyone I know has been murdered in their lives.

I don't know anyone raped (or, in just case, anyone who could possibly was rape victim but for some reasons is not declaring it). But I have several friends who have some friends or classmates killed in stuff like street fight, one my former classmate spent about 7 years in prison camp for armed robbery, one my web-friend survived several knife stabs in a street fight (again), and one person I knew barely survived some event that left his skull cracked in several places (not to mention other beating consequences).
And I live not in some kind of Caracas.
I believe each have his own prospective then.

Omegonthesane wrote:Current statistics will significantly underestimate rape, because only a fraction of victims come forward and not all of those are believed. Murders, by contrast, leave an undeniable Dead Person.

Actually this "significantly" in your sentence is a matter of belief. Like schroeddinger cat. I prefer to work with hard statistics, not some assumptions (or "researches" made by some organisations who are clearly benefit from bigger numbers).
Btw in my country police get bonuses for each case solved, and there is almost no blaming rape victims so I have hard time assuming why large amount of victims would go on "I will not seek justice" path in case of obvious rape.
And murders leave not only dead persons but also missing persons, but they are also not accounted in statistics.

Sakuya Izayoi wrote:D&D World is stocked full of green mushrooms for when you get murdered. Getting unraped is a trickier proposition.

Regeneration + modify memory. Using some kind of immunity to mind-affecting effects and emotions will also turn it "nah, just finish it faster".

Or we could just rawfuck and say that since there is no stuff like psych points rape in dnd world brings no stress.

Kaelik wrote:Yes, trivially and obviously yes. 1 in 3-4 women report being raped.

Every fourth women being raped means that either every fourth man is rapist or that that even if only 1% of men are rapist they manage to rape 25 women before being stopped by lazy incompetent forces of justice.
Assuming I trust your statistics.. what the hell of rape country you live in? So I don't visit it by accident.

I think this thread has successfully proven that Vincent Baker is the Devil, and corrupts everything that has even tangential relation to him

Princess wrote:i am an idiot.

i agree.

Longes wrote:I think this thread has successfully proven that Vincent Baker is the Devil, and corrupts everything that has even tangential relation to him

Now, now, lets not go insulting people.


The Devil would never write such a shit game as Poison'd. If the Devil were to write a game, it might encourage you to sin, but it certainly wouldn't make your character sin at anyone's decision but your own.

Prak wrote:Now, now, lets not go insulting people.

Not sure of Devil being "people" but he surely will be insulted by comparison with V. Baker.

As the game is outright terrible, I see it prone to max-maxing except Soul which works like logical fault.