So, what IS the "right" way to do ..... the undesirable?

[RadiantPhoenix]

Who's saying rape is worse than murder? Who are Cyberzombie and Chamomile talking to?

If you say, "The dismembered corpses of the slaughtered townsfolk litter the streets, many of them showing signs of torture", people just accept it as part of the game.

If you say, "The streets are filled with barbarian raiders raping the defeated townsfolk", people are more likely to look at you kind of funny and maybe quit the game.

[Chamomile]

Who's saying rape is worse than murder? Who are Cyberzombie and Chamomile talking to?

I'm talking to Cyberzombie. No one is saying that rape is worse than murder. In fact, that's the point. Most people (that I game with, at least) know intellectually that murder is worse than rape, but rape still squicks them out in a way that murder doesn't, so it's not something you should be bringing to the table (unless you already know in advance everyone's okay with it).

[Lago PARANOIA]

Yeah. I don't know what that segue was about. Pretty much every and any moral system that can stand scrutiny makes torture (and thus rape) not as 'big' of a crime as murder. And yet players are okay with graphic murder in a way that they aren't with sexual violence. So fucking what?

While we're on the subject: how about shit? Should a DM be able to insert random scatalogical references into the game without the players whining about it? You know, mention how the patrolling knights have shit-stained briefs from diarrhea or how the DM goes into graphic detail about the scat trails the ranger found and how bits of burned bone and corn indicated sapient and omnivorous creature or how some commoner accidentally empties a chamber pot on the party wizard's head. I mean, there's nothing morally objectionable about people defecating and the Dark Ages weren't exactly sanitary. So what's the problem exactly?

[Cyberzombie]

Who's saying rape is worse than murder? Who are Cyberzombie and Chamomile talking to?

If you say, "The dismembered corpses of the slaughtered townsfolk litter the streets, many of them showing signs of torture", people just accept it as part of the game.

If you say, "The streets are filled with barbarian raiders raping the defeated townsfolk", people are more likely to look at you kind of funny and maybe quit the game.

This exactly.

There's a double standard where if you use murder or genocide in a D&D it's just normal. If you ever mention rape, then some people just get super sensitive about it like you just crossed some line. There's an underlying tone that rape is something so bad you just don't include it in D&D. It's fine for D&D villains to murder and kill, but mention rape and there's a problem with some people.

And you can see it especially in the retcons with half-orcs especially where it's fine to have orcs as pillaging murderers, but having the products of rape exist in your game is taboo.

[PhoneLobster]

There's a double standard

The horror!

So you acknowledge that it squicks people out. But you for some inexplicable reason lack the basic intellect or human empathy to "get" why rape squicks them out.

And instead of wanting to create a nice fun comfortable game your take home from this is to whine about how it isn't fair that actual humans will generally want your game to be less squicky and not as rapey as you might (rather creepily) want it to be?

[A Man In Black]

And you can see it especially in the retcons with half-orcs especially where it's fine to have orcs as pillaging murderers, but having the products of rape exist in your game is taboo.

There's also the fact that the idea that orcs are essentially evil has also fallen out of vogue over time.

But seriously, nobody at all is arguing that there isn't somehow a double standard. The point, rather, is that you're an asshole if you know you're doing something objectionable and persist anyway. Why the hell does your game really need rape anyway?

[RadiantPhoenix]

There's also the fact that the idea that orcs are essentially evil has also fallen out of vogue over time.

Trufax: my rape vs murder comparison originally said "orcs" instead of "barbarians", but I changed it before I actually posted it.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Murder isn't a given. I could run a campaign about four reptilian rogues named after Renaissance artists whose adventures involved the bloodless deactivation of a clan of robotic planar invaders, and their clashes with a pig, rhino, high level fighter, and a golem with a brain in it always resulted in retreat rather than injury or death.

[A Man In Black]

Murder isn't a given. I could run a campaign about four reptilian rogues named after Renaissance artists whose adventures involved the bloodless deactivation of a clan of robotic planar invaders, and their clashes with a pig, rhino, high level fighter, and a golem with a brain in it always resulted in retreat rather than injury or death.

Don't be a smartass.

[Whipstitch]

I don't even think the double standard on rape is really all that inexplicable from a sociological perspective. Murder is a worse crime than rape but by and large people do not consider all killings to be murders. That cracks the door open for killing and the depiction of killing to be normalized and even celebrated whereas claiming to have raped in self-defense just sounds like the setup for a really bad shaggy dog story.

[Ice9]

Pretty much what Chamomile said. If you want to not be an asshole, you have to acknowledge the world that exists, not "what you would consider a more logical state of affairs". Whether it makes sense to you or not, rape does squick people out more than violence, and claiming "it shouldn't, so I'm going to use it anyway" is just being dickish.

For that matter, there are logical reasons why it would have more of an effect. It's a lot more likely for someone in the group to have been raped, or know someone who has, than for them to know a murder victim.

Also, it's not like playing out torture scenes in graphic detail is popular with most groups either. I don't know about everyone else, but any group I've been in, you roll your skill check, and if you try to go into loving detail people will give you the fish eye and stop that shit cold.

[wotmaniac]

***note: the vast majority of this post is directed at the prevailing idea that I'm some kind of retarded monster. Only wear shoes as they fit***

*sigh*
Alright, I was trying to stay pointedly on topic; but apparently there are a couple of things that I need to address (WTF???):
So, if it helps anything, let me go ahead and make a few categorical statements concerning my personal views:
1 - @ game table:
- 1a - PCs/players shall never have anything imposed upon them that is "non-standard" without prior consent. Rape falls well within the range of "non-standard". Full stop.
- 1b - All sex is always off screen. Full stop.
- 1c - Sensitive topics (within a particular group) warrant equally sensitive treatment. Full stop.
***I think anything else that's relevant to my personal attitudes about the game-table aspect of this topic can be derived fairly easily from these 3 points.
2 - @ rape in general (to include popular media depictions):
- 2a - a violent personal intrusion and assault; and deserves proportional reciprocal retaliation
- 2b - as a real thing, as has just as much right to the same treatment as anything else that is comparable.
- 2c - context is important.

Okay, there it is -- now let's move on ....

---

(long-winded retort:)

@ media depictions:

Creative License it a thing. I don't go to movies to get a history lesson -- there are plenty of other avenues for that. Unless the work has the "True Story" stamp on it, then "genre emulation" trumps "historical accuracy" (there are some edge-case exceptions to this; but they're basically irrelevant here).
That being said, I do know that grimdark depictions of brutal-as-fuck societies (real or fictional) need to be grimdark and brutal-as-fuck. And as with any emulation, there are certain elements that all need to be included in order fully paint the picture that you're trying to paint. And don't make the mistake of constructing a false dichotomy here -- there is quite a bit of intervening space between "vital" and "gratuitous", as well as varying magnitudes of each.
The idea that warmongers rape and pillage as they wage their wars did not simply materialize out of thin are. The historical record shows that (generally speaking) the further removed a people are from the trappings "modern civilized culture", the more "depraved" their activities (especially in their war making). It's a real thing. Is it over done in it's depiction? Maybe; but the trope is rooted in actual behavior. Fuck, rape and pillage, associatively speaking, go together like peanut butter and jelly. To pretend any differently is just a whitewash. Just because you may not like that doesn't mean it's not valid.
And not only is it an historical reality, it still goes on today -- and all we do is drop rice and bibles on their heads.


@ RL:

Nobody here is trying to trivialize rape victimhood -- so just dispense with that bullshit right now.

Just 1-2 generations past, rape really was something that the culture expected you to STFU about and get on with yourself. But the culture, by and large, has changed from that paradigm -- and that's a good thing. The governmental apparatus has come a long way as well; hence why we now have rape shield laws -- and that's a good thing. From what I can see, the only people trying to hate on rape victims are a handful of universally-marginalized retards and some completely irrational woman-on-woman hate (and I don't even pretend to understand the warped minds of either of those 2 groups).
(and again: from what I can tell) If there is doubt expressed in a given incident by someone other than the aforementioned 2 groups, it generally because the facts of the case don't add up -- but, objectively speaking, it's only natural, rational, and healthy to be suspicious of anything that doesn't add up.
Point being -- I'm not buying this business of "victim is assaulted everywhere from all sides" business .... that particular paradigm just doesn't exist anymore -- anyone saying different either haven't been paying attention to the progress of the last few generations, or they're trying to sell you something.
Now, that being said ..... since somebody went and opened the door of "most common cases":

All manner of passionately-argued positions come with a certain amount of white noise -- it's unavoidable (and for several different reasons). And the more passionate the topic, the more white noise gets injected (and for the same reasons). I recognize that, and I'm genuinely trying to filter through that static to see what's actually there.
And part of that static is jumping somebody's shit for trying to have a candid, full-throated discussion.
Fuck -- it's like people take their rhetorical lessons from politicians and cable news outlets. Seriously, WTF?

And all that being said, it's all still largely irrelevant to the thrust of my initial probe:
* Does there exist a manner in which rape can be included in a work of fiction (regardless of medium) that does not fall in to one of the "Big 4" tropes? This only requires a "yes" or "no". If yes, please list them (can discuss as necessary). (I think all of 2 of you have actually addressed this ... sorta. So far, it appears that the no's have it)
* Is every inclusion of rape in a work of fiction considered "lazy"? This may or may not be related to the "Big 4". If no, please list examples of where it is not.

These are serious fucking questions, born out of simple and honest intellectual curiosity; and I seriously would like some-goddamned-body to address this head on -- especially if you say something other than "no" to the first question.
I swear on all that is sacred -- this is not an exercise in validating some imaginary bullshit fetish behavior at my table; nor is this an exercise in trolling. I truly and honestly want to simply filter the static and figure out just WTF is going on here (as it relates to the article linked in the OP).
Squicky-factor at the table isn't even part of this discussion for me (as the very top of this post should indicate) -- it's simply irrelevant to my central questions.

And in the process of writing this, something else has come to mind:
What is more horrific?:
1) somebody willing to have an unapologetically blunt and fearless discussion on the topic of rape that doesn't involve victimhood-apotheosis, -or-
2) a culture wherein a career of repeatedly murdering the bloody fuck out of people for their stuff is considered fun fantasy-play
But I'm a monster.
Point of order: hiding behind "personal connectedness" or some such shit really is a cop-out in this -- I fully understand the various nuanced subjective elements; but I'm trying to look at this objectively.
BTW - that question is only partially rhetorical -- feel free to engage.

While we're on the subject: how about shit? Should a DM be able to insert random scatalogical references into the game without the players whining about it?

Dude -- it's not an accident that we, as humans, are anatomically/physiologically incapable of looking directly at our own buttholes. Respect nature, man.

Murder isn't a given. I could run a campaign about four reptilian rogues named after Renaissance artists whose adventures involved the bloodless deactivation of a clan of robotic planar invaders, and their clashes with a pig, rhino, high level fighter, and a golem with a brain in it always resulted in retreat rather than injury or death.

That's kind of a non-point that you have there.
I mean, sure -- just like I could have all of the creatures in my campaign present as anthropomorphic equine, and cover them with glitter and stardust.
And what I would be left with is a children's cartoon.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that -- but it's far from a panacea.

[A Man In Black]

Just stop posting.

[PhoneLobster]

I'm trying to look at this objectively.

Try harder.

Because what that last post looked like was a minor mental breakdown while trying to make excuses for a deep intellectual dissonance over your attempts to justify your creepy and confused rape obsession.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Don't be a smartass.

Not trying to be. I honestly would try to tone down the murder in my games so that it was just as taboo as the main topic of this thread, if I thought I could get my group to go with it. Usually they seem annoyed with things like Champions making killing damage much more expensive than stun damage, or praise things like the "realistic" impracticality of non-lethal takedowns in GURPS.

That's kind of a non-point that you have there.

Thus why I didn't quote anyone. It was a tangential aside to the topic at large

[Morat]

Except that you go into a fantasy or other RPG with some expectation of violence intrinsic to the game. It's more or less intertwined. And the odds of stumbling across someone who is the survivor of an infant cannibalism attack is fairly slim. If there's a woman in your party, the odds of her having been the victim of some sort of sexual attack is like... 1 in 3. And asking someone "So how do you feel about your rape experience, is it okay if I rape characters in this game for thematic reasons?" is kind of... yeah.

Exactly, yes. Not to mention that the odds that at least one of your players being close to someone who's been sexually assaulted are, like, 9 in 10 or higher. I'm not very social and I'm not involved with RAINN or whatever, and even I know several people who've been raped. With three or more players, it's got to be close to a guarantee.

And the flipside is there are a fuck of a lot more rapists than there are serial killers and cannibals. So if my GM goes on a disturbing rape tirade, I'm going to be a lot more suspicious that he's making a roundabout confession than if my GM starts going on about people being impaled.

[wotmaniac]

Don't be a smartass.

Not trying to be. I honestly would try to tone down the murder in my games so that it was just as taboo as the main topic of this thread, if I thought I could get my group to go with it. Usually they seem annoyed with things like Champions making killing damage much more expensive than stun damage, or praise things like the "realistic" impracticality of non-lethal takedowns in GURPS.

That's kind of a non-point that you have there.

Thus why I didn't quote anyone. It was a tangential aside to the topic at large

Oh. Well then .... fair enough, I guess.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

Point being -- I'm not buying this business of "victim is assaulted everywhere from all sides" business .... that particular paradigm just doesn't exist anymore -- anyone saying different either haven't been paying attention to the progress of the last few generations, or they're trying to sell you something.

You're an asshole because you say asshole things like this.

You ignore real cases where that shit happens. This Isn't Uncommon.

Fuck yourself, you stupid motherfucker.

[wotmaniac]

Point being -- I'm not buying this business of "victim is assaulted everywhere from all sides" business .... that particular paradigm just doesn't exist anymore -- anyone saying different either haven't been paying attention to the progress of the last few generations, or they're trying to sell you something.

You're an asshole because you say asshole things like this.

You ignore real cases where that shit happens. This Isn't Uncommon.

Fuck yourself, you stupid motherfucker.

Now, this type of thing is a different kind of thing than the bulk of your post that I was responding to -- let's keep apples to apples.

That being said -- as tragic as those events are/were, it has nothing to do with what I'm trying to get at with this thread. If you want to keep digging in to this, we should probably take this over to the MPSIMS forum (though at this point, given how much the well has been poisoned, I honestly don't know how productive it would be).

[Ice9]

Also, since we're talking about "for thematic reasons" and "established trope" and all that - I've never seen or heard of an instance of a story in a TTRPG where rape was an asset.

That is, I've never thought - "Oh, this plot would have been better with a rape in it." or "Wow, that story would not have been nearly as good without the rape." or even "The rape really added something here."

So, that's a big "meh" to "if only we could include rape". I just don't think it actually gives you much at all, to be worth trying to include.

[wotmaniac]

Also, since we're talking about "for thematic reasons" and "established trope" and all that - I've never seen or heard of an instance of a story in a TTRPG where rape was an asset.

That is, I've never thought - "Oh, this plot would have been better with a rape in it." or "Wow, that story would not have been nearly as good without the rape." or even "The rape really added something here."

So, that's a big "meh" to "if only we could include rape". I just don't think it actually gives you much at all, to be worth trying to include.

I fail to hate your position, sir. I'd say that that's a fairly uncontroversial statement.

For me, I've never been like "wow, that really could have been better with a double dose of rape".
That being said:
I can't think of a single time when I've missed it when it's not there; but at the same time, I can think of several examples where its inclusion didn't feel gratuitous.

And as a total aside + genre shift ..... it's the entire premise behind shows like L&O:SVU. The entirety of those 15 seasons also happens to rest quite comfortably on the "Big 4", and that shit's been nominated and/or won a giant pile of awards. Just sayin'.
So yeah, I guess there is an example of where I would miss it if they got rid of the rape.

[TheFlatline]

It's a hot button because shit like that happens *constantly* and people like you dismiss it as the rantings of "militant feminism".

Watch yourself with that -- you're starting to veer in to PL territory with that one.
Now, while I probably used poor word choice, I would think that the very next sentence should have cleared some of that up.

Oh fuck you. You're seriously criticizing me for quoting you where you completely discount rape within 2 sentences then you accuse me of beying hyperbolic? Is that your reaction to moments where you shove your foot in your mouth up to your ankle? Default to strawman accusations? You're the one who fucking set up the strawman there buddy when you said what you said, which was so overblown and obviously ignorant that my brain hurt reading it.

Considering that those "militant feminists" are *constantly* talking about rape, rape culture, and the tacit acceptance of rape, the "very next sentence" does nothing but reinforce you're a fucking asshole and prove you pretty much wrong. Start out at literally any other starting point than "abject denial" like you did and treat the subject with maturity and those "militant feminists" will talk to you until your ears fall off about the subject. It's only when you completely dismiss the subject and live in denial land that you invoke ire.

Seriously, my friend went all Red Pill/MGTOW on me recently and the shit he says is *less* creepy by far than the shit in this thread.

[wotmaniac]

It's a hot button because shit like that happens *constantly* and people like you dismiss it as the rantings of "militant feminism".

Watch yourself with that -- you're starting to veer in to PL territory with that one.
Now, while I probably used poor word choice, I would think that the very next sentence should have cleared some of that up.

Oh fuck you. You're seriously criticizing me for quoting you where you completely discount rape within 2 sentences then you accuse me of beying hyperbolic? Is that your reaction to moments where you shove your foot in your mouth up to your ankle? Default to strawman accusations? You're the one who fucking set up the strawman there buddy when you said what you said, which was so overblown and obviously ignorant that my brain hurt reading it.

1) I said "starting to veer", not "full blown" -- in that, I was trying to give you some credit and benefit of the doubt,
2) I've already admitted to poorly communicating my thoughts -- apparently, it was poorer than I realized. It's not on purpose, and for that, I am sorry,
3) I've now gone to length to try to further clear that up -- RE: my omni-post, this page, spoilered section.

[A Man In Black]

I am seeing more evidence for the idiot/ asshole theory I posted before.

[zugschef]

No one is saying that rape is worse than murder.

The whole argument is a pointless exercise. If rape leads to the victim committing suicide or suffering from severe mental issues, I'd say you can totally argue that killing the victim could have actually been less cruel. The actual point is though, that it's seriously wrong to compare these kinds of crimes because it leads to relativism. I don't think that a rape victim is seriously comforted by the fact that s/he is still alive. "Don't cry, other people get killed!"