PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Character Declined - Reasonable, or Cold?



Neko Toast
2009-01-20, 12:29 AM
Edit: This post is no longer being discussed, because I declined this character. However, the person sent their new profile, and it's posted Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5679777&postcount=105).

So I'm going to be DMing my first session soon. It'll be a one-shoter, but my friend and I are planning a fairly interesting campaign. We've already received some character information, and we've got some interesting personalities and backgrounds. One, however, I had an issue with.

Enter Anya "the Black Scorpion".


Human Fighter
Chaotic Good

Background -

Raised in a large city, Anya, had an abusive father and a negligent mother. Father would beat, whip, and sexual abused her as a teen.

Anya despised her parents, and thought of them as evil people wit no human decency. Growing up in the slums permitted a life style of chaos because the city guard would rarely enter the area, let alone enforce laws in it. Due to this fact, prostitution was common in the slums.

Anya had befriended several of the working girls, who educated and protected her to the best of their abilities.

After a life long term as the family bitch, Anya took control of her life in more ways than one. At age 18 Anya took a stand against her father. In his drunken rage he went to strike Anya with his whip. After a lashing Anya decided that she had had enough. Grappling with her father, Anya took the whip from her father and strangled him to death with it, in her opinion killing the greatest evil she had ever known.

Leaving her mother alive, Anya gathered her things and left without a word to her mother. She went down to her working girl "sisters," who had been her true friends and family. They banded together to supply Anya with a means of protection as she departed the city making an oath to free children from abusive and evil men, to live a good life, and to never be anyone bitch again.

Anya has spent two years hopping from town to town due to her "job."
As a dominatrix, Anya is often asked to leave towns by angry wives who often call her a "home-wrecker" behind her back. However, her clients often call her "Anya the Black Scorpion: due to her talented use of whips and black studded leather armor.

Personality traits -

Anya despises Men who use any form of whip and abuse children, women, and whores.

Anya of often friendly and nice to men, until they become clients ;). As well as to children, whores, and single women.

Anya often finds herself protecting others from harm and danger, hoping that others never have to face the pain she had to as a child. Unless she being paid to due other wise of coarse ;).

Anya usually avoids conversations that involve sharing ones past. She likes to focus on the present rather than her horrid past.

(this was directly quoted from what she sent me.)

I saw a lot of things wrong with this. First off, the dominatrix aspect. I know prostitution has been around for ages, but consider the time period. Back in this roughly Medieval time (I know it's fantasy, but it reflects that age), women were viewed as servants, and would never be considered higher than men. So, for a women to have a profession where she "punished" other men seemed very extreme, even to me (yes, I'm a woman).

Second, the way she wrote out her personality traits, it's like she's expecting people to readily accept her as a member of society. Again, look at the time period. A dominatrix-like figure would be highly frowned upon. Women would look down on her with scorn, and hide their children from her. Men would rarely become one of her "clients", and would probably publicly humiliate her. Why, exactly? Because most people of Good or Neutral alignment worship some sort of diety, and a lot of them would frown on a person like that.

Most people would call these reasons "nit-picking", but I'm just trying to be realistic.

Third, and the thought occured to me recently, a dominatrix would essentially be a succubus kind of thing. Aren't those things, I don't know, Evil? I already banned the Evil alignment in this one shoter (honestly, I'm no good at playing them, let alone running a campaign full of them). It just seems to question her alignment.

Now, if this character was in a game that was set in a present setting, or post apocalyptic, I would have accepted it. But this is D&D. Unless she was a frickin' Succubus, it's just highly unlikely, and unrealistic.

So, back to the title. Does this argument seem reasonable, or cold?

Frosty
2009-01-20, 12:37 AM
You're the DM. You can have your setting have whatever culture you want. If, in your world, in the country she resides in, dominatrixes just don't exist, then make her rewrite. In "standard" setting, there are no such limitations.

If you wish to make your players play in a setting there is sexist, please be sure to make this VERY CLEAR TO YOUR PLAYERS BEFOREHAND.

Samakain
2009-01-20, 12:38 AM
Well besides the dominatrix aspect being kinda lame, i wouldn't bar it, but i'd have a word with her about changing aspects of it

Also as for your questions about the Medieval setting, church dogma or no, social questions or no, marriage or no, people have been putting there pink bits into and on interesting things since the dawn of time. The rich always have access to the more decadent sides of life, which eventually get boring, so they seek new things, has been true for thousands of years.

Human beings left alone to develop will always develop a few key things, Music, Alchohol, War and Sexual/Social rules about breeding and relationships and how much fun it is to break them.

*Edit* forgot one, MONEY, theres always some type of fiscal system :P

JaxGaret
2009-01-20, 01:00 AM
D&D != generic medieval setting

Your setting might be, but the default setting isn't 1500s Europe. It's Greyhawk, where there are Good gods of joy and love and yes, even dominatrices, that people know about and accept.

In other words, D&D isn't judeo-christian centric.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-20, 01:13 AM
Faerūn, for instance, is egilitarian by default, and there's easy herbal birth control and everything...

That said, the dominatrix bit is lame and seems superfluous and tacked on - it makes no sense to me why the character would do that for a living? The whole "sexually abused" background is probably a bad idea in most games, because doing those badly is really offensive. (Also way to follow the stereotype "sex workers have been sexually abused." And "women and whores" ?)

JaxGaret
2009-01-20, 01:17 AM
Also way to follow the stereotype "sex workers have been sexually abused." And "women and whores" ?

Most sex workers have been sexually abused.

As to the latter statement - would you care to clarify what exactly you're trying to imply?

Starshade
2009-01-20, 01:26 AM
At least better than a lot of novice characters, like those Generic characters with names as Frank, Hubert or Terrence. :smallbiggrin:

In your game world you set the setting up, so you decide. So you go for the level of realism you want. Hm, i'd be overjoyed seeing that character describsion if i was to DM, but id expect stuff as "Elf thief, name Bob, used to build stuff, then bored and started adventuring."

Tengu_temp
2009-01-20, 01:33 AM
I would decline this character, but for different reasons than the OP - without knowing the player well I wouldn't allow such sexually-oriented character in my game, because there's a very high chance she'd make other characters feel uncomfortable and/or be roleplayed really immaturely.

I couldn't care less about "women weren't like that in the middle ages" - first, as already mentioned, DND isn't real world, and second, we had enough of this "woman is a man's servant and worse than him in everything" crap in our history, I don't want this in my game. Granted, I don't want total political correctness, either - but current age-level egalitarianism is reasonable. If you think it's unrealistic, I'd like to point out that in a world where women have the same potential as men to kill you with their brain only someone with very little sense of self-preservation will keep and try to enforce middle ages view on gender roles.

BDSM isn't evil.

Grail
2009-01-20, 01:36 AM
I wouldn't accept it either without a few reworks, but my dislike of it isn't really what you are going on about. As for a dominatrix in a fantasy setting, Loviatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviatar_(Forgotten_Realms)) springs instantly to mind. Image of Loviatar (http://digilander.libero.it/advanced_group/gallery/fantasy/reami/Loviatar_p100.jpg)

At the end of the day, regardless of what the players think, want or insist, you are the one creating the better part of the story and setting the tone for it. If certain aspects of a character do not sit well with your views, you are fully in your right to request a rewrite.

thegurullamen
2009-01-20, 01:41 AM
The whole logic underpinning the demand for a dominatrix's services is flawed. That particular niche of the sexual economy is a) very small and b) very unlikely to draw in outsiders, i.e. people without, from what's being described, a very specific sexual preference. Worse, taboos about sexual behavior are likely to be prominent and active parts of the lives of almost anyone not living in the "Who gives a crap?" parts of large cities. Prostitution, i.e. the world's oldest profession, can easily fill the role being described. Its fringe counterpart cannot.

Personally, I don't see why a female PC with background issues (i.e. a regular female PC) who chooses to use a whip needs to go down the dominatrix path. Sometimes, a whip is a whip and not a utensil of divine pleasure-pain.

Finally, the plural of dominatrix is dominatrices. Pet peeve.

EDIT: I didn't notice this the first time through. Dominatrices do NOT wear their profession on their sleeve, not even in this (relatively) very liberal day-in-age. Some do, sure, but they are a large exception and more of a luxury service within their field as a result of needing to cater to an even smaller pool of clients than a (lol) "vanilla" domina. However, even these professionals would not be able to get away with going around and killing for money/the greater good/what-have-you while holding their "night job". Someone who a) kills, b) becomes a walking, talking persona of female dominance and c) revels in it is never going to make money in sex work. And they're more likely to get lynched or otherwise murdered for extreme public indecency. (Or, if that's too extreme, they're the walking, talking definition of a pariah.)

Oh, and bdsm is not evil. Like most/all other fetishes, it's roleplaying. For adults. Granted, it's edgy, but even though it involves pain, the important thing is that it's not harmful. It's a very important distinction to make.[/rant]

And no, most sex workers do NOT come from abusive families or backgrounds. Sociology 101.

Grynning
2009-01-20, 01:42 AM
To me it sounds like either the player is wanting some attention or perhaps projecting some of their own issues onto the character. I'm not saying the player is a crazy-person or anything, but the way the background is written in such...erm...detail... seems a bit over-the-top.

While it's true that part of the fun of role-playing is doing things you would never do in real life, and perhaps having a bit of catharsis at times, if the character is entirely focused around these dark and adult themes and it doesn't fit with your idea for the campaign, ask the player politely to tone it down some. Let them keep their basic concept, but ask them to make the character and her background a bit more PG rated. Mutants and Masterminds has some good advice about this in it's GM'ing section - dark and edgy characters just don't work in a more lighthearted setting, and it's ok to tell a player that.

If the player reacts too strongly to this request, it's quite possible that they're not someone you want to be playing with. In my opinion you should leave your baggage (especially baggage about things like sexual abuse) OUT of a group activity like D&D. Making everyone else uncomfortable with things like that is both anti-social and rude.

KevLar
2009-01-20, 01:46 AM
Ha, that was a hilarious background.

But seriously.

"Venus in furs" was written in 1870. I can very well imagine Domme/sub relationships, casual or not, for profit or for fun, in a D&D setting. But not in the slums. People in the slums already have all the violence they need in their lives, thankyouverymuch. This is something for the upper class, taking place in an obscenely luxurious brothel or a noble's well-equipped secret dungeon. A prostitute from the lower part of town would never make it there. (At least as a Domme. As a sub and against her will, very much likely.)

You see, if violence is stimulating, that's only because it's perceived as exotic and out of the norm, and only because there's a dynamic between a "dominating" and a "submissive" personality. Just grabbing a whip and smacking doesn't do it for ya. It's a mindgame. And if this girl's mindset is "protect the weak", she really isn't made for it.

So, to sum up. This background makes little sense, I'll give you that. But not because the profession is, by default, incompatible with D&D. Just because it's incompatible with the specific character's social status and personality.

lisiecki
2009-01-20, 02:22 AM
So, back to the title. Does this argument seem reasonable, or cold?


Ya

That's Catwomans Origin from the mid 80s

elliott20
2009-01-20, 02:37 AM
So I'm not the only one who thought that background was just poorly written and a little too charged with sexual issues to make it to a social game, right?

Characters like this can work in the game, but it needs to be done with skill and finesse. This character here? it's more like a sledge hammer repetitively slamming her sexual origins and her sexual issues right into your face. It's crudely done, poorly written, and if you ask me, a little too vulgar in it's presentation.

KevLar
2009-01-20, 02:44 AM
a dominatrix would essentially be a succubus kind of thing. Aren't those things, I don't know, Evil?
Why would it be a succubus kind of thing? I find the two completely irrelevant, no matter how you want to define a succubus (from the MM or from roman mythology or whatever).

Morally dubious or unacceptable is one thing. But evil? Assuming we are talking about a woman paid to do this, she's just indulging someone's completely harmless vice. (Harmless for others, I mean. If he ends up hurting himself in the process, I'd like to note that it was his choice and he enjoyed it.) What's so evil about that?
Unless of course you have a setting with very rigid definitions of good and evil, where prostitution in general is evil, or anything that has to do with illicit sex is evil.

Leon
2009-01-20, 02:59 AM
Reasonable, Its your game and the player will have to accept that it doesn't fit your setting

Jerthanis
2009-01-20, 03:26 AM
If a player of mine came to me that I had DMed for before and found them to be a mature player who is serious about gaming, and wants to explore subculture and vice in a fantasy setting... I'd sit down with them and say, "Okay, let's make this work, but if other players are uncomfortable, keep a backup character in mind, because this can be a sensitive subject to some people and we're all here for fun."

If this was a new player who I had never DMed for before, I'd say, "I don't have a problem with the subject matter per se, but I'd be more comfortable DMing this character for you after we're more used to each other's playstyles."

If this were my first time DMing for anyone ever, I'd say, "I'm sorry, I really don't know how to run a game for this character. I'm still working out how to get Adventurers from the Tavern to the Dungeon without buying a train ticket, so something this complicated is just beyond my ability to run a good game for."

I will say that your specific objections make little sense to me, as you seem to reference the real world, and the real world is a very complicated place to make broad sweeping generalizations about. Historical views of women is something that have four year college degrees attached to them, so "They were seen as servants" probably isn't the whole picture. If your specific campaign world is puritanical and features omnipresent churches with serious power and influence that dictate morality AND say a definite "no" to prostitution and dominatrices... well, that's an artifact of your campaign world. I can definitely see a place in non-evil society for this character in Forgotten Realms and Eberron, which are the only two published D&D settings I'm familiar with.

(Also, I must point out that TECHNICALLY, Domination doesn't HAVE to include intercourse, which makes Dominatrices legal in some states where prostitution is illegal in the modern day... but that's needless semantics if the character is definitely a dominatrix who also has sex, and if the society doesn't see a difference, or has a problem with the women being the top, or some other problem.)

Still, you've got dozens of reasons to say no to this character, but do so politely if possible, and try to work closely with the player in coming up with a new one.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-20, 05:04 AM
Check out the Kushiel's Dart novels for a possible explanation on how BDSM practices might fit into a fantasy world.

Of course, whether it explains it well or is just a heavy case of Mary Suing is a matter for much debate :smalltongue:

Toliudar
2009-01-20, 05:18 AM
I'd have no problem with that character as written as a starting background. Sure, there are some dubious leaps in logic in it. Compared to some of the howlers I've read - for instance, all the MANY scholars who suddenly, after years of careful monastic study, decide that it's high time that they strap on a crossbow and go chasing around dungeons - the leaps in logic are hardly worth mentioning.

Slayer, you know your group, and if you think that the other players - or you - would be disturbed by someone playing a frankly sexual character, then of course you're completely in your rights to refuse the character. But given this sentence:
Anya usually avoids conversations that involve sharing ones past. She likes to focus on the present rather than her horrid past.

I don't see how that's likely to be a major issue.

Good luck with the campaign!

Aquillion
2009-01-20, 05:22 AM
If you wish to make your players play in a setting there is sexist, please be sure to make this VERY CLEAR TO YOUR PLAYERS BEFOREHAND.This. This cannot be emphasized enough.

The default D&D setting is not a historical medieval world. It resembles it in a few superficial ways, but it is very different at heart. The mindset is completely modern. One of the biggest differences by far is in gender roles; the default D&D setting makes it pretty clear, if you read between the lines, that male and female PCs are considered equal (not a single core class or deity even hints at gender distinctions, say. 'Her' is frequently used in example text.) If you are going to run a setting with a even a slightly medieval mindset on gender, this is one of those things you absolutely must bring up before the players start submitting their character concepts. It is an extremely drastic thing for you to add to the setting, with major implications for every character.

Basically, if your female PCs are going to get blacksmiths refusing to sell them weapons, and town guards or important quest NPCs harassing them for acting 'above their station', then this is something you absolutely must tell everyone and make sure they're ok with it before the game starts. It's a recipe for disaster otherwise.

kamikasei
2009-01-20, 05:41 AM
As others have said:
- the background seems rather iffy from the point of view of a) making sense, and b) bringing some sort of baggage to the table.
- various things about the character don't make sense (she's a traveling freelance dominatrix? Eh?)
- I would not say that BDSM would be unknown in a pseudo-medieval setting, but it would probably be confined mostly to the wealthy, and would probably need more discretion than going from town to town and advertising your services can really achieve.

So, I would ask the player to rework the character, but not for quite the reasons you describe.


Third, and the thought occured to me recently, a dominatrix would essentially be a succubus kind of thing.

No, this isn't true at all.

A succubus is not about fetish. A succubus is about lust. Her MO is to make a target want her, want her so badly he'll do anything to get her. The idea is to inflame desire to overwhelm duty and morality, pushing the victim towards chaos and evil.

This does not mean cracking a whip and dressing in fetish wear. That's just the rather juvenile way some (many) representations try to make succubi conspicuously "sexy". It's also a ham-fisted attempt to represent "forbidden desire" by making the subject semi-taboo. The thing is, a succubus doesn't necessarily prey on desire that in itself is forbidden. She could be offering perfectly vanilla sex, so long as she can use it as leverage to coax her victim into doing evil to get it (and she doesn't even have to deliver). If she can make the price of consummation some evil act; if she can seduce someone who is committing an evil or chaotic act by being with her (a celibate monk, a married man, etc.); if she can seduce someone into an inappropriate relationship (crossing class or racial lines, say; whatever might damage him if revealed) and then blackmail him over it - then she's doing her job.

(I'm treating it as a female succubus seducing a man, but it applies equally to incubi, or to homosexual seductions, though with all the extra baggage and taboos either alteration might introduce in a given society.)

BDSM, as others have pointed out, has pretty much bugger-all to do with good or evil (or law or chaos, for that matter, though you could play to stereotype by saying lawful characters are more prone to it).

Myou
2009-01-20, 05:58 AM
If a player came to me with a character like that there's no way I'd let them play it. I'd ask them to come up with something that I didn't feel disgusted by, and if they seemed too emotionally invested in it, I'd seriously consider asking them to leave. There's no way that anyone I know would be comfortable to play with a character like that in the group.

There's no place for rape, child abuse, molestation and prostitution in any normal game and it's not really suitable roleplaying material. It seems to me that she wants as much attention as possible, and wants to have a good sob story for plenty of sympathy. Unchecked my guess is that she would quickly dominate the entire game.

Also, to me that character is neutral at best.

This is all just my opinion of course.

But if nothing else I certainly wouldn't ever let a player be a prostitute unless the game was a sexually themed one and everyone involved was comfortable with that.

Edit: Just to clarify, I agree with what others have said, she's carrying some sort of emotional baggage here and she shouldn't be allowed to spoil the fun of others with self-indulgence.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-20, 06:36 AM
Most sex workers have been sexually abused.

As to the latter statement - would you care to clarify what exactly you're trying to imply?

Sources please. (Being that yours is the positive claim.)

And the latter statement was my expression of squick at someone apparently separating whores (who, from the context, were still clearly largely female) from women, which strikes me as a pretty unpleasant separation for someone to make. It may appear to be a minor point, but any point of language use appears so; yet language shapes thought, so these points are always relevant.


There's no place for rape, child abuse, molestation and prostitution in any normal game and it's not really suitable roleplaying material.

This statement is nonsense, being that pretty much all the material that modern fantasy is based on (King Arthur, Celtic and Norse stories and other mythologies, etc.) includes at least the first and the third, and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the fourth in itself, and countless novels throughout the ages feature all four...

However...


It seems to me that she wants as much attention as possible, and wants to have a good sob story for plenty of sympathy. Unchecked my guess is that she would quickly dominate the entire game.

This is quite possible, and it's pretty much part of the whole "when done badly, it is really really offensive" thing. Unfortunately, sexual abuse is often thrown into backgrounds essentially for shock value by bad writers.

Dealing seriously and involvedly with topics like this - which you must, if you want to include them in the backstory of a PC but not trivialize or ignore them (which is offensive again) - is very difficult, and it demands very much a group that can deal with.

If the GM's first instinct about the backstory is to reject it, that probably says a lot about whether it can fit into the group or the GM's game, and the GM should go with that instinct. There's no reason for the GM to compromise to include content that invokes sexual or abusive real-world matters (although go figure why rape or sexual abuse - of women and children only, since when men are the victims you're probably watching a mainstream comedy film or show - are still regularly considered worse than murder).

So I'd qualify Myou's statement: those things have no place in any game where every single person at the table isn't okay with them being included in the game.

(Oddly enough - or not that oddly, when you think about it - the rape survivors I know are more okay with the subject in roleplay than people are on average. However, they are also way more critical of bad and trivializing portrayals, which makes sense too.)

Hal
2009-01-20, 08:33 AM
Personally, I tend to try to keep sex out of my games as much as possible. My games are about adventuring, being heroes, slaying ancient evils, etc. This character can't avoid it, which means it's likely to be front and center in a lot of sessions.

If you're okay with that aspect being prominent in your game, that's fine. I know I'd send this character back to the drawing board.

Myou
2009-01-20, 08:47 AM
This statement is nonsense, being that pretty much all the material that modern fantasy is based on (King Arthur, Celtic and Norse stories and other mythologies, etc.) includes at least the first and the third, and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the fourth in itself, and countless novels throughout the ages feature all four...

I have read a lot of Arthurian and Norse literature and I've never come across anything like that myself.

But I'm talking about roleplaying games anyway, not literature. I would not be happy either as a DM or player in a game where one of my party members was a sex-obsesed, raped, abused whore.

As I said, it's just my opinion, but none of those things are appropriate for a game of D&D. I have nothing against people writing about such topics, but roleplaying them is not something I would like to do.


This is quite possible, and it's pretty much part of the whole "when done badly, it is really really offensive" thing. Unfortunately, sexual abuse is often thrown into backgrounds essentially for shock value by bad writers.

Dealing seriously and involvedly with topics like this - which you must, if you want to include them in the backstory of a PC but not trivialize or ignore them (which is offensive again) - is very difficult, and it demands very much a group that can deal with.

If the GM's first instinct about the backstory is to reject it, that probably says a lot about whether it can fit into the group or the GM's game, and the GM should go with that instinct. There's no reason for the GM to compromise to include content that invokes sexual or abusive real-world matters (although go figure why rape or sexual abuse - of women and children only, since when men are the victims you're probably watching a mainstream comedy film or show - are still regularly considered worse than murder).

So I'd qualify Myou's statement: those things have no place in any game where every single person at the table isn't okay with them being included in the game.

(Oddly enough - or not that oddly, when you think about it - the rape survivors I know are more okay with the subject in roleplay than people are on average. However, they are also way more critical of bad and trivializing portrayals, which makes sense too.)

And this is pretty much the reason why, I've never seen anyone roleplay stuff like this in a way that isn't offensive and/or absolutely disgusting, and beyond just avoiding offence you have to deal properly with it, which means devoting a lot of time to it and focusing on the victim and their slow emotional recovery.

It would be extremely hard to avoid it degenerating into one drama queen taking centre stage while the other players have to pretend to care that the character had such dreadful experiences. In my opinion that would just ruin the gameplay.

As you say, if everyone playing is fine with the subject and the DM can manage things then there's no problem, but I've never met anyone who was fine with roleplays on subjects like child abuse and rape. I certainly wouldn't have much fun roleplaying that.

So, to clarify, the qualification you made was meant to have already been implicit as in any normal game people won't want it. To put it another way, as you say, those things have no place in any game where not everyone at the table is okay with them being included.

wadledo
2009-01-20, 09:40 AM
I have read a lot of Arthurian and Norse literature and I've never come across anything like that myself.

Just pointing this out:

Norse myth; Loki gets raped while in female form by a giant, producing Hel, Fenrir and the world serpent.

Arthurian legend; Guinevere has something like 5 or 6 different guys in her bed at a couple of points, most notably Lancelot, which eventually(abet in a roundabout way) kills Arthur.

Myou
2009-01-20, 09:55 AM
Just pointing this out:

Norse myth; Loki gets raped while in female form by a giant, producing Hel, Fenrir and the world serpent.

Arthurian legend; Guinevere has something like 5 or 6 different guys in her bed at a couple of points, most notably Lancelot, which eventually(abet in a roundabout way) kills Arthur.
In the versions I've read Loki fathered those three in a normal relationship and Guinevere was a slut but not a whore and certainly not raped.

The Glyphstone
2009-01-20, 09:56 AM
I actually had my warning bells go off when I read the bit about

Anya usually avoids conversations that involve sharing ones past. She likes to focus on the present rather than her horrid past. .

To me, that sounds like a character who won't actually mention her horribly tortured past directly, but just use it as an excuse to brood and angst, answering any question of what's wrong with a sullen 'I dont want to TALK about it'.

metagaia
2009-01-20, 09:59 AM
This character seems to be inspired by the likes of the Mord-Sith from Terry Goodkind's sword of Truth series. That probably is the inspiration to justify it in medieval fantasy (if not actual medieval times)

Also, it specifically states that she is *not* accepted by society, and that a large proportion of society don't accept her.

Also, I think Succubui are more in for the seduction than domination. Erinyes would probably be a little closer.

wadledo
2009-01-20, 10:07 AM
In the versions I've read Loki fathered those three in a normal relationship and Guinevere was a slut but not a whore and certainly not raped.

Fair enough on the Loki part, though there are some versions I've read where it's different(though this might just be conjecture, as I can't remember where I read it).
The only other example I recall off the top of my head is the Svašilfari incident, where Loki runs away from him, which (to me at least) indicates that he didn't want to get @#$%ed.

And as for Guinevere, your point?:smallconfused:
She committed adultery, which is a pretty big sin in most circles, and distinctly part of early literature, which is what DnD is based on.
Just because I can't recall every instance of molestation and rape(and I know it's there) doesn't mean it's not part of the genre.

Edit: Mordred marrying Guinevere.
We can only assume that since Guinevere seems to be able to control her-self a tiny tiny amount that she wouldn't want to have sex with one the guys her former husband sent to help burn her at the stake.
Which means the only was he could marry her is rape.

Neko Toast
2009-01-20, 10:11 AM
Update:

Well, I've been reading your responses, and it's showed me a new light to the situation. To be more honest here, I think I was trying to find more issues that were technical, since it seemed like a more reasonable way to decline said character. I reiterate; I'm new to DMing. That method didn't work out too well, obviously.

A lot of you noticed how poorly written the description and backstory was. This is a smaller part of a greater issue. I've seen this person play before. Their last character was an elven druidess, named Evelyn (cliched name). Said character had a wolf for a companion, named Angel (even more cliched). This character's only background information was that her entire race of elves was wiped out by a tribe of ogres. Not bad; it gives the character motivation. But here's the thing: she never acted on that motivation. Hell, she didn't do anything half the time. A good chunk of the game involved her following me, and since our characters barely knew each other, mine thought she was some sort of stalker. She never tried looking for the ogres for revenge, she never seemed edge or nervous when traveling in the woods. The character was just so... Wooden.

Based on her experience (or lack of it) in the past, I knew that she couldn't, and shouldn't, play this character. But I couldn't decline her just for that. So that's when the view of society came into the issue.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-20, 10:14 AM
Based on her experience (or lack of it) in the past, I knew that she couldn't, and shouldn't, play this character. But I couldn't decline her just for that. So that's when the view of society came into the issue.

Like I said, go with your instinct. You are the GM, you have the power. Suggest alternatives that do not include squicky sexual issues. Heck, just taking out the sexual abuse, prostitutes, and dominatrix, and inserting, say, drunken dad beating her up until she kills him, will get you a way more tolerable background that's way less likely to make anyone uncomfortable (because for some reason beating and killing is a-okay).

Thane of Fife
2009-01-20, 11:45 AM
You are the GM, you have the power.

He's right:


You have the Power!
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k155/dragonlordmax/hemandmg.jpg

The Neoclassic
2009-01-20, 12:33 PM
Update:

Well, I've been reading your responses, and it's showed me a new light to the situation. To be more honest here, I think I was trying to find more issues that were technical, since it seemed like a more reasonable way to decline said character. I reiterate; I'm new to DMing. That method didn't work out too well, obviously.

A lot of you noticed how poorly written the description and backstory was. This is a smaller part of a greater issue. I've seen this person play before. Their last character was an elven druidess, named Evelyn (cliched name). Said character had a wolf for a companion, named Angel (even more cliched). This character's only background information was that her entire race of elves was wiped out by a tribe of ogres. Not bad; it gives the character motivation. But here's the thing: she never acted on that motivation. Hell, she didn't do anything half the time. A good chunk of the game involved her following me, and since our characters barely knew each other, mine thought she was some sort of stalker. She never tried looking for the ogres for revenge, she never seemed edge or nervous when traveling in the woods. The character was just so... Wooden.

Based on her experience (or lack of it) in the past, I knew that she couldn't, and shouldn't, play this character. But I couldn't decline her just for that. So that's when the view of society came into the issue.

Well, honestly, I don't think it is unfair to deny a sexually-oriented character in any campaign. I'd only accept one if it was from a player I knew well, in a group I knew that could handle it, and in an appropriate setting. Also, as people have pointed out, her background and assumptions on how her character would work in society do not seem too, well, realistic. Chances are it is not fitting for your setting. Just explain to her that the tone of her character is not going to fit well for your campaign. Maybe make some suggestions of how she could fit some of her current ideas into a more workable character? Say that a rocky past is fine, but that sex work of the nature she describes is entirely not on-par with your established setting and she'll need to rethink her job history.

Tengu_temp
2009-01-20, 01:06 PM
Based on her experience (or lack of it) in the past, I knew that she couldn't, and shouldn't, play this character. But I couldn't decline her just for that. So that's when the view of society came into the issue.

I'd say that in such cases it's better to go with honesty than false excuses.

KeresM
2009-01-20, 01:11 PM
Comes down to a simple 'yes-no' question.

Are you and the other players going to be comfortable with this character?


If the answer to that question is no, then deny the character. The only reason you need to give is - 'I don't feel that character concept is going to fit into the campaign'.

Myou
2009-01-20, 01:18 PM
Fair enough on the Loki part, though there are some versions I've read where it's different(though this might just be conjecture, as I can't remember where I read it).
The only other example I recall off the top of my head is the Svašilfari incident, where Loki runs away from him, which (to me at least) indicates that he didn't want to get @#$%ed.

And as for Guinevere, your point?:smallconfused:
She committed adultery, which is a pretty big sin in most circles, and distinctly part of early literature, which is what DnD is based on.
Just because I can't recall every instance of molestation and rape(and I know it's there) doesn't mean it's not part of the genre.

Edit: Mordred marrying Guinevere.
We can only assume that since Guinevere seems to be able to control her-self a tiny tiny amount that she wouldn't want to have sex with one the guys her former husband sent to help burn her at the stake.
Which means the only was he could marry her is rape.

My point with Guinevere was just that rape is not the same as adultery. One is considered morally dubious, the other is considered horiffic. Adultery would be fine as part of a story, rape wouldn't.

As for Mordred and Guinevere, rape may be implied but it isn't a bit part of the plot and the implication is very different to being shown or happening to a PC.



To the original poster's update; It sounds to me like you've made the right descision.

Another_Poet
2009-01-20, 01:30 PM
Update:

Well, I've been reading your responses, and it's showed me a new light to the situation. To be more honest here...

Yeah, I was actually just about to post and say I thought there might be something deeper.


The character was just so... Wooden.

That's actually reassuring. I thought for a minute you were going to say that when you played with her before she constantly acted out and always has characters with weird kinks. The fact that she is quiet and doesn't RP much makes this weird, edgy character a lot safer.

Since it's a one-shot, I would suggest you allow it in. If it was an ongoing campaign you'd have more at stake, but in a one-shot let her stretch her wings a little.

Definitely sit down and address the issues with her before the game starts. I have some MAJOR issues I would address:


1) The use of the b-word several times in her backstory - will she talk like this at the table? Will the other players be offended? Do you as GM care about the misogyny that is loaded into this usage of this word?

2) She doesn't seem to understand what a Dominatrix is. Yes, they beat male (and female) clients, but.... the clients enjoy it. It is potentially the worst possible job for an ardent feminist vigilante. She has to spend all day indulging the creepiest desires of priveleged men, and she has to hold back and not seriously hurt them (nor kill them) or else she's out a job and probably sentenced to death by the local judges. I think a hi-charisma character who works as a Dominatrix is a great idea. Separately, I think an abused young woman who goes around seeking out abusive males and cutting them down is a FRIGGIN AWESOME idea. Put the two together and you have... a conflicted and unbelievable mish-mash with serious moral questions. Ouch.

But those are what I would talk to her about. It sounds like your main concern is whether she's going to step up and turn this mind-straining backstory into a three dimensional character. Whether she'll participate. And if that's your main concern then more power to you, you're a lot more open-minded than me. Talk to her about that before you play - ask her if she's really up for roleplaying this part. Don't accept yes/no; ask her the tough questions like, "OK, so how will you work this history of hers into clearing kobolds out of a mine?" (or whatever the adventure is).

Good luck, and I hope it's fun.

Fawsto
2009-01-20, 01:34 PM
It is only MO, but I think this character is a little bit offensive... No... Wait... Very offensive, at least in my standards... I don't know exactly if you find it offensive as I do.

As it was stated, this character is prone (ahem...) to bring immature RP to the table or make the other characters feel unconfortable. Also this Sexual Background remembers me about one of the most, to say the least about it, "weird" books related to RPG out there, the BoEF.

Now. I know that the background isnt evil itself, but IMO, it would never produce a Good character either... Too much psycological distress to produce someone that is truly good. Ok, I know, she has been cared by her friends during her early life, but I don't think the enviroment would turn her into a good person. See, she was exposed to a very "poluted enviroment". I could spend hours typing allignment questions to explain this... But I shall not start a flame war over a personal op.

Edit: I was reading the post previous to mine, and I it remembered me about another thing I should've stated. She uses the "B word" to describe her character very often. This does sound a little... let's say... odd. This brings me this question... And I don't know if you will be able to answer it: How mature is this friend of yours? And how mature is your gaming table in general? These 2 questions if answered properly will allow me to give you a better advice.

However, the last word is totally yours. Good luck.

Att.

Neko Toast
2009-01-20, 02:34 PM
This brings me this question... And I don't know if you will be able to answer it: How mature is this friend of yours? And how mature is your gaming table in general? These 2 questions if answered properly will allow me to give you a better advice.

However, the last word is totally yours. Good luck.

Att.

It's a bit difficult to answer question 1, in the fact that I can't read her maturity very well. Emotions are easy enough to sense for me (call it a women's intuition), but everything else is difficult because she rarely talks. She's extremely quiet most of the time, which is why she doesn't do a whole lot gaming-wise.

Another fact you might find interesting is that she didn't start gaming until her boyfriend wanted to join a campaign. This person is extremely clingy to said boyfriend. Ever heard of the honeymoon phase? They've been dating for over a year and it hasn't worn off of her yet.

To me, swooning over a boyfriend constantly is a sign of immaturity, but that's just my opinion.

On to question 2, which should have a shorter explanation. We have three guys that game with us, one of which is co-DMing with me. In general, they're the kind of guys who would find a double meaning in almost any sentence, if you know what I mean. So, although some of them are really good friends of mine, they aren't on an outstanding maturity level.

In short, if the character had been accepted, it would present a problem, whether she roleplayed it well or was completely wooden as usual.

kjones
2009-01-20, 02:36 PM
It's a bit difficult to answer question 1, in the fact that I can't read her maturity very well. Emotions are easy enough to sense for me (call it a women's intuition), but everything else is difficult because she rarely talks. She's extremely quiet most of the time, which is why she doesn't do a whole lot gaming-wise.

Another fact you might find interesting is that she didn't start gaming until her boyfriend wanted to join a campaign. This person is extremely clingy to said boyfriend. Ever heard of the honeymoon phase? They've been dating for over a year and it hasn't worn off of her yet.

To me, swooning over a boyfriend constantly is a sign of immaturity, but that's just my opinion.

On to question 2, which should have a shorter explanation. We have three guys that game with us, one of which is co-DMing with me. In general, they're the kind of guys who would find a double meaning in almost any sentence, if you know what I mean. So, although some of them are really good friends of mine, they aren't on an outstanding maturity level.

In short, if the character had been accepted, it would present a problem, whether she roleplayed it well or was completely wooden as usual.

Completely OT: This reminds me a lot of someone I know...

Back on topic: Playing a heavily sexualized character in a game that she's only involved in because her boyfriend is playing? Run. Run while you can.

only1doug
2009-01-20, 02:47 PM
Comes down to a simple 'yes-no' question.

Are you and the other players going to be comfortable with this character?


If the answer to that question is no, then deny the character. The only reason you need to give is - 'I don't feel that character concept is going to fit into the campaign'.

As Keres says, you have to be comfortable with the PC's, as a GM you are entitled to be comfortable with all aspects of play.

One of the players in our regular WFRP game is trying to play as a slut but the GM isn't happy with any sexual innuendo much less full on descriptions of sexual activities so the slut gets ignored (regardless of whether this is realistic, the GM's comfort is a factor also).

If you don't like the characters description or backstory, or just don't wish to have any sexual innuendo in your game, then you are perfectly entitled to say "no, please avoid those themes".

Fawsto
2009-01-20, 02:50 PM
Now, you almost exactly described my game Party.

One of my friends started to date his new girlfriend about 2 years ago who had only played D&D a long while ago, thus only returned to the game tables due to her boyfriend (aka, my friend). Now, she took about 2 or 3 months to get used to everybody else in the table and now she is one of our best friends.

I believe that you will start to understand how mature she is only by watching her behave at the game table. If I were you... I'd be completely lost, since I am a guy. But I can give you a piece of advice: Ask her to "clean" a little this character. Specialy in some way to portrait the CG allingment she wrote up there. Explain to her that it is, somehow, hard to belive that such enviroment she described to be her character's background would hardly produce any truly good person, but rather a neutral person.

I will talk a little more about it later, since I am leaving work now. But with what you have said so far, I am guessing you will do well. I will be back later to talk more about it.

Just a little other question to allow me to measure the average maturity of the group: On average, how old is the gaming group? I mean, how long have you been playing together and how old are you. Of course, if you feel comfortable enough to answer this.

Att.

valadil
2009-01-20, 03:04 PM
I think more GMs should decline characters. Tell her that it's a perfectly good character, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the story and/or setting you are providing and that she'd have more fun with a character that did fit. If she doesn't like that you can try and compromise on the character, but I'm of the opinion that watering down a character rarely fixes anything.

I had a bad experience with a GM who wouldn't decline characters. He was running a Mage game set in rural Ohio. I played the mexican cult leader Jesus B. Rodriguez. The GM had no idea what to do with a cult leader, but he thought the character was cool so he let me go with it. Big mistake. The only thing he figured out to do with my cultist was throw him in prison. Okay, that makes sense. And now I get to weasel my way out. Fine. Except that he put me in jail at the start of every single game session. Each time I was in there for a good 2-3 hours out of the 6 hour session. I just sat at the table while the others went on without me. It was terrible and I stopped showing up.

I would have been better off with another character. I might have been upset at the time if I had to shelve Sr. Rodriguez but I'd have gotten over it when the next character came by. Here's the kicker. Even though I was allowed to use the character, I never really got to play him. Jesus was in the wrong game. The game he was in was totally unplayable. Whether the GM allowed the character or not, I didn't get to play Jesus B. Rodriguez at all. By telling me the character wouldn't fit, the GM could have saved my gaming experience by allowing me to play another character instead.

Nightson
2009-01-20, 03:08 PM
Explain to her that it is, somehow, hard to belive that such enviroment she described to be her character's background would hardly produce any truly good person, but rather a neutral person.

The idea that people who grew up in broken homes or suffered sexual abuse can't be good is just incomprehensible.

ericgrau
2009-01-20, 03:33 PM
I thought you declined her for being offensive. That would seem to be the main reason to me.

But as for all the other reasons: Prostitution has always been considered wrong. Probably more so in the past. Even with the historic subservience of women, women standing up for something was far from unusual. Take several characters from Shakespeare as an example, or else some major female historical figures. If anything, manipulating what they can in spite of their sociatal position seems to be the norm in Shakespeare. And once you're on the streets there are very few if any formalities to follow. As for alignment, that all depends who she helps/hurts, and how sexually loose she is.

Neko Toast
2009-01-20, 03:35 PM
The idea that people who grew up in broken homes or suffered sexual abuse can't be good is just incomprehensible.

I think he phrased the statement wrong. It's not a next to impossible occurrence, but at the same time, it's not common.

Coidzor
2009-01-20, 03:38 PM
Sex and DnD.... Very rarely anything close to a winning or neutral situation.

HazelStone
2009-01-20, 03:46 PM
Several things:

1. At the most basic level, this doesn't sound like a character that makes much sense or plays well with others. If anything, this sounds like either a rip off of BDSM-friendly fantasy novels (like the Kushiell series) or an Aileen Wurnos character. Not really a team player. If you were going to go around murdering johns, would you team up with a mixed gender team of strangers? Wha?

2. This sets off ALL SORTS of warnings like this is a cry for help from the player. Wooden affect and latching on to another (trusted?) female friend looking for guidance? Then bringing out this character? Hmmm. I'd ask my friend if she's trying to tell me something.

3. A dominatrix is not a paragon of "female power" since BDSM is based around sexism and the fetishization of the power dynamics that already exist in society -- just blown up to cartoon-y proportions. The guy who wants to be dominated by a woman in a sex ritual does so because the odds of him meeting an actual powerful woman are minimal. He is actually controlling the situation by hiring a servant/prostitute to help him violate this taboo. He tells her exactly how he wants to be punished. She has to be low status for a taboo to be violated, otherwise nothing novel would be happening. If all he wanted was to be dominated and humiliated, he'd be getting his jollies every time his boss gave him a bad review or some jackass in a Mercedes cut him off on the freeway.

Notice that dominatrixes tend to conform to standard beauty norms, just tarted up with corsets and kinky lingerie? Guys into BDSM aren't paying your standard strong, tough truckdriver woman in a flannel workshirt and boots to go kick their ass. They want BDSM Barbie in 8 inch stilettos and a teddy to spank them. Wooo. How empowerful.

monty
2009-01-20, 03:47 PM
Sex and DnD.... Very rarely anything close to a winning or neutral situation.

BoEF. Terrible art, but a surprisingly good book.

HazelStone
2009-01-20, 03:49 PM
As for alignment, that all depends who she helps/hurts, and how sexually loose she is.

So, male characters can turn evil from having too much sex? Or is it just those slutty female abuse victims?

Neko Toast
2009-01-20, 03:54 PM
2. This sets off ALL SORTS of warnings like this is a cry for help from the player. Wooden affect and latching on to another (trusted?) female friend looking for guidance? Then bringing out this character? Hmmm. I'd ask my friend if she's trying to tell me something.

I... think you misunderstood. She's not latched to me, God no. She's latched to her BF. Which is common with relationships, but doesn't that wear off eventually?

*sigh* I'll never understand dating.

PurinaDragonCho
2009-01-20, 03:58 PM
Avoiding the questions having to do with the sexual aspects of the character altogether - I'd give players a lot more latitude in a one-shot than in a long campaign.

kamikasei
2009-01-20, 04:11 PM
So, male characters can turn evil from having too much sex? Or is it just those slutty female abuse victims?

I'm gonna go with "promiscuity is Chaotic" as a less uncharitable interpretation.

Karma Guard
2009-01-20, 04:27 PM
If you've ever done rule-less RP on the internet, you have seen this profile before. There's no real tie to anyone in fiction, it's just a player being 'look at me look at me I'm tragic and special!'. This is a bad profile, man.

The second anyone's profile mentions sexual abuse, especially when it leads to the character taking up sex work, an alarm should go off. A loud one.

Her character, in one sentance, is thus: 'A slumgirl who has grown up into a dominatrix-with-a-heart-of-gold of such notoriety that she is run out of towns and has a 'badass' monicker'. Think about that for a second. I'd take a dozen absent-minded scholars over one of those.

Dominatrixes don't skip towns! They're paid ridiculous amounts of money to basically play fantasy games with men (and women. We're equal-opportunity here). They live in nice places with Questionable Basements. I don't want to be That Guy, but this person doesn't seem to know how dominatrixes work. Dominatrixes don't just beat clients, they do a lot of role-playing. It's kinda like DMing in that respect :Vc

I could understand if she, for example, kept the whip as a memento and became a whip-based fighter-type with a Bad History, but going right into Dominatrixing?

UH?

I'd tell her to re-make the profile without the loldominatrix bit, noting that the whip-memento is a good idea, and also to watch her english (it gets pretty bad in places) and take out the smilies.


I actually had my warning bells go off when I read the bit about .


Anya usually avoids conversations that involve sharing ones past. She likes to focus on the present rather than her horrid past.

To me, that sounds like a character who won't actually mention her horribly tortured past directly, but just use it as an excuse to brood and angst, answering any question of what's wrong with a sullen 'I dont want to TALK about it'.

Also, this. This is (almost) always bad.

Pseudoedit: aww, man, you already took care of it.

baw. OH WELL POSTIN ANYWAY

Coidzor
2009-01-20, 04:29 PM
I... think you misunderstood. She's not latched to me, God no. She's latched to her BF. Which is common with relationships, but doesn't that wear off eventually?

*sigh* I'll never understand dating.

Most humans are broken creatures. Hence why so many of them grow up to become devils and demons. Hopefully we grow out of some of the brokenness with time and realziing what wossnames we are.

What you can do about the situation is make sure that such latching doesn't get in the way of the game, and try not to take things too much to heart if things go badly since this'll be your first time and with such wonkiness as a concern.

Plus, y'know, the actual good advice/commentary that could be used to give yourself ideas as to how to proceed.

KevLar
2009-01-20, 04:49 PM
A dominatrix is not a paragon of "female power"
True.


since BDSM is based around sexism
False. There are lots of sexist BDSM enthusiasts, just as there are lots of sexist... firemen or farmers or accountants. But it's not based there, it's based on exactly what you say next, regardless of gender (not to mention there's same-sex BDSM too) :


and the fetishization of the power dynamics
Precisely.


that already exist in society
False. The already existing ones seem mundane, most people seek more exotic variants. Lots of middle-class couples play master and slave today. No actual master and slave (when slavery was a fact) ever played master and slave...


-- just blown up to cartoon-y proportions
True.


If all he wanted was to be dominated and humiliated, he'd be getting his jollies every time his boss gave him a bad review or some jackass in a Mercedes cut him off on the freeway.
Ah, but the boss wouldn't roleplay, now, would he? :)


Anyway.. Too much talk for a one-shot game, I think. To the OP:

If you find the background unrealistic (and, IMHO, it is very much so), just tell the player. Explain what doesn't fit, and ask her to change it.

If you find the background a recipe for disaster, since the rest of the group are "the kind of guys who would find a double meaning in almost any sentence", just tell the player and, again, ask her to change it. It's not rude.

If the one-shot is "kill the orcs" and you trust the player to last this one session without messing it up, no big deal. One-shots are hardly material for deep character development. Just make sure nothing like this happens:

[Mary Sue]
"No, don't ask me what's the matter. I just remembered something from my past..."
*broods*
[/Mary Sue]


(I actually shuddered writing that...)

Ponce
2009-01-20, 05:01 PM
If a player I've never met before approached me with this character, I would seriously reconsider playing with them. I can see it going sour very quickly and would personally not ante up the effort to try to make it work.

Stephen_E
2009-01-20, 05:17 PM
Re: King Arthur folklore - Arthur as a young man/boy is seduced by his elder half-sister Morgraine. As King when he finds out she's his half-sister and has had his child he orders the killing of all the children in the area she lives in to kill her child. So we have borderline pedophillia (Arthurs age at time of seduction is often put at less than 16) incest and child murder.

Forced or attempted forced sexual behaviour is scattered about the various extended tales of the knights of the round table.

As for Norse legends, skipping the gods angle, the actual norse tales have more than a few that a centered about rapes, claimed rapes ecetre.

If you go to Greek legends it almost becomes hard to find tales that don't have dodgy sex in them.

The Grimm tales have several rapes in them, sometimes by the heroe! Although it should be noted that many of these have been significantly cleaned up for common modern consumption. As a general guideline anything that refers to kisses, particuly "stolen kisses" ecetre, is likely to have been originally far more sexual in nature.

In short sex is the prime human drive, thus it is well represented in mythology.

Stephen E

Nero24200
2009-01-20, 05:30 PM
OP

Putting all the "It's not acceptable/unacceptable in medievil times" arguments aside, I wouldn't allow this character for one simple reason.

If she plays the character well, odds are her "darker" character elements aren't going to have much impact on her. When was the last time you saw an interesting character in a movie or book who just happened to be a prostitute, and honestly thought that character being a prostitute made them more interesting?

And if the player doesn't play that character well, it'll kill the game. I know this because I -have- played with immature players who have made characters like this.

This kind of character background is not only inconsistant and poorly written, it won't add anything to the character at all.

Fawsto
2009-01-20, 05:33 PM
@ Slayer and Nightson


Ahem... I did not say it was "impossible" to be raised in a situation like that and end up being a truly Good DnD standard person. I said it would be something "hard", more as Slayer said, a "rare" thing, meaning that the most common person to come out of such situation would be a Neutral one: Someone that is out there to survive. Obviously this person would be nice to the ones she love and other people in general, but she would not be Good, as it takes more to be a truly good person (by DnD standards).

Also there is this "Vendetta" thing on the character background. Some vengeance against "anyone who acts like her father". It does not mather why they abuse of women, this character will take vengeance (wich is already something stated as "not good") against any man that act like that. This means that this character is not good at all. Since she is motivated by the desire to punish "the figure of her father" no matehr who is wearing the mask.

Now, if she was to take Vengeance at her father it would be something diferent. She could still be a good person, even living with the desire to punish her father for everything he has do to her, since she is focusing in one especific person (it could be a group of people) who she knows that abused of her just for the evil of the thing.

If she thinks or acts like someone who would trample trough anyone to accomplish her objectives she would be Evil. See how close she is to being evil, now?


Edit:

I am against the "Sex + DnD" mix. IMO, it does not produce a comfortable gaming mood. I mean, as the DM you should ask yourself: if someone starts "describing the scene" how the other players would feel and react? If they reaction is something like: "Ewww!" or "Excuse me, but I need a glass of water." Than you know how confortable they would be.


Att

Oslecamo
2009-01-20, 05:43 PM
And as for Guinevere, your point?:smallconfused:
She committed adultery, which is a pretty big sin in most circles, and distinctly part of early literature, which is what DnD is based on.
Just because I can't recall every instance of molestation and rape(and I know it's there) doesn't mean it's not part of the genre.



Well, unlike rape, adultery is normally commited between two consentable parties. And it's probably older than the oldest profession on the world. Women have been cheating on men(and vice versa) ever since there was a concept of "cheating".

However, I think the big point is that trough history we see a lot of women in position of power who use said power to get themselves laid with several mens, just as like powerfull men liked to get laid with several women.

One of Henrique's VIII wifes had several lovers before having her head finally cut down, showing how the urge can be strong. When your husband has killed several other wifes for everything and nothing, one could expect this woman to don't try to cheat him, but alas, the forbidden fruit is much tastier, even if it's poisonous.

Cleoptara organized big parties with plenty of mens for her to "play" with, and there was even the story on how she had pleased one hundred men in a single night.

The wife of Zeus had no problems using her body to get what she wanted from the other gods, not only her husband.

And then we have Paris's legend. The three main greek goddess asked him wich one of them was more beatifull. But secretly they tried to bribe him to get his vote. Atenas promised to make Paris the greatest of warriors, able to slay anything on his path. Hera promised to make him the biggest leader evar, able to conquer the world under his boot.

Aphrodite promised him the most beatifull women in the world. Paris chose the last one, and we all know the rest of the history.

So, women using power to get sex and vice-versa is very common.

Dominatrixes, not so much. It's a very specialized niche, and only started becoming common in the last couple centuries, when mankind started to seek more "kinky" diversions. So a traveling dominatrix isn't really a very good job, since you really can't make publicity to your specialization on the streets nor are you guaranteed to find clients in every small village.

HazelStone
2009-01-20, 05:46 PM
I'm gonna go with "promiscuity is Chaotic" as a less uncharitable interpretation.

OK, that I could buy.

Fawsto
2009-01-20, 05:55 PM
@ Oslecamo

Geez, I have just finished reading a book about the Fall of Troy. That passage made me laugh =P



The better way to handle this would be to convince the new player to remove all sexual references from her background. Like this:



Raised in a large city, Anya, had an abusive father and a negligent mother. Father would beat, whip, and mistreat her as a teen.

Anya despised her parents, and thought of them as evil people wit no human decency. Growing up in the slums permitted a life style of chaos because the city guard would rarely enter the area, let alone enforce laws in it.

Anya had befriended several of the young beggars and poor people, who educated and protected her to the best of their abilities.

After a life long term as the family kind of slave, Anya took control of her life in more ways than one. At age 18 Anya took a stand against her father. In his drunken rage he went to strike Anya with his whip. After a lashing Anya decided that she had had enough. Grappling with her father, Anya took the whip from her father and strangled him to death with it, in her opinion killing the greatest evil she had ever known.

Leaving her mother alive, Anya gathered her things and left without a word to her mother. She went down to her fellows from her gang, who had been her true friends and family. They banded together to supply Anya with a means of protection as she departed the city making an oath to free children from abusive and evil men, to live a good life, and to never be anyone's slave again.


Personality traits -

Anya despises Men who use any form of whip and abuse children and women.

Anya often finds herself protecting others from harm and danger, hoping that others never have to face the pain she had to as a child.

Anya usually avoids conversations that involve sharing ones past. She likes to focus on the present rather than her horrid past.


I am just feeling bad for acting like a living "censored" filter. But think about this.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-01-20, 05:56 PM
Reasionable? Perfectly. Although not for the reasons you cited.

In short, this reads like a 'Drama Bomb' character, the Roleplay version of a Shock Jock, who plans on disrupting stuff as much as possible. As such, boot to the curb.

For this reason and this reason only would I kick this character out of my game faster than Chuck Norris himself could.

HazelStone
2009-01-20, 05:57 PM
False. There are lots of sexist BDSM enthusiasts, just as there are lots of sexist... firemen or farmers or accountants. But it's not based there, it's based on exactly what you say next, regardless of gender (not to mention there's same-sex BDSM too) :

If you'll pardon a little lapse into feminist shop talk, I mean BDSM generally exists and has come into being in a sexist society. It is essentially a fetishization of sexism, what makes it kinky is that it is "reversing" (though just fake reversing since the man is still in control) the normal dominant/submissive heirarchy. Hypothetical BDSM-ite Bob may or may not be "more" sexist than any other guy, but his kink (however it came about) couldn't exist without the sexist society that spawned it.

If you can stand a really disgusting example, it is like the white person who was raised in an explicitly racist environment who then develops a fetish for "black slave ravishing or being ravished by a white person" scenarios. That particular white person may or may not be an overt racist, but that fantasy wouldn't exist without racism towards blacks and the taboos of interracial sex.

Make sense? I'm not calling out Bob (especially, though he may be a sexist jerk as well) but I am calling out the society that made Bob kinky.

monty
2009-01-20, 06:01 PM
If you'll pardon a little lapse into feminist shop talk, I mean BDSM generally exists and has come into being in a sexist society. It is essentially a fetishization of sexism, what makes it kinky is that it is "reversing" (though just fake reversing since the man is still in control) the normal dominant/submissive heirarchy. Hypothetical BDSM-ite Bob may or may not be "more" sexist than any other guy, but his kink (however it came about) couldn't exist without the sexist society that spawned it.

If you can stand a really disgusting example, it is like the white person who was raised in an explicitly racist environment who then develops a fetish for "black slave ravishing or being ravished by a white person" scenarios. That particular white person may or may not be an overt racist, but that fantasy wouldn't exist without racism towards blacks and the taboos of interracial sex.

Make sense? I'm not calling out Bob (especially, though he may be a sexist jerk as well) but I am calling out the society that made Bob kinky.

Rule 36 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rule+36). Enough said.

thegurullamen
2009-01-20, 06:14 PM
If you'll pardon a little lapse into feminist shop talk, I mean BDSM generally exists and has come into being in a sexist society. It is essentially a fetishization of sexism, what makes it kinky is that it is "reversing" (though just fake reversing since the man is still in control) the normal dominant/submissive heirarchy. Hypothetical BDSM-ite Bob may or may not be "more" sexist than any other guy, but his kink (however it came about) couldn't exist without the sexist society that spawned it.

If you can stand a really disgusting example, it is like the white person who was raised in an explicitly racist environment who then develops a fetish for "black slave ravishing or being ravished by a white person" scenarios. That particular white person may or may not be an overt racist, but that fantasy wouldn't exist without racism towards blacks and the taboos of interracial sex.

Make sense? I'm not calling out Bob (especially, though he may be a sexist jerk as well) but I am calling out the society that made Bob kinky.

I've never liked this explanation. No one knows why people are drawn or pushed to whatever sexuality they end up in. There hasn't been enough quality research on the topic to draw any sorts of meaningful conclusions. This is doubly true for the fringes of sexuality like fetishism and anything outside the mainstream's awareness. And frankly, I don't think sexuality can be as easily summarized as "Microcosm of existing social forces playing out in cathartic and/or reinforcing ways." That's undoubtedly an aspect, but without any knowledge of how influential an aspect it is, it's tantamount to saying nothing.

On a side note, S&M as a by-product of sexism doesn't address it's roots in the gay subculture during the 1960's. Just a quick criticism.

ashmanonar
2009-01-20, 06:14 PM
My point with Guinevere was just that rape is not the same as adultery. One is considered morally dubious, the other is considered horiffic. Adultery would be fine as part of a story, rape wouldn't.

As for Mordred and Guinevere, rape may be implied but it isn't a bit part of the plot and the implication is very different to being shown or happening to a PC.



To the original poster's update; It sounds to me like you've made the right descision.

Aren't you guys forgetting the manner of Arthur's conception? Uther Pendragon convinced Merlin to disguise him as Igraine (I think? I'm blanking on her name)'s wife.

wadledo
2009-01-20, 06:44 PM
I've never liked this explanation. No one knows why people are drawn or pushed to whatever sexuality they end up in. There hasn't been enough quality research on the topic to draw any sorts of meaningful conclusions. This is doubly true for the fringes of sexuality like fetishism and anything outside the mainstream's awareness. And frankly, I don't think sexuality can be as easily summarized as "Microcosm of existing social forces playing out in cathartic and/or reinforcing ways." That's undoubtedly an aspect, but without any knowledge of how influential an aspect it is, it's tantamount to saying nothing.

On a side note, S&M as a by-product of sexism doesn't address it's roots in the gay subculture during the 1960's. Just a quick criticism.

While this isn't exactly right, and I don't agree with what I'm about to say in the least:

Freud.
He is the answer to all things sexual.

I need to make that a T-shirt.:smallbiggrin:

thegurullamen
2009-01-20, 06:47 PM
Freud.
He is the answer to all things sexual.

I retract my criticisms.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-20, 07:10 PM
As fascinating as all this BDSM discussion is, really, the only things relevent here are:
Will this make for an interesting, engaging character who takes her share of the spotlight, rather than too much more or too much less?
Is this character reasonable given the setting?
Will this character be one with which the other players and the DM are generally comfortable with?

I like Fawsto's editing of the character background. Makes it so this player's character should be able to meet the above three criteria. :smallsmile:

Myou
2009-01-20, 08:11 PM
Aren't you guys forgetting the manner of Arthur's conception? Uther Pendragon convinced Merlin to disguise him as Igraine (I think? I'm blanking on her name)'s wife.

We obviously didn't read the same version of these legends. o.O

Templarkommando
2009-01-20, 08:20 PM
First and foremost, you are the DM. If you think this character would hurt the cohesiveness of your party in a way that is unacceptable, then tell her to decide on a different background. You should especially ask her to rewrite her backstory if you have players in your group that would be upset by this particular backstory.

On another note, just because your society is based upon medieval themes, it does not mean you have to be completely true to them. Even though women were second class citizens in the middle ages, does not mean they have to be in your campaign world.

Incidentally there are several examples from medieval/renaissance culture of hookers becoming powerful and influential members of society. I'm having trouble finding my source right now, but imagine a harlot who has dirt on every stuck up noble in town. Sounds like power and influence to me.

Oslecamo
2009-01-20, 08:20 PM
Aren't you guys forgetting the manner of Arthur's conception? Uther Pendragon convinced Merlin to disguise him as Igraine (I think? I'm blanking on her name)'s wife.

Don't you mean husband? He disguised himself as a man, not a women.

ericgrau
2009-01-20, 08:46 PM
So, male characters can turn evil from having too much sex? Or is it just those slutty female abuse victims?

I was referring more to prostitution and so forth. There was a strong implication of extreme bondage, possibly violence, etc. in the post, for example. But it wasn't said expressly so I can't say if that's what the player trying. So I said "if".

Nightson
2009-01-20, 08:49 PM
I was referring more to prostitution and so forth. There was a strong implication of extreme bondage, possibly violence, etc. in the post, for example. But it wasn't said expressly so I can't say.

So prostitution and/or bondage is evil now?

Matthew
2009-01-20, 08:50 PM
My point with Guinevere was just that rape is not the same as adultery. One is considered morally dubious, the other is considered horiffic. Adultery would be fine as part of a story, rape wouldn't.

As for Mordred and Guinevere, rape may be implied but it isn't a bit part of the plot and the implication is very different to being shown or happening to a PC.

You are clearly not familiar enough with medieval literature. Go and read this article: Perverse and Contrary Deeds: The Giant of Mont Saint Michael and the Alliterative Morte Arthure (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ptMXwuDxa-sC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=Giant+of+Mont+Saint&source=web&ots=9G6aA5vrBu&sig=azVQn8pKCDojE9uYlTtBnGaDXwo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA116,M1). :smallwink:

ericgrau
2009-01-20, 08:50 PM
So prostitution and/or bondage is evil now?

Prostitution I assumed so. For bondage I said "extreme", e.g. involving violence, non consent or so on.

Karma Guard
2009-01-20, 09:07 PM
Prostitution I assumed so. For bondage I said "extreme", e.g. involving violence, non consent or so on.

Non-con is evil, but consenting to the 'violence' makes it perfectly okay.

Seriously. If they like being beat in their bedrooms, it's not evil if their partner busts out the whips and paddles. :V

Thurbane
2009-01-20, 09:21 PM
D&D != generic medieval setting

Your setting might be, but the default setting isn't 1500s Europe. It's Greyhawk, where there are Good gods of joy and love and yes, even dominatrices, that people know about and accept.

In other words, D&D isn't judeo-christian centric.
Seconded 100%.

It took me many years to get my own head around this concept. :smallredface:

Myrmex
2009-01-20, 09:27 PM
Have you ever read Dan Savage's advice column in The Stranger called Savage Love? It's full of really bizarre kinks that people write in about having. One particular one that sticks with me is a gay man who wanted to have his lover push a loaf of white bread into his face while they had sex. So um, yeah, rule 36.

Devils_Advocate
2009-01-20, 10:37 PM
Point of order: "Considered wrong" = Chaotic. Hurts others = Evil.


Their last character was an elven druidess, named Evelyn (cliched name). Said character had a wolf for a companion, named Angel (even more cliched). This character's only background information was that her entire race of elves was wiped out by a tribe of ogres. Not bad; it gives the character motivation. But here's the thing: she never acted on that motivation. Hell, she didn't do anything half the time. A good chunk of the game involved her following me, and since our characters barely knew each other, mine thought she was some sort of stalker. She never tried looking for the ogres for revenge, she never seemed edge or nervous when traveling in the woods.
It sounds like she was just frightened and shy -- but in need of a friend -- instead of vengeful. Unless her character description talked about her wanting revenge.

There's nothing wrong with giving a character a typical name.

As others have said, you're free to define the culture of your own setting, but it's probably best to just say "I'd rather you not play a character with such an angsty background", or "I'd be more comfortable with a character less overtly sexual", or whatever the exact problem you have with it is. You don't have to specifiy "...because I don't think you can roleplay a character like that well."

Although, as I alluded to above, your dislike of her roleplaying isn't just a matter of what she does, but how you respond to it. Maybe you could try to adopt a more forgiving perspective. But that's far more easily said than done, for anyone, obviously.

xanaphia
2009-01-20, 11:03 PM
I have read a lot of Arthurian and Norse literature and I've never come across anything like that myself.

But I'm talking about roleplaying games anyway, not literature. I would not be happy either as a DM or player in a game where one of my party members was a sex-obsesed, raped, abused whore.

As I said, it's just my opinion, but none of those things are appropriate for a game of D&D. I have nothing against people writing about such topics, but roleplaying them is not something I would like to do.

I find that sex should almost never be included in a D&D game.


It is uncomfortable for the players who don't want it.
Someone could interpret it wrong. It's like making comedy movies with explicit sex in them; people interpret it wrong.
People will think you're a bunch of perverts.
In this case, this would atract attention to one player too much.


Also, the idea that a girl who was sexually and otherwise abused grows up to be a dominatrix is sort of ridiculous.

I'd ask them not to, if I were the DM.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-20, 11:16 PM
I find that sex should almost never be included in a D&D game.


It is uncomfortable for the players who don't want it.
Someone could interpret it wrong. It's like making comedy movies with explicit sex in them; people interpret it wrong.
People will think you're a bunch of perverts.
In this case, this would atract attention to one player too much.


I'm going to pretty much agree (as many others have). I mean, some inneundo and "off-camera" relations with NPCs is generally fine in a decently mature and not-too-prudish group, but any serious sexual elements or sex-oriented PCs are /only/ appropriate in a group where you are all mature, know each other and each other's comfort levels quite well, and all members of the group are aware such elements will be included and are entirely fine with that.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-01-20, 11:22 PM
To me it sounds like either the player is wanting some attention or perhaps projecting some of their own issues onto the character. I'm not saying the player is a crazy-person or anything, but the way the background is written in such...erm...detail... seems a bit over-the-top.


My thoughts exactly. The whole concept seems a little immature to me.

HazelStone
2009-01-20, 11:56 PM
I've never liked this explanation. No one knows why people are drawn or pushed to whatever sexuality they end up in. There hasn't been enough quality research on the topic to draw any sorts of meaningful conclusions. This is doubly true for the fringes of sexuality like fetishism and anything outside the mainstream's awareness. And frankly, I don't think sexuality can be as easily summarized as "Microcosm of existing social forces playing out in cathartic and/or reinforcing ways." That's undoubtedly an aspect, but without any knowledge of how influential an aspect it is, it's tantamount to saying nothing.

On a side note, S&M as a by-product of sexism doesn't address it's roots in the gay subculture during the 1960's. Just a quick criticism.

Again, I'm going to argue from example as I think it is easier understood and less boring than going into a bunch of gender studies stuff. Let's say our hypothetical "Bob" has a Wonder Woman fetish. Could that fetish exist if Wonder Woman had never been written? No. Bob's fetish may be a lot more complicated than that (Bob's first kiss happened with a girl in a a WW costume, after his parent's divorce and while he was hopped up on prozac, yadda yadda yadda) but it still had to have WW exist for it to exist. Are people's fetishes more complicated than just "wow, sexism is out there?" Yes. But sexism is still out there. And BDSM is the re-enactment of that.

And BTW, the gay subculture is just that, a subculture of our dominant sexist culture. Ever seen leather daddies? Think they might be acting out some fetishization of masculinity? Just an idea there. Again, those leather daddies may be the least sexist guys ever, but their particular take on their sexuality came about in a society with gender roles. Just because you have a homosexual bent doesn't mean you are immune to sexism or being sexist.

KevLar
2009-01-21, 12:48 AM
what makes it kinky is that it is "reversing" (though just fake reversing since the man is still in control) the normal dominant/submissive heirarchy.

But.. but... but BDSM works for every conceivable combination of genders (dominant male/submissive female, dominant female/submissive male, dominant male/submissive male, dominant female/submissive female.... and I won't even get into threesomes. :smalltongue:) It's not the "reversing" that makes it kinky, because this doesn't apply in all cases, not even most cases.


Make sense? I'm not calling out Bob (especially, though he may be a sexist jerk as well) but I am calling out the society that made Bob kinky.
OK, I understand what you're saying, here's how I see it. If there's an element without which BDSM wouldn't possibly exist, it's not sexism. It's authoritarianism in general (of which sexism is merely a subcategory). Because the defining quality is control and dominance, regardless of gender.


But sexism is still out there. And BDSM is the re-enactment of that.
Or, to adopt a broader scope again, authoritarianism is still out there, and BDSM is the re-enactment of that. Sometimes it includes sexism. Sometimes it doesn't.

PS- We mostly agree here, we just focus on different angles of more or less the same perspective. :)

thegurullamen
2009-01-21, 01:17 AM
Yeah, what KevLar said. Except with the proviso about needing more quality research.

Myou
2009-01-21, 03:25 AM
You are clearly not familiar enough with medieval literature. Go and read this article: Perverse and Contrary Deeds: The Giant of Mont Saint Michael and the Alliterative Morte Arthure (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ptMXwuDxa-sC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=Giant+of+Mont+Saint&source=web&ots=9G6aA5vrBu&sig=azVQn8pKCDojE9uYlTtBnGaDXwo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA116,M1). :smallwink:

Given the subject of this thread, I think I'll be giving that a miss. Dx
But thanks anyway! xD


Slightly more on topic, I noticed a talk about BDSM, homosexuals and sexist sexual roles. Why was I not informed?!

Khanderas
2009-01-21, 03:32 AM
I got no problems with a runaway from a broken home, even one such as described by this player, up to and including the molestations and killing her own father. Infact I see some character frames (this background lends for more ideas on reactions then say "farmgirl who got tired of milking cows and left to kill stuff for money") and hooks being made there (seeing abuse could set off her retalitary mood for example, leading her into all sorts of trouble / action... easy plothooks for the DM).

However, I do not see how it would be a good idea to roleplay someone of the sexual proffessions, dubious on "vanilla" version but certainly not as a dominatrix, triple bad as a travelling dominatrix, quadruple so in a society where women are legally and traditionally "less" then a man.

Keep the whip taken from her father as a memento, reminder to never let herself be downtrodden again. Good, good.
If the dominatrix part needs to be around, she needs a plausable way to do it and a plausable reason for it. Just "I find a John who likes to be beat so I beat him up alittle" won't cut it.
If angsting is allowed (and that is a big IF, from your description perhaps not advisable in this players case), the PC can crave the BDSM, but hates herself for liking it. Being paranoid about it, she takes the dominatrix role while both despising and envying her sub.



My reccomendation is to keep the background, drop the dominatrix part (wich is, as mentioned something only the rich would even bother with and they would not accept to be whipped by some unknown countrygirl who was brought up in a whorehouse) and add alittle vigilante to her.

That is, in the world you paint as a DM, where women somewhat second class (if that is how you want it done, DnD seems to be same worth but different degrees of role-assignment-due-to-gender or gender altogether ignored, statwise and otherwise), she may have to be smart about it.
A wife getting beat by her husband may not be something the law would do anything about but the PC would take offense and perhaps action for the downtrodden woman with mentioned PC's background.

If she is smart about it, subtle action. But normal action (beat the abusers up) would definatly explain why she keeps moving and with a band of others (mutual protection in the wilderness).

Edit: And this way, she would "have" to act on things the DM places out. Instead of doing what she did back when she was an elf-genocided-by-ogres-who-didnt-actually-use-that-background, she would have to speak up (or beat up) when abuse showed itself around her. Need more drama ? Have an important NPC, who the PC's need as an ally, be a wifebeater. Want the party to investigate the decadant nobles affairs ? The son in that familiy beats up prostitutes.
Naturally not all things the party does have to, or should, include her particular problem, but it should get her more active if she is slacking on initiative in the game.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-21, 06:27 AM
So, male characters can turn evil from having too much sex? Or is it just those slutty female abuse victims?

Well, everyone knows that it's only immoral for women to be loose because they are property...

Er, wait, what, this isn't the 14th century? Drat.

That attitude wouldn't even exist to begin with in most D&D fantasy settings, because most of them are very egilitarian. (For fairly sensible reasons, like that it doesn't really matter if men are bigger and stronger, when women are just as capable of spellcasting, which beats big and strong any day.)

Since BoEF was already mentioned, this reminded me of the excellent depictions/descriptions of "loose" characters of Good alignments, including a LG Paladin. Casual sex is, in your typical D&D fantasy world (most of which, like Faerūn, have oddly convenient and surefire herbal contraceptives!), almost certainly not even socially frowned upon, and definitely not cosmically evil (i.e. Evil-aligned or non-Good; not even Chaotic or non-Lawful). It's about characterization and personal choices rather than alignment.

I'll grant, though, that the general sexual freedom of Faerūn can be attributed to Ed Greenwood being a horny old goat who uses novels and games in the setting as a vehicle for horny-old-goatiness...


I was referring more to prostitution and so forth.

Prostitution still isn't evil. Pimping and slavery are evil, but the act of taking money for performing a service (one that you'd be free to give away for nothing in modern society, oddly enough) is not.


Point of order: "Considered wrong" = Chaotic.

No, that doesn't work either. Chaotics consider a lot of things wrong, and those things are not thereby chaotic.


If you've ever done rule-less RP on the internet, you have seen this profile before. There's no real tie to anyone in fiction, it's just a player being 'look at me look at me I'm tragic and special!'. This is a bad profile, man.

Oh lawdy yes. I've been MUSHin for over 6 years now, and I can't count the amount of characters with sexual abuse in their backgrounds "just because." I also can't count the number of incredibly bad rape plots I ran into during the several years I played a watchman in a MUSH...


Re: King Arthur folklore - Arthur as a young man/boy is seduced by his elder half-sister Morgraine.

It goes further back than that. In most versions, Arthur's father, Uther, rapes Arthur's mother (by deceit rather than force, but it's still nonconsensual sex, since consent was acquired with a magical illusion). King Arthur wouldn't have been even born without rape. That's some clean, wholesome mythology for you right there! (Why d'yall think the Disney film omitted the circumstances of Arthur's birth altogether?)


We obviously didn't read the same version of these legends. o.O

Holy crap, what versions have you read? Uther raping Igraine in a magical disguise is straight from Mallory's Le Morte d'Arthur, which is as canon as you can get (because earlier sources won't include some parts of the myth now considered essential).


If you'll pardon a little lapse into feminist shop talk, I mean BDSM generally exists and has come into being in a sexist society.

This is undeniable true of anything that has come to exist in society at all. Western society, and most other societies in the world, have always been and still are sexist and patriarchal.

That doesn't mean, though, that BDSM is automatically sexist itself. It cannot be free of those influences, since nothing can, but it does not necessarily embrace them.


It is essentially a fetishization of sexism

This I don't agree with, since BDSM goes both ways. It's a fetishization of power, definitely, but it's also consensual and done for fun. While it is obviously true that some people are into BDSM for bad reasons or don't practice it in a way that truly is safe, sane, and consensual, I would think that in general we can give people who are into it the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they (even the lifestylers) can separate sex play from reality.

It also seems unlikely that BDSM would not exist without sexist power structures. Some people just get off on it, and it is impossible to tell why. (Just like it is with any sexual kink, which are formed for a variety of reasons, often probably related to earliest sexual experiences.) It is obviously possible that some - many? - of them developed these preferences for primary reasons other than the sexist society they live in. (Indeed, most accounts I've read from bottoms suggest that it's mainly a matter of being able to abdicate responsibility for yourself, which they find very liberating. This is probably the reason why powerful men frequenting dominatrixes is such a trope.)

I also don't get the assertion that the man is still in control. Either person - no matter their gender - may be in control. The top may be in control, or the bottom may be in control, and either may be man, woman, or whatever else. (We ain't gender-binary here!) How you can claim to know who is "really in control" is beyond me. If I'm handcuffed to a bed, I am literally not in control of anything at all, and that is practically vanilla. (And that's just the physical dimension of it. The actual domination is mental.)

Edit/Addition:

BDSM is a fetishization of power structures. The most prominent - currently and historically - power structure is the patriarchal one, which permeates societies. Patriarchy is sexist. But that does not mean that power structures are, in themselves, sexist. Even if patriarchy and sexism were wiped out, power structures will form. Even in the most equal of relationships (this meaning any interaction between any people), there will be some kind of power going some way(s), because that's how people work. If you're influencing someone, that's power. If someone becomes used to you influencing them, that becomes a tiny power structure. These grow. What feminism and other progressive movements are about is recognizing and combating harmful power structures, educating people to think about power and how it can hurt people, and the like. We won't ever be able to eradicate power, though (just like we will never be able to eradicate notions like "beauty" - it's just too essential to the human condition; we can, however, teach people to not put importance on it and understand its subjectivity).

Sexism and BDSM are both subsets of power, but neither is the other. They can be found together (see Goreans, who are, oddly enough, generally reviled in BDSM circles), but do not have to be.

KevLar
2009-01-21, 09:26 AM
Sexism and BDSM are both subsets of power, but neither is the other. They can be found together (see Goreans, who are, oddly enough, generally reviled in BDSM circles), but do not have to be.
Yeap, that's exactly what I've been saying.
However, I think that Goreans are reviled because they ignore the SSC rule on principle, have no safewords etc. - and not so much because of the sexist attitude.

(Maybe they are reviled on literary grounds? These novels are mindbogglingly poorly written, after all. I think somewhere at Vol. 19, John Norman finally admitted it: it all happens for Revenge. Revenge for the poor human male, not on Gor but on this earth, to whom women say "no" frequently.
Gee, we would never have guessed...)

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-21, 09:35 AM
(Maybe they are reviled on literary grounds? These novels are mindbogglingly poorly written, after all. I think somewhere at Vol. 19, John Norman finally admitted it: it all happens for Revenge. Revenge for the poor human male, not on Gor but on this earth, to whom women say "no" frequently.
Gee, we would never have guessed...)

I bet John Norman and Dave Sim would get along so well.

You probably won't be surprised that Cerebus started turning into an "anti-feminist" manifesto and vessel of sexual anxieties after Sim's divorce.

Saph
2009-01-21, 12:11 PM
This is undeniable true of anything that has come to exist in society at all. Western society, and most other societies in the world, have always been and still are sexist and patriarchal.

I'd say that Western society is both patriarchal and matriarchal, like all functioning societies. In some areas, women have more influence; in some areas, men do. Discrimination based on sex is common enough, but also goes both ways - there are plenty of areas where you'll be treated better if you're a woman than you're a man, and plenty of areas where the opposite is true.

I actually agree with most of the rest of your post, so don't take offence. :) But please stay away from the "men are oppressors, women are victims" stuff. In my experience it never leads to good results.

- Saph

HazelStone
2009-01-21, 12:30 PM
But.. but... but BDSM works for every conceivable combination of genders (dominant male/submissive female, dominant female/submissive male, dominant male/submissive male, dominant female/submissive female.... and I won't even get into threesomes. :smalltongue:) It's not the "reversing" that makes it kinky, because this doesn't apply in all cases, not even most cases.
I was speaking about the "reversing" part because I was specifically addressing the concept of dominatrix/man relationships and if that makes the dominatrix "powerful."



OK, I understand what you're saying, here's how I see it. If there's an element without which BDSM wouldn't possibly exist, it's not sexism. It's authoritarianism in general (of which sexism is merely a subcategory). Because the defining quality is control and dominance, regardless of gender.

Or, to adopt a broader scope again, authoritarianism is still out there, and BDSM is the re-enactment of that. Sometimes it includes sexism. Sometimes it doesn't.



BDSM is a fetishization of power structures. The most prominent - currently and historically - power structure is the patriarchal one, which permeates societies. Patriarchy is sexist. But that does not mean that power structures are, in themselves, sexist. Even if patriarchy and sexism were wiped out, power structures will form.

Well, Tsotha-lanti and Kev, the radical feminist (which I am) take on this is that patriarchal authority is the source or blueprint for all other forms of oppression. I could go into more detail on this, but really it is a long and complex argument. You should really read some Dworkin, de Beauvoir (for a marxist/feminist take) or Firestone rather than have me do an amateur explanation. But short answer is that I disagree, if there is no patriarchy there will be no BDSM because there will no longer be any coercion or genders to fetishize. No gender roles to "play" with. No coercion or power dynamics to enact or up-end.

Pretty hard to imagine, eh?

Narmoth
2009-01-21, 12:50 PM
I'd like to play a half celestial paladin in that group :smallbiggrin:

Now, there's a few modifications to be made if you are planning to run a "realistic" medieval setting:
1. It's not the wives, but the clergy that chase her from town to town. Some might even think of burning her at the stake (although witch burning isn't a medieval thing, but came gradually in the 15th and 16th century, culminating in the 17 century)
2. To make her trade, she would have to have someone advertizing her presence and the type of services she is selling. As opposed to simple whoring, that could be done simply by being at the right place at the right time, she would need a pimp. The modern version of the pimp didn't exist in the medieval period, although brothels were. You could use a brothel guild or even the thieves guild for this purpose.
3. No, she wouldn't be an accepted member of the society, and would be banned from churches, nobles homes (officially) and any interaction with high officials
4. Although I haven't studied it, I expect most of her clients to prefer to be the dom. rather than the sub.

Now, the important question is:
what is the background giving to the campaign?

kamikasei
2009-01-21, 01:11 PM
Well, Tsotha-lanti and Kev, the radical feminist (which I am) take on this is that patriarchal authority is the source or blueprint for all other forms of oppression... if there is no patriarchy there will be no BDSM because there will no longer be any coercion or genders to fetishize. No gender roles to "play" with. No coercion or power dynamics to enact or up-end.

Pretty hard to imagine, eh?

If it's your position that patriarchy and sexism are at the root of all oppression, authoritarianism, and even power dynamics, then why single out BDSM as inherently sexist? Wouldn't that make any power structure of any kind that wasn't some kind of perfect egalitarian utopia inherently sexist and rooted in patriarchy? That seems rather untenable to me.

Humans have a drive to act on their environment, the kind of basic drive that sees babies knock over their blocks and giggle with joy because they've caused a change, never mind whether it's constructive or interesting. Their environment includes their fellow humans. People exert power over one another. Power is unequally distributed of a necessity, because there are so many things that can give one person power over another that equalizing them all is basically impossible. Therefore, power relationships will exist.

Certainly you can argue that the power structures that have existed in history and persist today exacerbate this more than others that might have existed, but I see no merit in the position that without the notion of patriarchy we would have no oppression or exploitation or even simply coercion, manipulation, or use of leverage.

Another_Poet
2009-01-21, 02:17 PM
When two full pages go by and no word from the original poster...


http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4799/derailedverbiageri9.jpg

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-21, 02:17 PM
I'd say that Western society is both patriarchal and matriarchal, like all functioning societies. In some areas, women have more influence; in some areas, men do. Discrimination based on sex is common enough, but also goes both ways - there are plenty of areas where you'll be treated better if you're a woman than you're a man, and plenty of areas where the opposite is true.

This is a common misunderstanding of oppression in general. The popular conception of discrimination - racism, sexism, ableism, etc. - is that it's an attitude held by individuals. This is bad, because it trivializes the real problem, and blows stupid incidents of, e.g., someone using a slur out of proportion. But individuals are entitled to any damn attitude and opinion they want to hold, no matter how repulsive, so long as it does not actually infringe on other people physically or concretely. What should be changed are power structures, because discrimination without power behind it is toothless. The power structures of Western society (and practically all societies) are patriarchal and sexist (and racist, and nationalist, and so on...) - power is held by men, and men are privileged over women in countless ways. That's what needs to be changed. If that is changed, individual attitudes will also begin to change, since they are informed by society and power structures.

Changing the opinions of a whole bunch of individuals is not necessarily useful, because those individuals do not necessarily have the power to change the oppressive and discriminatory institutions that inform society.


Pretty hard to imagine, eh?

It is, yes, and that's something we won't ever find common ground on, I suspect, because it speaks to fundamental differences in the way we think people function. I think I alluded to beauty before - I think it would be wonderful if we could entirely rid ourselves of notions of beauty, but I don't think the human brain is capable of not finding things appealing or attractive. It's instinct, and while we can learn to process instinct in really complex ways, we can't get rid of it.

I do, however, respect the hell out of your radical approach, because it's so uncompromising, and it's still the same good fight. (That, and I believe the difference we perceive is practically metaphysical - untestable.)


This is such a huge OT, but I can't resist when the topic is so important and engaging.

KevLar
2009-01-21, 02:30 PM
You should really read some Dworkin, de Beauvoir (for a marxist/feminist take) or Firestone rather than have me do an amateur explanation.
I've read Dworkin, I'd recommend Evelyn Reed, and I'm most familiar with Simone de Beauvoir. Apart from The Second Sex, which everyone should read, there's also the short, concise and very much relevant "Must We Burn Sade?". Short answer: no. :smallamused:


if there is no patriarchy there will be no BDSM because there will no longer be any coercion or genders to fetishize. No gender roles to "play" with. No coercion or power dynamics to enact or up-end.
Hypothetically, what if there's matriarchy instead? Would there be coercion then? BDSM? Power dynamics to enact or up-end?

Why, of course there would! Because the key word, or part of the word in this case, is not the first one, which defines the gender of the progenitor in charge (father or mother). It's the -archy part. "Authority". The fact that someone is in charge. I find this... self-evident really.

Hypothetically again, what if there is no gender discrimination at all, but power tends to concentrate in the hands of... tall people. Or people with one green and one brown eye, like David Bowie. Or people with names starting with the letter G. Or (somewhat less hypothetically...) people with large incomes or guns or both. Would there be coercion and power dynamics and BDSM then? What would Simone say?

...
OK, I didn't mean to sound sassy, but honestly, I find this a classic case of "spotting the tree, missing the forest". Of course everything is connected. Of course patriarchy played a major role in defining the current social structure, and of course this includes coercion, oppression, and the seven deadly sins. That doesn't make it the sole culprit. It makes it the carrier and the symptom. You'll have to dig deeper to find the culprit.

And I'm not saying that "it's human nature, alas, can't be helped", mind you. All I'm saying is that if you focus on one aspect too much, you'll invariably end up missing the big picture. :)

PS - And I still believe we generally agree, but take it from slightly different angles. :)

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-21, 02:45 PM
I, for one, will gladly submit to the Bowiecracy.

HazelStone
2009-01-21, 02:45 PM
If it's your position that patriarchy and sexism are at the root of all oppression, authoritarianism, and even power dynamics, then why single out BDSM as inherently sexist? Wouldn't that make any power structure of any kind that wasn't some kind of perfect egalitarian utopia inherently sexist and rooted in patriarchy? That seems rather untenable to me.
I wasn't singling it out, but this entire thread did get started talking specifically about BDSM. Believe me, I think all sex is tinged by sexism because we are all living in a patriarchy. Obviously, some more than others. But you can't just "opt out" of living in a sexist culture. You can do your best to ameliorate it, but you are still in it.

And yes, I DO think any power structure is inherently rooted in patriarchy. That doesn't mean every single power relationship is always "Teh Evil," but they are operating in that patriarchal system. And they are at risk of becoming oppressive. And they self perpetuate their own hierarchical, coercive system.

Because of this, some argue we're never going to destroy the Patriarchy and these oppressive modes. Even so, knowing it exists, how it works and the dangers to people makes it possible for us (again) to ameliorate it as best we can and act for change withing the (flawed, crappy) system we have.


Humans have a drive to act on their environment, the kind of basic drive that sees babies knock over their blocks and giggle with joy because they've caused a change, never mind whether it's constructive or interesting.

Their environment includes their fellow humans. People exert power over one another. Power is unequally distributed of a necessity, because there are so many things that can give one person power over another that equalizing them all is basically impossible. Therefore, power relationships will exist.

Certainly you can argue that the power structures that have existed in history and persist today exacerbate this more than others that might have existed, but I see no merit in the position that without the notion of patriarchy we would have no oppression or exploitation or even simply coercion, manipulation, or use of leverage.

A. Changing things is not the same thing as coercing or oppressing people.

B. People do have circumstances that COULD give us power over each other, but we do not have to exercise that power over another. That we can choose to say, cooperate rather than compete or help someone rather than cheat or bully them is the reason I think we could somehow, at some time, structure a way of living where we are not doing that as a matter of course.

Right now all the theories about doing so are pretty much scifi (women no longer give birth, the nuclear family no longer exists, there is no economy or wages system as such) but it is still a hope. Often our social structures force or at least heavily pressure us into acting out the "power over" dynamic. That is the CRUX of the RadFem critique. As long as the system we are operating in self-perpetuates and pushes people into thinking and acting in this patriarchal way, women and other marginalized and oppressed people are at risk. And sadly, as our power as a species grows through technology and larger, more amoral, more entrenched institutions of power those risks become more and more serious.

C. YES! We have made progress. The lot of women and other oppressed groups is better (in some places, if you want to see how bad it can be in this day and age, read about what is going on in the Congo right now, or google news on human traffiking) than it was in eras past (depending on the era).

But in the words of Andrea Dworkin, "Reforms are made, important ones; but the status of women relative to men does not change. Women are still less significant, have less privacy, less integrity, less self-determination. This means that women have less freedom. Freedom is not an abstraction, nor is a little of it enough. A little more of it is not enough either."

D. We're getting into some pretty out-there theory now, but again, radical feminists believe that Patriarchy was and is the blueprint for D/S and oppression. But now that it is started, it has reached a lot of momentum. I'd argue if any one gender disappeared for some reason, we'd still have to deal with the oppression/dominance/coercion problem because the remaining people would just apply the same old system to the remaining group of humans. Does that mean sex and gender has nothing to do with oppression? No, but that's where (in the RadFem worldview) it got its start and "game plan."

Edit: I posted this gigantic thing BEFORE I read T and Kev's subsequent posts. I do think we are on the same side, mostly, but I also enjoy discussing the finer points. And I always like a chance to sharpen my discussion skills in a friendly space.

thegurullamen
2009-01-21, 03:27 PM
Because of this, some argue we're never going to destroy the Patriarchy and these oppressive modes. Even so, knowing it exists, how it works and the dangers to people makes it possible for us (again) to ameliorate it as best we can and act for change withing the (flawed, crappy) system we have.

Pardon me for being Status Quo Joe, but if the Patriarchy is infused in literally everything, isn't the idea that we can overthrow it both impractical and detrimental to the society as a whole? Something that entrenched in a culture is going to be a large linchpin for certain things, not all of them bad or even a little oppressive.


A. Changing things is not the same thing as coercing or oppressing people.

Depends on which side of the human-nature divide you're on.


B. People do have circumstances that COULD give us power over each other, but we do not have to exercise that power over another. That we can choose to say, cooperate rather than compete or help someone rather than cheat or bully them is the reason I think we could somehow, at some time, structure a way of living where we are not doing that as a matter of course.

Right now all the theories about doing so are pretty much scifi (women no longer give birth, the nuclear family no longer exists, there is no economy or wages system as such) but it is still a hope. Often our social structures force or at least heavily pressure us into acting out the "power over" dynamic. That is the CRUX of the RadFem critique. As long as the system we are operating in self-perpetuates and pushes people into thinking and acting in this patriarchal way, women and other marginalized and oppressed people are at risk. And sadly, as our power as a species grows through technology and larger, more amoral, more entrenched institutions of power those risks become more and more serious.

People are born to power. It's what we do. We wake up, learn to talk, learn to walk, and then we start changing the nearby world to suit us. We change as much as within our grasp. But this isn't just made up of objects. People play a large role in shaping our world, especially at an early age and especially in ways that we hate. (Mom force feeding her kids broccoli comes to mind.) Eventually, we learn the skills necessary to control the actions of others; we lie, we cheat, we manipulate, we extort, we steal. If society does its job well, we learn where the line is: what lies shouldn't be told, what thefts shouldn't be made, why murder is wrong, etc. But, under all of that, we are given silent consent to do everything up to that imaginary line. Not from society, but from the drive to survive. If something enhances your chance to survive, you take it.* Structuring a society around the opposite, that of paramount respect for people, can and has worked. What you can't do, though, is form a society based around preventing power structures from existing. It's been tried many times before and each one has been a dismal failure because of corruption or manipulation from a small number of "evil" people. People are bastards. Men [I]and [I]women. The will to power (i.e. live) will prevail, regardless of sex.


C. YES! We have made progress. The lot of women and other oppressed groups is better (in some places, if you want to see how bad it can be in this day and age, read about what is going on in the Congo right now, or google news on human traffiking) than it was in eras past (depending on the era).

But in the words of Andrea Dworkin, "Reforms are made, important ones; but the status of women relative to men does not change. Women are still less significant, have less privacy, less integrity, less self-determination. This means that women have less freedom. Freedom is not an abstraction, nor is a little of it enough. A little more of it is not enough either."

I have some problems with this section, but they're minor. I can agree with a large portion of the spirit.


D. We're getting into some pretty out-there theory now, but again, radical feminists believe that Patriarchy was and is the blueprint for D/S and oppression. But now that it is started, it has reached a lot of momentum. I'd argue if any one gender disappeared for some reason, we'd still have to deal with the oppression/dominance/coercion problem because the remaining people would just apply the same old system to the remaining group of humans. Does that mean sex and gender has nothing to do with oppression? No, but that's where (in the RadFem worldview) it got its start and "game plan."

If one gender disappeared, I wouldn't much worry until all hell broke loose as humanity realized it would soon end.

And yes, the old system would be applied because global chaos needs to be curbed. No better way to do that than to use existing power structures to ensure relative peace. There's no way someone can instantly form a new government based solely on idealism. You have to work with the underlying structure to implement grand sweeping changes, even in a climate suited for it. And even then, the effectiveness of the old system puts the new one on the spot: does it do everything the old system does and if not, do its strengths shore up those weaknesses? If you can't prove it to be at least 110% as effective as the old one, people will probably balk. (Change is bad.) I'm not saying the feminists couldn't have such a system planned, I'm saying it's a hell of an undertaking and one I'd wager to be impossible.

And, back to DS, if you're saying that once, long ago, Patriarchy got its start and now today, certain patterns that have persisted over time are making themselves prevalent in every aspect of society, doesn't that make Patriarchy a skeleton of sorts, upholding a large number of things? (Yes, I'm aware it's a ridiculous position to take, but work with me: I'm trying to mete out the underlying argument being presented.)

*This can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Physical survival is implied, but the many cases of self-sacrifice made to help another or an abstract cause (via martyrdom) still qualify. Humans are a communal creature, after all, but their base drive is always survival. Sometimes this is survival of the group, which is just as easy to "succumb" to power plays.

Neko Toast
2009-01-21, 03:29 PM
I'm officially changing the subject now.

So, it was a few days ago that I declined the character, so she sent me info for the new one now.


Name: Anya
Level & Class: 4th level Fighter
Alignment & Deity: Neutral Good - Akadi
Physical traits: White Hair, a constant slight breeze in their presence, blue eyes, normal skin tone for female human (white).
Height/Weight/Age: 5 foot 5 inches - 125lbs - 20 years old

Racial Benefits:
Outsider-(Native)
-2 to Wisdom and Charisma
+2 Dexterity and Intelligence
Dark-vision (60ft)
Levitate (Sp)
+1 on saves vs. air magics, +1 per five levels
Level Adjustment +1 (Already adjusted to level)

Her feats, five in total, include two racial feats from Races of Faerun.

Racial Feats:

Elemental Bloodline: Genasi gets +4 on saves vs poison, sleep, paralysis, and stunning. You also have 25% chance to turn a critical or sneak hit into a normal hit.

Improved Levitation: Your natural ability to levitate as a spell-like ability
can be used in increments of ten minutes. (5 times for ten minutes each)

Normal Feats:

Exotic weapon: Double bladed sword
Weapon focus: Double bladed sword
Weapon specialization: Double bladed sword

Background:

Born in a far off land, Anya had never known her mother.
Raised by her father, a retired soldier of the Ash-Field's town guard, Anya had grown up around weaponry, armor, and violence for the majority of her life.

Always being eyed from afar by towns folk, Anya had always been thought of as a demon child by the town because of her white hair. Without proof of these claims the villagers often avoided Anya.

Anya began training to become a town guard early at the age of ten. With her training she became talented in the use of her father's double bladed sword. She often would sneak his old armor and weaponry out of the house and train in it, in order to get use to the weight of the gear.

Anya's fifteenth birthday is a memory that has been etched into her mind since daylight broke over the horizon. After waking up to close a drafty open window Anya discovered the power that had lied dormant in her blood. A constant breeze had surrounded Anya. Where ever she went it followed her. Wondering what to make of this strange occurrence she asked her father what was going on.

Anya's father feared that something like this would happen. He told Anya that her mother had bared the same white hair and unmistakable breeze that surrounded Anya. He also explained the reason that Anya had never had a chance to meet her mother.

Anya's mother, an Air Genasi, had never been welcome in Ash-Field. The town folk did not understand her strange powers and thought of her as a demon. They only allowed her to stay because she was pregnant.

After she gave birth many of the towns members wished for her to leave, but she refused. Because of their belief that Anya's mother was a demon, several of the towns members decided to force the Air Genasi out of town.

Ambushing Anya's mother only a few short months after giving birth, five towns men attacked the Air Genasi. Refusing to leave behind her child the mother fought back and killed three of her attackers. Unfortunately, the remaining two towns men fled to gather aid of the town guard.

Claiming that they had proof that Anya's mother was a demon, the guard was forced into action. Seeing the Air Genasi covered in blood was enough to convict her, and because of this she was killed in the streets of Ash-Field. Anya's father retired from the town guard that day, refusing to protect those who would kill without listening to reason.

After learning this horrible truth, Anya told her father she would be leaving the town and never returning. Her father gathered his old weaponry, armor, and gear and asked Anya to take it with her as she journeyed.

With her father's gear, Anya left the town and spent the next five years of her life wandering from town to town searching for a new home. On her twentieth birthday Anya came to the town of (insert town name.) Deciding that this town may be a home for her, Anya has decided to end her wandering travels.

Unfortunately, warning bells are still going off, though they aren't as loud or obvious as the last one.

I just don't like the race she chose. Sounds too godmod-ish. Maybe I should just have her be a human or elf instead. Your thoughts on the new character?

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-21, 03:38 PM
That looks like a very typical FRPG background, with nothing squicky about it, to me. Genasi are a bit weak if anything, but many players like the exotic. (Indeed, tieflings and aasimar are among my personal favorites in Faerūn.) There's absolutely no reason to force the mundane on your players, unless you're playing Harnmāster or some other game where the setting is all about the mundane.

thegurullamen
2009-01-21, 03:42 PM
Unfortunately, warning bells are still going off, though they aren't as loud or obvious as the last one.

I just don't like the race she chose. Sounds too godmod-ish. Maybe I should just have her be a human or elf instead. Your thoughts on the new character?

I'm not seeing it. Why have her change it? Sounds like an interesting character (stats wise, anyway. That backstory's a little bland) and it's not like a Fighter 5 with Weapon Focus and Spec. is going to be overpowering. Really, the race is the only interesting thing about it.

What warning bells?

only1doug
2009-01-21, 03:45 PM
I'm officially changing the subject now.

So, it was a few days ago that I declined the character, so she sent me info for the new one now.



Unfortunately, warning bells are still going off, though they aren't as loud or obvious as the last one.

I just don't like the race she chose. Sounds too godmod-ish. Maybe I should just have her be a human or elf instead. Your thoughts on the new character?

Air genasi aren't too overpowered for the LA, she's burnt 2 feats to increase racial benefits but those feats could have been spent on other things.

I don't think you'll hear anyone agreeing that a fighter is going to be unbalanced, even if that fighter can levitate for 10mins 5/day.

Neko Toast
2009-01-21, 03:46 PM
Well, I guess they weren't really warning bells. I don't know the exotic races very well, so I was a bit surprised to see it at first. But her boyfriend linked information on the race, and it pretty much checks out.

The thing about this one shoter is that, if it goes well and I like it, I'll continue DMing with those people and those characters. I want to be sure I'm comfortable with them.

I think my only issue is extremely miniscule: She needs a friggin' last name. :smallannoyed:

KevLar
2009-01-21, 04:02 PM
I think my only issue is extremely miniscule: She needs a friggin' last name. :smallannoyed:
Frankly, I think your only issue is with the player, not the character. A last name? Is that a serious concern?

As for the race, you can always say "people, I want nothing too exotic, so let's stick to core races", if it makes you uncomfortable. Saying this before character creation would be optimal. But I somehow get the impression that if another player had brought a genasi character, you wouldn't be so alarmed.

I suggest you give her a chance, actually, and reserve judgment for the game. But it's up to you of course. :)

only1doug
2009-01-21, 04:08 PM
Well, I guess they weren't really warning bells. I don't know the exotic races very well, so I was a bit surprised to see it at first. But her boyfriend linked information on the race, and it pretty much checks out.

The thing about this one shoter is that, if it goes well and I like it, I'll continue DMing with those people and those characters. I want to be sure I'm comfortable with them.

I think my only issue is extremely miniscule: She needs a friggin' last name. :smallannoyed:

Just a quick note, One thing not noted in her description earlier is the air genasi racial trait: Breathless: air genasi do not breathe and are therefore immune to drowning, suffocation and attacks that require inhalation.

I would also expect that in the future the PC would be wanting to take the feat that increases the racial spell like ability to 3/day (which would then give her 15 uses at 10min).

I don't believe that either of these are broken on a fighter (especially a dual wield based fighter).

Actually if i were GM I'd suggest she go for a swashbuckler instead of a fighter, to get better usage out of her intelligence and dexterity.


Edit: names - suggest to the player that she pick a surname and offer a few suggestions. The player may have reasons for no surname based on her background. she could be saying that her father was a foster father rather than flesh and blood (as he seemed to be a native of the village and the mother was only allowed to stay due to her pregnancy). if so she may have rejected surnames given by the villagers when she rejected them.

Potential surnames:
Windborn
demonspawn
windspawn
demonborn

Another_Poet
2009-01-21, 04:32 PM
Well, I guess they weren't really warning bells. I don't know the exotic races very well, so I was a bit surprised to see it at first. But her boyfriend linked information on the race, and it pretty much checks out.

The thing about this one shoter is that, if it goes well and I like it, I'll continue DMing with those people and those characters. I want to be sure I'm comfortable with them.

I think my only issue is extremely miniscule: She needs a friggin' last name. :smallannoyed:

Hi Slayer. I think the new character seems great. Also, the fact that she made a totally new character and didn't throw a fit over having her first one turned down (at least, not from what you've told us) means she sounds pretty dedicated.

From everything you've said, I judge this player as follows:

An introvert with more creativity than social skills. Harmless. Welcome at my table anytime.

Cool character, adaptable attitude, willing to work with you, etc. I don't see any problems, but I get the sense that she irks you on a personal level. Is it just because she is quiet/doesn't roleplay? Is there something else?

Thane of Fife
2009-01-21, 04:55 PM
Well, I guess they weren't really warning bells. I don't know the exotic races very well, so I was a bit surprised to see it at first. But her boyfriend linked information on the race, and it pretty much checks out.

The thing about this one shoter is that, if it goes well and I like it, I'll continue DMing with those people and those characters. I want to be sure I'm comfortable with them.

I think my only issue is extremely miniscule: She needs a friggin' last name. :smallannoyed:

While this is largely irrelevant, I will nonetheless point out that some of the older Forgotten Realms supplements explicitly stated that many of the people who live in Faerun don't have last names.

Neko Toast
2009-01-21, 06:44 PM
The last name thing I require with all of my characters. Hell, 3 of my four players didn't have one picked out. I mean, shouldn't most people have a last name? They didn't have any reasons as to why; they just never thought of one.

Plus, in the campaign, they are likely to get framed for a crime. What if the real culprit had the same first name? They would be screwed.

wadledo
2009-01-21, 06:51 PM
The last name thing I require with all of my characters. Hell, 3 of my four players didn't have one picked out. I mean, shouldn't most people have a last name? They didn't have any reasons as to why; they just never thought of one.

Plus, in the campaign, they are likely to get framed for a crime. What if the real culprit had the same first name? They would be screwed.

So, you just don't like the girl, we get it.
Sheesh, get over yourself.:smallconfused:

Sorry about that.:smallsigh:

But yea, this seems to be degrading to "I need anything to keep this girl away".
Same name as the crook?
And does everyone look the same to?

thegurullamen
2009-01-21, 06:58 PM
So, you just don't like the girl, we get it.
Sheesh, get over yourself.:smallconfused:

That might be a little harsh, but yes, this is just nitpicking now.

Back to feminism?

Coidzor
2009-01-21, 07:41 PM
Did you let 'em know you'd continue things with these characters if things went well? If not, just go with it, sounds like you're just nervous about her and her boyfriend as it is. Once you've seen how things work out you can better see how to proceed.

Try to not worry about it too much.

Anyway, is DnD, they'll only be framed if you do it :smalltongue:

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2009-01-21, 07:56 PM
White skin is "normal"?

I think the whole first character, for all her clumsy, overwrought, poorly written attempts at creating some badass champion of the female, was far less offensive than that one sentence.

Tengu_temp
2009-01-21, 08:06 PM
White skin is "normal"?

I think the whole first character, for all her clumsy, overwrought, poorly written attempts at creating some badass champion of the female, was far less offensive than that one sentence.

Only if you go out of your way to look for potentially offensive remarks.

I understood the description means that she has normal skin colour for a white woman.

Myou
2009-01-21, 08:35 PM
I don't like the character she's created, to me it seems like a walking bundle of cliches.

But this shouldn't be about liking the character. The character seems fine, without any of the problems that the other one had.

Her last character was awful but she gave up the character without complaint (that we know of) and created something new.

Now is the time to wipe the slate clean with her and give her the benefit of the doubt (if you don't she may well start to feel victimised, it's all to easy for that to happen when an exacting DM meets player who just isn't as good at creating characters as most). Try to forget about her dubious choices and playing style in the past and give her the chance to prove you wrong.

A little encouragement and gentle nudging during the game could work wonders for her playing and if she really wants to play this sort of character there's no need to stop her.

Fawsto
2009-01-21, 09:12 PM
Now, them...

This character is much, much better RP wise than the previews one. Don't worry... I do not see any warning bells this time, this is just a background set to create a reason to be an outsider, just that. If she RP it well, everything will be fine.

If this a cliche heavy character (and it may be) I challenge anyone to create one that has no cliches at all. Cliches are only things that people use to describe, generaly, things they like on a RPG character. Her personality (the character) is what will matter, and how well roleplayed it will be. It is a very different thing than to be, let's say, someone who has a extremely large sword and acts like some certain famous VG character, you see?

As it was said earlier, if she gave up her last character without too much of complaining, this one is like the Wine you should expect, so I'd stay with it.

Now it is your turn to help her spice that background a little, making it adjust to your campaign facts.


Good luck


Att


edit: swoop da woop! Once again I have rule over one page!

Nightson
2009-01-21, 09:54 PM
So her character has some cliches, from what I gathered she's relatively new to the game, avoiding cliches entirely is not something new players do.

Asbestos
2009-01-21, 10:07 PM
So her character has some cliches, from what I gathered she's relatively new to the game, avoiding cliches entirely is not something new players do.

Avoiding cliches entirely is something that not even plenty of veteran players do.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-22, 07:34 AM
I think my only issue is extremely miniscule: She needs a friggin' last name. :smallannoyed:


The last name thing I require with all of my characters. Hell, 3 of my four players didn't have one picked out. I mean, shouldn't most people have a last name?

Why would she need a last name? Most people didn't have them in the time period most D&D settings resemble. Surnames like Smith and Cooper come from occupations - at some point, Bob the Smith's son Jack was just called Jack Smith, despite actually being a gardener. Similarly, most others were place names - the family that lived on the hill became the Hills. And then some people just had adjectives tacked to their names, but these people tended to be important to begin with. Other than that, people were mostly identified by parentage - Namesson, Nameson, O'Name, Mac Name... all mean "the son of Name." Russian names still work like this - Yuri, the son of Mikhail Lebedev, is called Yuri Mikhailovich Lebedev.

Admittedly, I can't say a thing about Asian, Middle-Eastern, or African names.

And just going by fantasy examples... Conan, Elric, Fafhrd, and Mouser don't have last names.

So, you know. Maybe last names are common practice in your setting, but it's not something that would or should be obvious to anyone.


I don't like the character she's created, to me it seems like a walking bundle of cliches.

Nothing wrong with that. Backgrounds are almost irrelevant to the game anyway: what the character does during game is what matters and sets them apart.


Avoiding cliches entirely is something that not even plenty of veteran players do.

Avoiding cliches entirely is literally impossible to do, and has been since shortly after writing was invented.

Godna
2009-01-22, 07:44 AM
I cant be the only one who read that and immedietly thought of good old frank miller
http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20060207.html

Khanderas
2009-01-22, 08:06 AM
I'm officially changing the subject now.

So, it was a few days ago that I declined the character, so she sent me info for the new one now.

<<<Post of players second attempt at a character>>>

Unfortunately, warning bells are still going off, though they aren't as loud or obvious as the last one.

I just don't like the race she chose. Sounds too godmod-ish. Maybe I should just have her be a human or elf instead. Your thoughts on the new character?
I think this second character works quite fine. Only warning bell that came off was the "constant wind in her hair" part and I thought "MarySue". But as a genasai, its valid and involontary can mean she must be careful if she wants to pretend she is 100% human (such as around people like those in her nameless backstory town). DM hooks alert, for good or bad. Is good.

I don't think she needs a last name. Leaving her old town, she would keep her first name, but for all intents, she has no family name anymore. That she needs a surname to not be accidently arrested, that is just a bonus to make Plots. Or realistically, a warrent in modern day would not be "arrest all whos names are John Smith", and as such there wouldn't be a warrent for "Eva Hodirsdottir" without additional description of some kind.

Myou
2009-01-22, 08:25 AM
Nothing wrong with that. Backgrounds are almost irrelevant to the game anyway: what the character does during game is what matters and sets them apart.


I said as much in my post (quoting out of context like that is misleading). I personally don't like the character but she could still play it really well. :3

hewhosaysfish
2009-01-22, 08:39 AM
Surnames like Smith and Cooper come from occupations - at some point, Bob the Smith's son Jack was just called Jack Smith, despite actually being a gardener.

....

And just going by fantasy examples... Conan, Elric, Fafhrd, and Mouser don't have last names.


Did Conan ever have a child in any of the books? I've never read them but it doesn't seem to fit with what I know of the style.

But I am enchanted by the thought that his children may take the surname "Barbarian".

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-22, 08:52 AM
Did Conan ever have a child in any of the books? I've never read them but it doesn't seem to fit with what I know of the style.

But I am enchanted by the thought that his children may take the surname "Barbarian".

I would imagine he fathered dozens but "had" none, being that he never stuck around. (Although I think he lived with Belit long enough that you'd think she'd at least have become pregnant.) None are ever mentioned.

I think he made Zenobia his queen, and probably had an heir or ten, but Howard's stories never featured them. L. Sprague de Camp did write a story that included his son, Prince Conn.

kamikasei
2009-01-22, 09:29 AM
And yes, I DO think any power structure is inherently rooted in patriarchy. That doesn't mean every single power relationship is always "Teh Evil," but they are operating in that patriarchal system. And they are at risk of becoming oppressive. And they self perpetuate their own hierarchical, coercive system.

Ah, I think we may have crossed wires here. Are you saying that any power structure or relationship is, of necessity, in principle, rooted in patriarchy; or that all the power structures and relationships that we have in the real world are, as a matter of historical fact, rooted in patriarchy? I was reading you as basically saying that if we'd never had patriarchy we'd have no power structures, which I see no reason to accept, but if you're in fact saying that every power structure that does exist has been influenced by the patriarchical context in which it formed, that's a much more reasonable statement.

But yeah, I'll be honest: I consider the idea that women left to their own devices would construct a utopia, and it's men being aggressive and dominant who have destroyed society, to be both groundless and kind of insulting.

Anyway, I'd say we've run this one in to the ground at this point. Forking off a new thread for it would probably violate the politics rules, too.

Avilan the Grey
2009-01-22, 10:19 AM
Sorry for butting in but this thread has annoyed be a bit (No I will not start to flame or anything):

First of all, I think you were in the right to deny this character; that said I think I would have argued for letting her be played if the character had shown up in our gaming group, since I believe all of us could handle the backstory both with respect and seriousness.

Now there is a number of misconceptions (I feel) in the arguments against this character:

1) Promiscuity is Chaotic: I don't agree. I would say it's Neutral as long as you are single, and the person(s) involved are single. It is also neither Good or Evil.

2) Prostitution is evil and or has always been viewed as wrong: This is downright false, putting morals aside historically this is factually wrong.

3) the Concept of BDSM is quite misunderstood, the primary example being the post that argues that if not for the patriarchy, it would not exist (Woman-woman and Man-man BDSM is just as common)

4) Women's role in a medieval society would not allow this character. That is true, but it is not true in D&D. As I remember it, at least FR fluff states that all men and women are equal (hence female paladins, etc).

Neko Toast
2009-01-22, 10:38 AM
Hey, come on guys. Everyone has their quirks. Mine is characters must have last names. They all had parents at some point in their life. They just didn't poof into their world. It may be minuscule to most, but not in my campaigns.


So, you just don't like the girl, we get it.
Sheesh, get over yourself.:smallconfused:

I'm not going to deny it. I do not like this person. But honestly, do I have a choice? If I deny her, the whole group will defend her, and I become the enemy. All I can do is just put up with her as much as I can. I apologize if my nitpicking on her in this thread was irritating.

Avilan the Grey
2009-01-22, 10:41 AM
Hey, come on guys. Everyone has their quirks. Mine is characters must have last names. They all had parents at some point in their life. They just didn't poof into their world. It may be minuscule to most, but not in my campaigns.

...I am really into last names too, although I tend to draw from that great tradition of names from profession (or fame, later; it is not uncommon that a character changes his or her last name later, from say "Geron the Fletcher" to "Geron Stoneblade").

Tengu_temp
2009-01-22, 10:42 AM
I'd say that disliking someone is a perfectly viable reason for not letting them play in your game - the DM is not everyone's servant and is there to have fun too, if the presence of someone makes the game not fun for you, then you're not obliged to have them at the table.

Avilan the Grey
2009-01-22, 10:46 AM
I'd say that disliking someone is a perfectly viable reason for not letting them play in your game - the DM is not everyone's servant and is there to have fun too, if the presence of someone makes the game not fun for you, then you're not obliged to have them at the table.

This is what I meant when I said she was in the right to deny the character (and player, if she wants, but that might be trickier since it might mean loose more players than just this one).

kamikasei
2009-01-22, 10:51 AM
I'm not going to deny it. I do not like this person. But honestly, do I have a choice? If I deny her, the whole group will defend her, and I become the enemy. All I can do is just put up with her as much as I can. I apologize if my nitpicking on her in this thread was irritating.

I'd say that if you dislike the person then you shouldn't spend time socially with her without need - which is what a game session is, a regular social appointment. If you dislike her enough that it distorts your judgement of her actions and makes you deny her stuff you'd allow others, then you shouldn't DM for her.

More specifically: it sounds like this is someone you don't like, but who the rest of the group is happy to game with, so you feel you should suck it up and deal with your dislike for the sake of the game. Which is fair enough. But if you do that then you have to recognize your dislike, note how it affects your responses, and compensate for that. It's a lose-lose solution to accept her into the game but then treat her unfairly.

Starshade
2009-01-22, 02:54 PM
Slayer, i think the player might be a bit shy, and sound as a novice in making characters, both those characters do make me think a bit on "mary sue" ideas, mainly, there is nothing "wrong" with any of them, flawless, serene purity, unspoiled good heard, despite anything.


And if she know you dislike her RPing, it might make it harder for her to devlop, and get past the "mary sue" cliches.
I think, its possible some, or most, NEED to write some crazy, bad, and flawed characters, either in form or RP or short stories, in order to grow as storyteller. If she dont get along you you enough to open up, she possibly wont make any good characters. I too is a person who CAN be extremely non-talkative, and those 2 characters isnt showing immaturity as a person, i think, just immature talent as writer, ie: need to practice.

Air genasi sound ok, if a bit odd looking. The normal white skin colour part is simple to explain: Air genasi could also possibly look deadly vampireish white. "Normal white" mean skin colour, not milky white as Dracula, same as "normal black" would mean brownish afro colour, and not charcoal coloured drow. :smallamused:

Edit: To get the character more round, sugest all characters got some "dark" part. As a temper, like to drink, greed, or simpler, as argumentative, prone to be sloppy, or other quirks. Noone is "little miss perfect."
But: She need to write, something she can roleplay. Not all of us CAN roleplay anything. We got a personality range, good and bad, to draw on. But if she roleplay something who remind of "The luggage" in Discworld (a unspeaking thingie walking after, munching some monster, say nothing and just keep stalking), she just need to open up and speak more. :smallwink:

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2009-01-22, 03:17 PM
Only if you go out of your way to look for potentially offensive remarks.

I understood the description means that she has normal skin colour for a white woman.

I would like to think she has the basic language skills to say what she means, rather than some absurd and unclear sentence structure to convey the same idea, but less clearly and with less erudition. That said, I did read the rest of the entry. You could be wholly correct.

Fawsto
2009-01-22, 09:03 PM
The Forum Monster ate another of my posts... Sad.


Let's not derail this thread, ok, guys?


Now, I understand the position of the OP... Deniying a new player is a hard option. Especially if the player in question is the girlfriend of a senior player, and, most important, a friend.

Even if half of the members of this forum tell you that that your best shot is to deny playing with someone who you do not like, you should first measure the impact of your decision among your friends. If this "quarrel" you have with the girl, Ms. OP, is something small, you should try to live with it. I mean, DM your game and make sure everybody gets some good measure of fun. Sure, this is your job, after all.

You are on a delicate position. If you deny this new player without a good reason, your players will feel awkward, especilly her boyfriend. This is the person you should be taking most care off, since he will be the most affected by your decision (he and his girl, of course). He (your friend) is probably introducing his girlfriend to his game fellows because he likes you guys a lot and he likes her a lot too. He finds playing with you so funny and good that he wants to his girl to enjoy it as much as he does.

Got it?

Now, when you dressed the DM mantle and tought about a plot, you were doomed to find yourself eventually in a situation like this. All DMs are doomed to this, they just don't know it yet. It is part of the thing, you know?

Also, be grateful that his Girlfriend is not acting like one of a friend's girlfriend once did to him: She was so possessive about the poor guy that, for a whole damn year he could not join us for a SINGLE game session; we knew that he wanted to play, but the girl simply would not let him go out with us. At least this girl you are meeting now is respectfull enough to her boyfriend to at least try to participate on the things he likes to do. And this is something to encourage.


Good luck,

Aquillion
2009-01-22, 09:28 PM
At this point it's not really a D&D problem, is it? There's not much we can say to help.

You can either find a way to live with her, or throw your hands up and admit you can't... but I don't think the DMG is going to have much of use either way. (Although, if you had a few more points in Diplomacy... and were a half-elf with an item familiar granting a bonus to Diplomacy...)

HazelStone
2009-01-22, 11:48 PM
Ah, I think we may have crossed wires here. Are you saying that any power structure or relationship is, of necessity, in principle, rooted in patriarchy; or that all the power structures and relationships that we have in the real world are, as a matter of historical fact, rooted in patriarchy?
I'm saying both, if I am reading you right. Since we live in a patriarchal society, all of our relationships are happening in a patriarchy and are influenced by it. Also, I think the entire way we structure our society, based around who has power over whom, is a result of the patriarchy.


I was reading you as basically saying that if we'd never had patriarchy we'd have no power structures, which I see no reason to accept, but if you're in fact saying that every power structure that does exist has been influenced by the patriarchical context in which it formed, that's a much more reasonable statement.
Let me define what I mean by the Patriarchy (admittedly as an amateur). Patriarchy is the term we use for the complicated, pervasive, yet almost completely invisible system of power, oppression and coercion that the most powerful [able bodied, rich, white, heterosexual Western men] exert over everyone else; with poor, non-white, disabled girls at the very bottom. Though not every instance of it is specifically man oppressing woman, we believe that it has its roots in that. Men (and women) essentially learned how to do all their oppressing and how to control others by men oppressing women.

So yes, I'm saying that the power structures we have now are caused by Patriarchy. I can conceive of a way to structure society that doesn't revolve around who is controlling whom, but that isn't human society as we have it. A lot of people argue that it isn't possible. Maybe they're right. But I'm not going to give up on it as long as I am alive. Maybe we can make some helpful reforms and improvements along the way, even if we never get there.


But yeah, I'll be honest: I consider the idea that women left to their own devices would construct a utopia, and it's men being aggressive and dominant who have destroyed society, to be both groundless and kind of insulting.

Anyway, I'd say we've run this one in to the ground at this point. Forking off a new thread for it would probably violate the politics rules, too.

As nice as it would be for us to not have the Patriarchy, it wouldn't have to be a utopia. There would still be problems. And I don't think Men have "destroyed society" they've just created a society that I don't like and REALLY want to transform. Big difference.

I'd also like to point out that while I don't want to let Men (as a group) off the hook (because they have a heck of a lot of privileges) I am not advocating sitting around shaming or blaming individual men. That's what is so disgusting about the patriarchy--since it pervades our entire culture and way of life, men don't really have a choice. They are born and start receiving both the messages that this is they way things are supposed to be AND that it is completely natural and inevitable AND they get the privileges.

It takes a lot for a generic man to even realize that the patriarchy exists (every man, and most women for that matter, I've talked to about this is pretty shocked to hear my views) and even more to start questioning it and give up his priviliges. That's why radical feminists want to undermine the entire system. Though everyone crabs and complains about stuff they don't like, guilting men isn't the main point. Completely transforming human culture is the main point.

Anyway, if discussing this isn't bothering anyone, I don't think we have to consider it run into the ground. But I'll bow out when I start boring people. If I haven't already...:smallamused:

HazelStone
2009-01-22, 11:59 PM
I'm not going to deny it. I do not like this person. But honestly, do I have a choice? If I deny her, the whole group will defend her, and I become the enemy. All I can do is just put up with her as much as I can. I apologize if my nitpicking on her in this thread was irritating.

Where I come from, if someone is nice enough to DM for you, you let them call the shots. Life is WAY too short to even play with jerks, much less DM for them!

If it were me, I'd talk to my group without Offending Player present and say you don't want to spend a whole evening with her. Then call her up and politely cancel, "Sorry, but I don''t think you are good fit with my GMing style."

Tengu_temp
2009-01-23, 12:08 AM
stuff

Do you believe a matriarchy would be a better system, then? And if so/if not, why?

The Neoclassic
2009-01-23, 12:12 AM
Do you believe a matriarchy would be a better system, then? And if so/if not, why?

Uh, I'm gonna put my money on her advocating egalitarianism, rather than either gender dominating. :smallconfused:

Tengu_temp
2009-01-23, 12:48 AM
I know that egalitarianism is superior to both matriarchy and patriarchy. I'm asking does she think matriarchy is superior to patriarchy.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-23, 12:50 AM
I know that egalitarianism is superior to both matriarchy and patriarchy. I'm asking does she think matriarchy is superior to patriarchy.

I know; I'm just curious why you didn't ask her about egalitarianism in said question then, since I never got any matriarchy vibe from her posts.

Starshade
2009-01-23, 01:23 AM
Patriarchy? To some degree it exist, yes. Even if i live in one of the least opressive countries for women to live in, with most equal oppurtunities on the planet, its still not equal.
I think i will pick up 1 or 2 of those writers mentioned in this thread, the topic interest me to be honest.

kamikasei
2009-01-23, 03:48 AM
Men (and women) essentially learned how to do all their oppressing and how to control others by men oppressing women.

Well, I assume there are arguments that try to back that up in the sources you mentioned before, but until I read those sources and find them more convincing than I expect I would, I don't see much merit to that claim. I will readily admit that this is more than half my bias against the social sciences in general, though: I don't see how you could have the data to convincingly demonstrate how things would work without patriarchy, if you're also saying patriarchy inextricably contaminates everything.


Anyway, if discussing this isn't bothering anyone, I don't think we have to consider it run into the ground. But I'll bow out when I start boring people. If I haven't already...:smallamused:

It's more the fact that, as I said, I haven't read your sources and don't plan to in the immediate future, so unless you essentially reproduce all their arguments at length here (which seems fairly excessive!) I'm essentially just left objecting to what you say without engaging with the substance behind it (however much there may be).

If you have a link or a title for a good source to justify the claims you're citing, though, I'd be curious to give it a look. It's just not a priority for me to try to absorb the entire breadth of feminist thought from the last half-century.

In my view you can certainly say that historically men have been massively privileged over women, but that's just one of multiple overlapping systems of privilege all of which could probably serve as the foundation of oppression.


I know; I'm just curious why you didn't ask her about egalitarianism in said question then, since I never got any matriarchy vibe from her posts.

Well, the implication seems to have been that patriarchy is the root of all inequality and injustice in society - that if we didn't have patriarchy we wouldn't have the rest. From that follows naturally the question, wait, if we had matriarchy instead of patriarchy, do you think we wouldn't have the attendant problems and if not why not? In other words, why do you think what you see as problems result from putting men above women rather than putting one gender above the other, and why is it necessarily tied to gender at all?

Narmoth
2009-01-23, 04:28 AM
Hey, come on guys. Everyone has their quirks. Mine is characters must have last names. They all had parents at some point in their life. They just didn't poof into their world. It may be minuscule to most, but not in my campaigns.

Well, there are a lot of reasons not to have a surname.
The only time I've used a surname on a character is on my paladin turned blackguard Ian Blacksoul. Other players in the group use surnames all the time.
Now, if she can't come up with one, suggest several to her and let her pick one. How hard can it be?


I'm not going to deny it. I do not like this person. But honestly, do I have a choice? If I deny her, the whole group will defend her, and I become the enemy. All I can do is just put up with her as much as I can. I apologize if my nitpicking on her in this thread was irritating.

Well, maybe you'd start liking her more if you stopped nitpicking on her. Most people are nicer when you meet them in a friendly context, rather than in a situation where they for some reason feel that they have to defend themselves by being unfriendly

Quincunx
2009-01-23, 06:33 AM
3 out of 4 adventurers sans last names. Adventure lies ahead.

. . .After they become Local Heroes, they all acquire the last name related to that event. ("All hail Jenny Goblinbane!" ". . .No, I'm just Jenny. . ." "Jenny Goblinbane! *cheering*!) It works in MMOs, it ought to work here.

Fawsto
2009-01-24, 02:15 AM
Does anyone has something more to say about the original topic? Because I think we have already exhausted the subject: "Should I accept or not the said character or the player itself?"

Since this thread is showing some heavy evidences of de-railing.


Att


edit: Oh God! Once again I start the friggin page!

Belobog
2009-01-24, 04:32 AM
I would echo what the more...forgiving members, I suppose, have said. Sit her down, discuss the character, see if you can't cut a few elements out to bring a more focused character to the front that she would enjoy playing. It could be that she doesn't even know what she enjoys playing, and is experimenting with something outlandish to see if that's what she wants. From what you've told us, it seems like she has little experience with this kind of thing as a whole, so it could be she just doesn't know what to do.

If, after that, you are still concerned about her activity (on either side of the spectrum), try going through a dry run: a one on one RP session. It gives her time to get in her character's head, especially after changes have been made, and it gives you the chance to red flag anything you don't like that would come up in a normal game.

only1doug
2009-01-24, 05:18 AM
As others have mentioned, you will need to decide if your dislike of the player is going to mean that you are unable to fairly GM for her.

It's nice to pretend that we don't let things get to us but when dealing with people that we dislike we view their comments more negatively than we would view an identical comment by a person we are friends with.

If you feel that you dislike her so much that you won't be able to be a fair GM then allowing her to play will ruin the game for everyone, refusing to allow her to play may will also cause problems but at least it will be out of the way before play begins.

As you are talking about a one shot, I'd recommend allowing her to play and then deciding whether to invite her to the ongoing campaign based on how well you got on during the one shot.

Good Luck.

Starshade
2009-01-24, 06:40 AM
I feel like pointing out: not all in history, did HAVE a last name?

There exist today, people who's name consist of name, father's name, father's father's name, etc. as, if one is named Muhammed, father was Omar, his father was Noor, he would be named "Muhammed Omar Noor.
This isnt a "last name", since, its not inherited, its a "son of" or "Daughter of" name, in viking age, if the woman a man had married was from a higher social position than her husband, their kids would get her name in some cases, named something like, if she was named Ingrid: "Ingridsson" for boys, "Ingridsdottir" for girls. And it was accepted, if little used outside the current Danish area.

And, after viking age, the norwegian naming system was thus:

First, one or two first names.
Then, an optional father/mother name, as Håkonsson, or something.
Last, the farm you lived on. Changes with your place of occupancy.

My great great grandfather was, actually, belonging to the generation who, for first time, got a "real" last name. Those before him swapped last names as shoes. So my father and grandfather, knew people who grew up in Norway, without, what we NOW would call a "proper last name" in their youth, since its not inherited or permanent in any way. :smallamused:

Same goes for some americans i think, if they know wery old Native Americans or Canadian First Nation people? :smallwink:

Id sugest enforce your fantasy world's own rules, whatever they are. an Human/Genie cross grown up in human lands, got a human name probably, so she follow those rules present. IF your country got proper last names, enforce them!

Hazel: You dont bore me, but oh my, how derailed this thread would be if we started debating feminism in a D&D thread. A biig derailing, but interesting one. New thread in Friendly Barter? :smallbiggrin:

HazelStone
2009-01-26, 01:37 AM
Do you believe a matriarchy would be a better system, then? And if so/if not, why?

Because women oppressing men is bad.
Because group/person A oppressing group/person B is bad.

HazelStone
2009-01-26, 01:54 AM
Well, the implication seems to have been that patriarchy is the root of all inequality and injustice in society - that if we didn't have patriarchy we wouldn't have the rest. From that follows naturally the question, wait, if we had matriarchy instead of patriarchy, do you think we wouldn't have the attendant problems and if not why not? In other words, why do you think what you see as problems result from putting men above women rather than putting one gender above the other, and why is it necessarily tied to gender at all?

OK, I think I can get at this and some other issues you raised with one example from the leading lights in RadFem thinking.

Why men oppressing women? Well, as Simone de Beauvoir put it-- the burden of the species falls hardest on women. Women gestate a really long time, and have to (without modern conveniences) breastfeed and care for their young for MINIMUM three years before the kids can walk around and do the basics of handling things on their own. In a world without reliable birth control (everything up to the last 60 years for US women, still an everyday thing for 90% of the women of the world), it means women are incredibly vulnerable to men. And for essentially all of human history women have been regarded as chattel. We've been the broodmares of our agrarian societies.

Another thing, oppressed groups are not universal--except for women. Without various ethnic, religious or racial minorities to oppress, there's always a second class citizen in pretty much every single society we've ever documented, the woman.

Who the heck else would the original humans have learned to oppress? They lived in smallish kin groups, probably all the same religion, race etc. They didn't really have money until pretty late in human existence. Who else would there have been?

We could start hypothesizing about what would have been different if women didn't bear children, but that isn't how it works. And that's precisely why the far future vision many radical feminists have of a hypothetical point past patriarchy involves HUGELY different ways of reproducing like destruction of the nuclear family and artificial wombs and so on.

HazelStone
2009-01-26, 01:57 AM
Hazel: You dont bore me, but oh my, how derailed this thread would be if we started debating feminism in a D&D thread. A biig derailing, but interesting one. New thread in Friendly Barter? :smallbiggrin:

I don't use this forum much, I'm more used to my...wait for it...radical feminist forum. Does a Mod move it? Do we request that? Do I just start one?

Worira
2009-01-26, 02:27 AM
Let me define what I mean by the Patriarchy (admittedly as an amateur). Patriarchy is the term we use for the complicated, pervasive, yet almost completely invisible system of power, oppression and coercion that the most powerful [able bodied, rich, white, heterosexual Western men] exert over everyone else; with poor, non-white, disabled girls at the very bottom. Though not every instance of it is specifically man oppressing woman, we believe that it has its roots in that. Men (and women) essentially learned how to do all their oppressing and how to control others by men oppressing women.

That's... not actually what that word means.

d13
2009-01-26, 02:36 AM
That's... not actually what that word means.

That's... not actually what the thread's about. :P



I'm not going to deny it. I do not like this person.

Then, honestly, why the heck are you playing with... her? (IIRC xD)

kamikasei
2009-01-26, 03:36 AM
OK, I think I can get at this and some other issues you raised with one example from the leading lights in RadFem thinking.

I don't think that really addresses my question. You list various reasons why women have been oppressed. That doesn't demonstrate that without this oppression, no other impression would have been possible. Humans are capable of treating one another badly for all sorts of reasons. For one thing, I would point out that just looking at ape societies there is a lot of inequality between the dominant and the subordinate males. The mature dominate the young, and so on.

To be honest though I'm not sure it's worth hiving this off into its own thread - it seems like something that would invite a lock for being too political if it had an entire thread to itself.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-26, 03:53 AM
That's... not actually what that word means.

Yes, it is. It's a very specialized term when used in feminist discourse, and HazelStone summed it up wonderfully. (And though I don't feel there'd be no oppression if not for patriarchy, it's hard to deny that most oppression is, in practice, somehow related to patriarchy, since you need power to back up bigotry in order for it to be oppression.)

It can be a confusing matter, but in feminist or other progressive discourse, terms like "patriarchy" or "privilege" have pretty specific meanings. I wouldn't go telling Americans that "football" does not involve wearing helmets and tackling people, would I?


I don't think that really addresses my question. You list various reasons why women have been oppressed. That doesn't demonstrate that without this oppression, no other impression would have been possible. Humans are capable of treating one another badly for all sorts of reasons. For one thing, I would point out that just looking at ape societies there is a lot of inequality between the dominant and the subordinate males. The mature dominate the young, and so on.

I don't think that believing patriarchy is at the root of all oppression necessiates believing that had it never developed, there'd be no oppression of any kind. Indeed, one might view patriarchy as having had to develop (because, as HazelStone points out, if there's two groups you'll find in any society, it's women and men; and of them, women are on average physically vulnerable to the men).

However, we are, as humans, far beyond acting like apes. As moral agents, we can make decisions - decisions that may even not be in our best interest, but are right (such as the decision not to wield whatever power you have aggressively over others in order to benefit yourself).

By dismantling what patriarchy is now, we might indeed remove oppression, especially if one defines the patriarchy to include pretty much all forms of oppression and bigotry (not an unfair definition, I feel).

If you think about what a monumental, far-reaching task it is to try to dismantle a structure that literally reaches into every single facet of every single person's life (unless you were raised by wolves and never interacted with other people, I guess), it may be easier to imagine such a dismantling having these effects.

Edit: There is also a big and important difference between personal bigotry - which is unfortunate, but something everyone is entitled to, even if it makes them disgusting or despicable - and actual institutionalized discrimination, which the patriarchy is all about. The two are connected in many ways (the important one, to me, being that the institutionalized discrimination informs the attitudes of individuals and rewards buying into it), but are not the same thing. So even if the personal discrimination and use of power is a "natural" thing, it's the institutionalization of that discrimination that really needs to be done away with (and if it eventually is, the society without patriarchy will, by necessity - but with considerably less coercion in it - continue to inform the opinions of individuals).

kamikasei
2009-01-26, 06:18 AM
Aargh, okay, I'm hoping this time I can get through a reply without the forums going down. Coming soon (going to check back through the thread and make certain of who's said what). Meanwhile...


However, we are, as humans, far beyond acting like apes. As moral agents, we can make decisions - decisions that may even not be in our best interest, but are right (such as the decision not to wield whatever power you have aggressively over others in order to benefit yourself).

Do you expect that I disagree with that? I think you've misunderstood my purpose in referring to primate social structures, but I'll explain further when I edit in my longer reply.

eta: To be clearer on my meaning there: if you want to talk about the roots of human behaviour, it's helpful to look at behaviour that antedates the entire species. We see both "patriarchical" behaviour reflecting the difference in reproductive strategies that Hazel references, and other imbalances as well, between and within the sexes. My point is mostly that these inequities are not inventions within human history but legacies over evolutionary time.

(Also, as a nit, humans can't really be beyond acting like apes; whatever we do is the action of an ape.)

Okay: I would say the side discussion started with this comment by HazelStone:

3. A dominatrix is not a paragon of "female power" since BDSM is based around sexism and the fetishization of the power dynamics that already exist in society -- just blown up to cartoon-y proportions.

KevLar pointed out that it's about power, not sexism, and Hazel responded:

If you'll pardon a little lapse into feminist shop talk, I mean BDSM generally exists and has come into being in a sexist society. It is essentially a fetishization of sexism, what makes it kinky is that it is "reversing" (though just fake reversing since the man is still in control) the normal dominant/submissive heirarchy. Hypothetical BDSM-ite Bob may or may not be "more" sexist than any other guy, but his kink (however it came about) couldn't exist without the sexist society that spawned it.

Now, this seems to me like a claim that you couldn't have a sexual kink based around power and domination/submission if you didn't have an inherently sexist society. I've tried to get clarification on Hazel's position since and I think that's a fair summary as relevant to the thread: patriarchy or The Patriarchy is sexist and has the subjugation of women at its root. In our society, this subjugation of women is the model and inspiration for all other subjugation, domination, oppression and inequitable power relationships. BDSM, being about power, is fundamentally sexist, because you can't have power relationships that aren't inherently patriarchical.

I think this is simply false. You can say that power dynamics in our society are inextricably bound up with historical and current patriarchy, but Hazel seems to be going further and saying that any power dynamics would necessarily be so bound up - that if you didn't have a patriarchy, you wouldn't have power dynamics at all! To which I say, what about rich vs. poor, old vs. young, in-group vs. out-group of all types? Power is more fundamental than sex, though both are extremely fundamental. Were humans all androgynous hermaphrodites we'd still have power dynamics. At least, such is my position.

If I'm misunderstanding Hazel, I welcome correction. I've repeatedly sought confirmation that I'm not, though, and the above seems a fair summary to me.


So even if the personal discrimination and use of power is a "natural" thing, it's the institutionalization of that discrimination that really needs to be done away with (and if it eventually is, the society without patriarchy will, by necessity - but with considerably less coercion in it - continue to inform the opinions of individuals).

But wouldn't you say that in a society with no or minimal institutionalized discrimination, individuals will still wield power over one another, and some will for whatever reason find sexual pleasure in playing the role of the dominant or submissive partner in an interaction?

Talic
2009-01-26, 06:37 AM
In response to the OP, I believe the character wrestles with mature topics, which gives the DM added work in keeping said topics in check, in most cases, and from degenerating into political soapboxing. Also, the character touches on issues that many people wrestle with, and would likely not appreciate in their games.

That said, I find the double standards in the character intriguing, and I find character flaws, even as extreme as sexist behaviour and sexual fetishes to be excellent opportunities for roleplay, as long as everyone goes into the campaign knowing what to expect, and it doesn't get out of hand.

In short, such a thing isn't likely appropriate for a 1st time DM or a 1st time group. However, there are tables where such a character would enhance and enrich a game play table, provided everyone was on the same page.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-26, 07:40 AM
But wouldn't you say that in a society with no or minimal institutionalized discrimination, individuals will still wield power over one another, and some will for whatever reason find sexual pleasure in playing the role of the dominant or submissive partner in an interaction?

I never agreed with HazelStone about BDSM, mostly because I think so long as everyone is consenting, any and all kinks are just fine - aAlthough Dworkin's Intercourse, for instance, does present great questions about what goes into our ideas of sexuality to begin with. We can't have sexuality separate from patriarchy, so BDSM is informed by it - though not, in my opinion, any more so than vanilla/mainstream sexuality (and, in fact, I think BDSM is way more transgressive than the vanilla sexuality portrayed by traditional media).

Like I said before, I think that power is, to some degree, inherent in human interaction. Whenever someone wants something that others might be inclined to not give, there will be power and a degree of coercion. I think it comes down to a matter of degrees, ultimately.

It is quite possible that were patriarchy truly done away with, BDSM would go away or at least change so as to become unrecognizable - and all other sexuality would change, too. It's impossible to say, because we have no clue what people would be like if they were not informed by and conditioned by and to patriarchy. We do know that how we personally relate to other people is informed by how we are conditioned from birth (and is strongly a part of our sexuality, too) - our parents have a huge effect on it, for instaince. If that greatest structure of discrimination, oppression, and coercion were not present when we grow up, how differently would we relate to other people? We can't know.

But, unlike the impression I got from HazelStone's posts, I don't think there's anything wrong with BDSM, any more than there is with any other consensual type of sexuality. Indeed, the entirely unrelated, one-sided, male-driven violence and humiliation of women in mainstream pornography (which bears absolutely no resemblance to BDSM, in my opinion), especially online "gonzo" porn, is much more problematic - although I also think it is absolutely a symptom, not a cause.

kamikasei
2009-01-26, 07:52 AM
Sounds like we're more or less in agreement, then, at least so far as these issues touch on the (kind-of-not-quite) topic of the thread.

So since that constitutes two males falling into natural alliance against a female, I'm going to have to assert my dominance over you to avoid undermining my case. Go get me a soda or something.

HazelStone
2009-01-26, 12:48 PM
That's... not actually what that word means.

Notice how I say what I mean by the patriarchy? Then I go on to define it? Many groups have their own special meaning for words, different than the common parlance. Patriarchy means something different to radical feminists, which is why I defined what I meant.

Notice how even the word 'mean' has more than one meaning? Interesting, eh?

HazelStone
2009-01-26, 12:57 PM
I don't think that really addresses my question. You list various reasons why women have been oppressed. That doesn't demonstrate that without this oppression, no other impression would have been possible. Humans are capable of treating one another badly for all sorts of reasons. For one thing, I would point out that just looking at ape societies there is a lot of inequality between the dominant and the subordinate males. The mature dominate the young, and so on.

To be honest though I'm not sure it's worth hiving this off into its own thread - it seems like something that would invite a lock for being too political if it had an entire thread to itself.

Well, I suppose we can agree to disagree. But I did answer your question. Women are naturally vulnerable due to their biological situation. That's why women have never oppressed men in the way men have oppressed women.

Also, my understanding of the role of status in ape groups is that is all about who has access to breeding with female apes. So yeah, back to that.

kamikasei
2009-01-26, 01:14 PM
Well, I suppose we can agree to disagree. But I did answer your question. Women are naturally vulnerable due to their biological situation. That's why women have never oppressed men in the way men have oppressed women.

But that's not what I asked. I asked if you thought that a matriarchy would have the same problems you ascribe to a patriarchy. Or is your position that a) since women are physically weaker than men, a matriarchy is impossible or b) for the same reason, a matriarchy would necessarily be non-oppressive?

HazelStone
2009-01-26, 01:28 PM
Now, this seems to me like a claim that you couldn't have a sexual kink based around power and domination/submission if you didn't have an inherently sexist society. I've tried to get clarification on Hazel's position since and I think that's a fair summary as relevant to the thread: patriarchy or The Patriarchy is sexist and has the subjugation of women at its root. In our society, this subjugation of women is the model and inspiration for all other subjugation, domination, oppression and inequitable power relationships. BDSM, being about power, is fundamentally sexist, because you can't have power relationships that aren't inherently patriarchical.

I think this is simply false. You can say that power dynamics in our society are inextricably bound up with historical and current patriarchy, but Hazel seems to be going further and saying that any power dynamics would necessarily be so bound up - that if you didn't have a patriarchy, you wouldn't have power dynamics at all! To which I say, what about rich vs. poor, old vs. young, in-group vs. out-group of all types? Power is more fundamental than sex, though both are extremely fundamental. Were humans all androgynous hermaphrodites we'd still have power dynamics. At least, such is my position.

The mindset of "in any given situation, someone has to be the bitch" is what we are calling patriarchal. So the way we define it, yeah, no patriarchy, no power dynamics. I think you could make a case that with a race of your androgyne hermaphrodites, oppression may never have taken hold. There are species out there where there are really minimal differences between the males and females and there's no status bull-crackers going on between any individuals, except maybe "hey, this is my territory for gathering food." Even that is not universal.

You don't have to agree but that is our take. Our big beef is sexism, but we are equally ticked off by other forms of oppression. Any of it is un-acceptable. Any power dynamics where power is exerted over others is a problem.

Roland St. Jude
2009-01-26, 01:35 PM
I don't use this forum much, I'm more used to my...wait for it...radical feminist forum. Does a Mod move it? Do we request that? Do I just start one?

Sheriff of Moddingham: No. Don't do that. Real World Politics is an Inappropriate Topic on this Board. It's already de-railed this thread thoroughly (to the point that if the initial inquiry has been more or less answered, I'm going to lock the thread lest the political discussion continue).