A rpg evil session managed to disturb me

[Conradine]

I had a session yesterday with a group I knew recently ( we started a month ago, more or less ). I supercially knew the players and they're not bad people ( for what I know ). I was with an old friend of me, that introduced me to this group.

Well, we played an evil sandbox scenario and things got... weird.

I'm used to play evil characters and not easily impressed. I don't squick if the PC's take down a few civilians or use "enhanced interrogation techniques". But I never found myself in a similar situation before, I always tried to stay inside the limits of good taste.

I'll not go into details, I'll only say things got too graphical and gory, and the players seemed to like it a bit too much. Expecially when it involved children NPC.

My friend felt sick and left the table, I found an excuse and left too. He was really embarassed and sorry, I felt sorry for him and told him it was nothing to be worried about, it's just a game. I don't think we'll show up again at that table.
Did I overreact? Usually I'm able to detach myself and always remember it's just a game but this time I got some disturbing mental images.

[Eldan]

That's in no way an overreaction. Getting out when you feel uncomfortable is always justified.

[False God]

If you feel uncomfortable when something happens, and you excuse yourself from the table, that is 100% something you get to determine.

[NRSASD]

You did right by leaving. I recommend talking to your fellow players and DM and asking them to tone it down a little since it makes you uncomfortable. If they're reasonable people, they'll be more than happy to oblige. If not, feel free to find a new group.

D&D should be fun for everyone! We all have different tastes, and the best way to ensure maximum fun is to talk out what areas are off limits.

[JNAProductions]

If you otherwise liked the game, talk to the other players and DM about possibly toning it down.

If too much happened and you don't want to return at all... Then don't return at all.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with not having fun and deciding a game isn't for you.

Best of luck in your future gaming endeavors!

[kyoryu]

I don't think you overreacted.

If the game doesn't work for you, don't play. As you said, you recently joined the group - if nobody else had any qualms about doing this, or were laughing about it or similar, I will guarantee this isn't the first time similar has happened.

I think that child torture is definitely one of those things that would be off the table in most games, and should be explicitly warned about in some way. At least to the extent "when we say evil, we mean it. Nothing is off the table."

If something like that were to happen in one of my games (and I probably wouldn't let it), it would be A Thing. Like, a huge, charged event with loud words and stuff. You make it sound like it wasn't, which tells you how the table plays.

[denthor]

Close to ten years ago now we ran an evil monster game. We did not do good things to a 1 year old baby made mom watch as goblins played football(american) as they killed it the mom then we and the tribe ate.

The table did not feel good about this 10 of us. It got toned down in describing the scenes after that. There was no real accomplish feeling. Why I play is to roll dice have fun get loud. Very few adult beverages one six pack 9 people.

Many D&D players play evil as greedy or lustful. We tend to forget what evil really is. Your group may have set a tone, shown what they are talking about never to be that graphic again, or may really like it. You will never know if you do not go back.

For the record I am not encouraging you to go back.

As a side note I've found in talking to DMs that players tend to be evil in their play. An example of this is best shown by the types of equipment they choose to use against the so-called bad guys.

If you look at most groups and you asked about their magic items. You will find they took it off the bad guys knew it was evil and still decided that it was cool and usable.

We as players do not flinch in this we should. Most groups are evil they just don't want to admit it because they go after greater evil than themselves.

I posed this question to anybody reading this tell me about the magic items in your game and what the alignment was when you started versus what it is now. Look for a new threat on the topic

[kyoryu]

Some players like a style of game I call “take the demon for a walk.”

Either you like this, or you don’t. If that’s what they’re doing (and a lot of “evil” campaigns do), and you don’t like it, you’re not gonna dig the game.

It’s worth finding out what page the table is on, but the signs are there.

Note that I’m not saying that type of game is wrong. But it’s wrong for some people for sure.

[Conradine]

Actually I'm not easy to squick. Really not, actually most of my PC are evil. But evil like "not accepting surrender, use poisons and evil magic, don't care about civilian casualities" and the like. I don't like ( much ) torture for the sake of torture but I never left a session for that. But there was something definetly morbid in the detailed description of child abuse and torture, so after an hour - more or less - it reached the point I started feel uneasy.
When they started "playing" with the remains it was a bit too much even for me and I quitted.

[zinycor]

Actually I'm not easy to squick. Really not, actually most of my PC are evil. But evil like "not accepting surrender, use poisons and evil magic, don't care about civilian casualities" and the like. I don't like ( much ) torture for the sake of torture but I never left a session for that. But there was something definetly morbid in the detailed description of child abuse and torture, so after an hour - more or less - it reached the point I started feel uneasy.
When they started "playing" with the remains it was a bit too much even for me and I quitted.

Am on the same page. Personally I don't play evil campaigns with people I don't trust, even though I mostly enjoy the chance of being able to play as a band of evil guys.

It comes down to a matter of trust, knowing where people draw the line and be willing to play without crossing those lines.

[kyoryu]

A) Everyone has their lines.

B) There's a difference between doing those things because they're effective, blah blah blah, and doing them because you're getting some kind of visceral enjoyment out of them. Those are not the same. Note that the second one is the "taking the demon for a walk" style I mentioned.

[sktarq]

This is one of those times where a "session 0" comes in really helpful.

an evil campaign is one of those times that needs this in order to establish expectations, norms, and boundaries.

if after finding your personal boundaries crossed you can decide to not to play with these people again, not play in THIS evil campaign with them that is using norms you don't like, or talk to them about establishing normas that allow you (and apparently your friend) to enjoy yourselves at the table as well (they are also well within their rights to say they want such a "take the demon for a walk" so be ready for that...you being squicked/offended shouldn't invalidate their fun either)

it is probably best to talk to the DM outside of game if you can. Email if you have to but face to face or calling is better. It is important to get a sense of tone and emotion in this kind of conversation.

Having lost friends to this kind of situation I will say it is important to get things out and clear before things go too far sideways.

[False God]

Actually I'm not easy to squick. Really not, actually most of my PC are evil. But evil like "not accepting surrender, use poisons and evil magic, don't care about civilian casualities" and the like. I don't like ( much ) torture for the sake of torture but I never left a session for that. But there was something definetly morbid in the detailed description of child abuse and torture, so after an hour - more or less - it reached the point I started feel uneasy.
When they started "playing" with the remains it was a bit too much even for me and I quitted.

I played with a couple kids like that (and I do mean kids 15-17) they were just very...descriptive when it came to physical violence, and there was something about their tone when they talked about that just gave me the willies. It wasn't like good storytelling that upsets you, it was like, they wanted to actually go do these things, or had put a lot of thought into how to go about doing these things and D&D just happened to be the place they were doing in.

[Particle_Man]

This came out recently and might be useful to the OP (or indeed, to anyone trying out a new game, new group, etc.). It is free! And Internet Trolls hate it so it must be good!

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...sent-in-Gaming

[SimonMoon6]

I've only had one similar experience. It was at a con and I don't remember what game it was, but it was something that was either set in a modern world or a future world. And I wasn't actually playing (I think), just watching. The PCs were interrogating some NPCs. Very casually, in a very blase style, as if this was what they *always* had to do with those pesky NPCs, they quickly rattled off their usual interrogation technique: "Okay, sigh, we start cutting off fingers and toes until he talks."

That was going just a bit too far for me.

[Particle_Man]

I had my players feeding broken glass to an npc they didn’t like. In the supposedly heroic 50 Fathoms campaign. Sigh.

I have since put a “pcs must be good aligned heroes” clause when I run a game. It works so far.

[Talakeal]

This came out recently and might be useful to the OP (or indeed, to anyone trying out a new game, new group, etc.). It is free! And Internet Trolls hate it so it must be good!

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...sent-in-Gaming

Call me a troll and get out the alchemist's fire then, because man does that book make my blood boil.

[Karl Aegis]

Well, if you aren't playing the game, it's not much of a game. A certain amount of conciseness should be demanded so you aren't spending an hour describing something not relevant to the game.

[zinycor]

This came out recently and might be useful to the OP (or indeed, to anyone trying out a new game, new group, etc.). It is free! And Internet Trolls hate it so it must be good!

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...sent-in-Gaming

I like it! Very easy read and very useful.

[Satinavian]

People have different boundaries. And it is not wrong to explore those boundaries.

A couple of years ago a player asked if she could a rapist cleric to some god of dominance, strength, fertility and competition that existed in the setting. We talked about it and allowed it after setting some limits both IG (what the other characters would tolerate) and OG (that we didn't want detailed descriptions). Her character ended up not really doing much actual raping in the whole campaign anyway. But it was not a problem.

More recently another group decided to have a go at an evil party. Not over the top evil, just organized crime level stuff. It still ended after only 3 sessions because most of us simply didn't like their characters or the stuff they were doing and had no fun.

[Mordante]

Personally I never had any trouble with this. In a Talislanta game I played the party actually had a lot of slaves doing all the work.

The party was trying to start their own religion, largely based on human sacrifice (think Aztec) with the purpose of becoming Gods ourselves. It was fun. Some sessions were brutal. My character had his eyes gouged out as punishment. But mostly it was a lot of fun.

[zinycor]

Personally I never had any trouble with this. In a Talislanta game I played the party actually had a lot of slaves doing all the work.

The party was trying to start their own religion, largely based on human sacrifice (think Aztec) with the purpose of becoming Gods ourselves. It was fun. Some sessions were brutal. My character had his eyes gouged out as punishment. But mostly it was a lot of fun.

Did you know your fellow players beforehand?

[Mordante]

Did you know your fellow players beforehand?

Nothing was planned beforehand. The campaign ran for years. In the beginning we were all kind of good guys but slowly things changed. We never go to finish it sadly. The group fell apart after some of them got children.

Talislanta is a nice world/setting/RPG

[Arbane]

Call me a troll and get out the alchemist's fire then, because man does that book make my blood boil.

Why is that?

[Themrys]

You didn't overreact.

Playing evil characters just isn't my cup of tea in general, but I usually tolerate the "we torture the captured villain for information" kind of PC at the table, although my characters will always oppose them.

Evil for the sake of evil, and not just the "I like to wear black hooded cloaks and do necromancy" kind, but torture of children? I would have left the table, too. People who do that tend to be either not really immersed in the game (and thus don't see NPCs as real people), which is very annoying and not fun if you are more of a roleplayer, or give the impression that they would like to do it in real life, which is very creepy. (I suppose I might get along with people who play evil characters for the sake of telling a good story, but that is usually the GMs' job, and in that case the cruelty wouldn't be described in detail. Pratchett managed to describe a horrible villain simply by saying that: "He liked children", and only implying why, exactly, people considered that a bad thing.)

@Particle_Man: I don't have an account there and don't want to make one just to have a look at the pdf, so ... could you give a short description of why it angers the internet trolls?

It surprises me that someone felt a need to write a whole pdf on what, imho, amounts to not being an a**hole, and while I am familiar with the fact that internet trolls don't like being told to not be a**holes, I wonder how this is so extremely controversial.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I think my main issue with it would have been that it sounds really boring. "I torture the child", fine, move on. But wasting an hour on lavish descriptions is just an annoying waste of everyone's time on stuff that doesn't matter.

[Talakeal]

Why is that?

Man, I could write a whole essay about everything srong with this book. In short, I am a big advocate of free speech and exploring human nature through games, and this runs contrary tomboth. The execution os horribly botched, it is literally unuseable as written, and everything there is writtenwith the goal of shutting down communication and avoiding discussion rather than actually giving advice for resolving conflicts or improving communication.

The idea that anyone should be able to shut down anyone else's character concept without discussion for any reason or no reason is just wrong to me.

[Themrys]

Man, I could write a whole essay about everything srong with this book. In short, I am a big advocate of free speech and exploring human nature through games, and this runs contrary tomboth. The execution os horribly botched, it is literally unuseable as written, and everything there is writtenwith the goal of shutting down communication and avoiding discussion rather than actually giving advice for resolving conflicts or improving communication.

The idea that anyone should be able to shut down anyone else's character concept without discussion for any reason or no reason is just wrong to me.

I haven't read the thing, so you will have to explain a bit more. IF you want to be considered reasonable, that is.

"Torturing babies isn't for me" is self-explaining and needs no justification or discussion. Nor does "I don't want any sexual violence in my game".

Rpgs ought to be fun. I am not going to play with someone who demands that I produce a written apology letter from my psychotherapist that states that, since I am a woman who has to live in a patriarchal society, being confronted with sexual violence in a game would be very bad for my psychological wellbeing.
{Scrubbed}

So there is that.


I know there are people who cannot deal with people having differing opinions and claim to be "triggered" by people having different opinions, but let's be honest: that kind of person is very annoying and I would rather know they are that way before starting to play with them.

Say, I want to play a scholar who spreads the information that earth is round. Other player says: "Nooo, you can't play such a horrible bigot, the earth is flat and we all know that, why would you play such a terrible person?" Everyone else nods.

I then leave the group and spare myself a lot of trouble.

What's wrong with it?

Discussion doesn't solve that kind of problem. Either a person has good reason to not want something in the game, or they are a {Scrubbed}. In both cases, talking about it might lead to interesting interpersonal drama, if you like that sort of thing, but will have the same result: Someone will leave the group.


People who don't want something in the game and have a reason they are willing to discuss will usually indicate that they are willing to discuss it.

"No, you are not going to play a cleric of the demon of rape. Just no." versus "You want to play a necromancer? I don't know how I feel about that. How evil, exactly, would she be?"

[Talakeal]

I haven't read the thing, so you will have to explain a bit more. IF you want to be considered reasonable, that is.

"Torturing babies isn't for me" is self-explaining and needs no justification or discussion. Nor does "I don't want any sexual violence in my game".

Rpgs ought to be fun. I am not going to play with someone who demands that I produce a written apology letter from my psychotherapist that states that, since I am a woman who has to live in a patriarchal society, being confronted with sexual violence in a game would be very bad for my psychological wellbeing.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

So there is that.


I know there are people who cannot deal with people having differing opinions and claim to be "triggered" by people having different opinions, but let's be honest: that kind of person is very annoying and I would rather know they are that way before starting to play with them.

Say, I want to play a scholar who spreads the information that earth is round. Other player says: "Nooo, you can't play such a horrible bigot, the earth is flat and we all know that, why would you play such a terrible person?" Everyone else nods.

I then leave the group and spare myself a lot of trouble.

What's wrong with it?

Discussion doesn't solve that kind of problem. Either a person has good reason to not want something in the game, or they are a {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}. In both cases, talking about it might lead to interesting interpersonal drama, if you like that sort of thing, but will have the same result: Someone will leave the group.


People who don't want something in the game and have a reason they are willing to discuss will usually indicate that they are willing to discuss it.

"No, you are not going to play a cleric of the demon of rape. Just no." versus "You want to play a necromancer? I don't know how I feel about that. How evil, exactly, would she be?"

I agree with more or less everything you said here. That is not the book that is being discussed.

For example, to use your flat earth example, here is how it would play out if you were following the rules presented in Consent in RPGs:

Someone in the group would mention the Earth being round.

One player would inform the group that they did not opt in to a game where the Earth is round, with no further explanation or discussion.

The person who brought up the round Earth would apologize to the person who didn't opt in.

The DM would scrub all references to a round Earth from the campaign, and all PCs would scrub all references to the rou d
Earth from their backstory.

Nobody is allowed to mention the Earth being round in that gaming group again, regardless of whether it is part of the game or merely table chatter.

[Themrys]

I agree with more or less everything you said here. That is not the book that is being discussed.

For example, to use your flat earth example, here is how it would play out if you were following the rules presented in Consent in RPGs:

Someone in the group would mention the Earth being round.

One player would inform the group that they did not opt in to a game where the Earth is round, with no further explanation or discussion.

The person who brought up the round Earth would apologize to the person who didn't opt in.

The DM would scrub all references to a round Earth from the campaign, and all PCs would scrub all references to the rou d
Earth from their backstory.

Nobody is allowed to mention the Earth being round in that gaming group again, regardless of whether it is part of the game or merely table chatter.

But that works perfectly! Because you then could just opt out of playing with people who think that the fact of the earth being round is something it is reasonable to shelter a group member from.

If instead of "earth is round" you use "eating babies" , then all references to baby eating are scrubbed from the campaign, all references to eating babies are scrubbed from the backstories, and no one would be allowed to ever again mention the eating of babies ever again, even as table chatter ... which I frankly don't think is that bad a loss.

I agree that it is not a good text to use as a kind of rulebook or bible. You would have to apply common sense to it, and if there was a player who wanted to opt out of references to the earth being round, everyone else would, if they are reasonable, say: "Well, sorry, but that's a pretty vital fact about the world, we don't think we can have fun playing without referencing it. Perhaps this group just is not for you."

That way, it would work to make sure that everyone is onboard with the setting, and there's no drama at a later point.

(If the horror GM I had the misfortune of meeting had announced in session zero that he cannot have fun with a game where there is no misogyny, that would have been valuable information. Of course I would not have said "Ok, then, let's pretend this actually equal setting is horribly misogynist", but would have said "Ok, then I don't want to play with you", and possibly, all other players would have agreed and we would have found a better GM instead of him scaring away players one by one.)


Consent works both ways. You always get to opt out of a game that does NOT have something in it which you want in it.

With most things reasonable people don't want in their games, you will probably not choose to use your right to opt out. But you still have it, and if you think the thing in question is so mundane and everyday that a world where it is never mentioned is completely silly and unrealistic, you can opt out.

And if everyone else chooses to not opt out, you probably wouldn't have been happy playing with them, anyway.