The Golden Touch v.s. Bad Touch (Mature Content)

[Stitches]

{Scrubbed}

[Deophaun]

bare hand, fist, or natural weapon
That is the only "contact" that will trigger it.

[Kazuel]

Not sure why it had to be asked like that. Could have just said "evil guy grabs her arm". But I imagine it would work.

[Xervous]

Probably for the wow factor and to entice people to post...

Remember children, a monk can make unarmed strikes with any part of their body, hence the whole thing is a natural weapon.

[Deophaun]

Remember children, a monk can make unarmed strikes with any part of their body, hence the whole thing is a natural weapon.

A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet.
A monk that is all fists, elbows, knees, and feet would probably be an aberration, not a humanoid.

[Xervous]

I should probably make some sort of link to put in my sig to track how often I get things right...

[Deophaun]

I should probably make some sort of link to put in my sig to track how often I get things right...
Might still be right. "Unarmed attacks may use any part of the body" is something that I see pop up a lot. Wouldn't surprise me if there's another entry somewhere that I can't be bothered to find. :smallbiggrin:

[Stitches]

The reason I didn't say arm, is because it was her arm he touched.

[SiuiS]

A monk that is all fists, elbows, knees, and feet would probably be an aberration, not a humanoid.

The Player's handbook and follow up books paint a subtly different picture. The wording in the PHB prompted Wan Hung Lo, the elf monk who flurried by wearing nothing but chaps, who woul leap into his enemies and spin.


As soon as the monk wakes up and makes a grapple roll – which can cause unarmed strike damage – it'll work.

[Stitches]

My thoughts were pretty cut and dry.

The feat reads:

"Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice (see Ravages and Afflictions in Chapter 3: Exalted Equipment for effects)."

I would imagine it would not take effect until an attack roll is made and it hits. My DM thought otherwise. He felt it was at the point of contact, period. Also saying any physical contact (skin on skin) would trigger the supernatural ability. I disagreed. Thoughts?

[Deophaun]

The Player's handbook and follow up books paint a subtly different picture. The wording in the PHB prompted Wan Hung Lo, the elf monk who flurried by wearing nothing but chaps, who woul leap into his enemies and spin.
Not really. I checked the PHB first. The wording under the monk entry is identical in this respect. The only difference is the omission of the introductory sentence:

Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed, giving them considerable advantages when doing so.
Not saying that there aren't other sources. Just that the Monk entry doesn't seem to support it.

[Nettlekid]

Yeah, that scenario description really wasn't necessary. It would have been simpler to say "If an evil character grabs or otherwise attacks a Monk who has Touch of Golden Ice, does the feat activate?" To which I'd say, based on the outright wording of the feat, the evil character would have to touch the Monk's bare hand or fist in order for the feat to take effect. More strictly, because it says "creature you touch," your DM might rule that you have to be the offensive one, that is to say, you must reach out and touch the other, rather than just being touched. But that's a bit nitpicky. Anyway, if the evil creature avoided the Monk's hands, it shouldn't activate Touch of Golden Ice.

Remember, it says Natural Attack, and Monk's Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Attack, so knees/elbows/whatever still won't trigger it. It says hand or fist.

[Nightraiderx]

My thoughts were pretty cut and dry.

The feat reads:

"Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice (see Ravages and Afflictions in Chapter 3: Exalted Equipment for effects)."

I would imagine it would not take effect until an attack roll is made and it hits. My DM thought otherwise. He felt it was at the point of contact, period. Also saying any physical contact (skin on skin) would trigger the supernatural ability. I disagreed. Thoughts?

Melee touch attack would also do the work, don't even have to hurt the person. Other than that I agree with your point.

[Stitches]

Deophaun:

I would think that would refer to 'flurry of blows' and increased dmg die from fists.

[Deophaun]

Remember, it says Natural Attack, and Monk's Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Attack, so knees/elbows/whatever still won't trigger it. It says hand or fist.
No, it doesn't (It says natural weapon) and yes, it is.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

[Nettlekid]

No, it doesn't (It says natural weapon) and yes, it is.

Oh, right you are. For some reason I really thought that it didn't count as such. Maybe I'm thinking the other way around, that natural attacks don't count as unarmed strikes.

[bravebonebook]

If you're allowing BoED then you're letting some"lawful goodness" into your game. Why would you want such a heinous and evil act to occur yet deny the good character a chance to use said power-allowed-into-the-game from activating at the moment it is needed because of RAW?

She's obviously holy and I'm assuming pious from being a monk. Or did the act not get carried out? Or was the female, sleeping monk an NPC?

[Mr.Bookworm]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

You stand up, give the DM and/or player the finger, and walk the **** out the door.


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Who cares?

No, really, that's what you're asking about?

[Ashtagon]

I've posted this elsewhere before, but it bears repeating.


Children as well as adults play RPGs. This is a vital part of any hobby continuing on, and should be encouraged. As with any medium (whether television, general web surfing, movies, etc.), parental discretion is advised. I don't want to see an authoritarian "remote nanny" that censors everything that might damage young minds for their protection. I'd far rather parents take an active part in educating their children about the wider world. This encourages family interaction (valuable in itself), makes the parents more aware of what the children are doing, and allows parents the opportunity to explain why some things are best left till later (assuming the children are mature enough to understand such an explanation).

The rest of this assumes we are dealing with an audience sufficiently mature to appreciate "mature" topics in gaming.

I don't want sex for the sake of sex in my gaming. There are far more effective ways for people to get their jollies if that is what they are after, and it does nothing to discourage the image that RPGs are a "men's game". However, there is a long history of seduction in story-telling, which does of course act as a prelude to sex. Vampires, dryads, mermaids, succubi, sidhe... the list is quite endless. in all these cases though, traditional story-telling " fades to black" when it comes to the sex act itself, with the story instead focusing on the charm vs. seduction and apparent "loss" of free will; In some of these stories the "victim" is quite willing. Those stories that focus on the mind are an excellent use of such creatures.

In any case, rape is not a suitable subject for RPGs. Regardless of whether it is a more or less severe hurt that killing, the fact remains that a significant number of women walking around today have been raped (the statistics would shock and horrify any right-thinking person), whereas no one likely to play an RPG is likely to have been killed. We simply don't need to put female players in the situation of having to relive that in what is supposed to be a fun game, especially considering that traditional fantasy tropes assume "bad guys are killing good guys" is sufficient motivation for any heroic character to mobilise for action.

[AttilaTheGeek]

You stand up, give the DM and/or player the finger, and walk the **** out the door.

That's what I'd do.

[Caylus]

{scrubbed}

[Ashtagon]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

You miss the point. IT WASN'T YOU. There is a world of difference between "it happened to someone I know" and "it happened to me".

[Virdish]

Unbiased observer walking in and attempting to point something out.

Rape may or may not be an appropriate subject to bring up in an rpg and for you that may be your decision however coming into a random thread and enforcing your opinion on other people is wrong. The OP did not ask whether this event was something that should or should not come up. Honestly it comes down to sensitivity and responsibility to determine what subjects come up. I have had groups where sexual situations were completely off the table and others where it was something we explored. It truly depends on the people involved.

[Stitches]

If you're allowing BoED then you're letting some"lawful goodness" into your game. Why would you want such a heinous and evil act to occur yet deny the good character a chance to use said power-allowed-into-the-game from activating at the moment it is needed because of RAW?

She's obviously holy and I'm assuming pious from being a monk. Or did the act not get carried out? Or was the female, sleeping monk an NPC?

We are dealing with 2 PC's in this case. One really evil, and one really good.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Rape may or may not be an appropriate subject to bring up in an rpg and for you that may be your decision however coming into a random thread and enforcing your opinion on other people is wrong. The OP did not ask whether this event was something that should or should not come up. Honestly it comes down to sensitivity and responsibility to determine what subjects come up. I have had groups where sexual situations were completely off the table and others where it was something we explored. It truly depends on the people involved.

You have the right to come in here and talk about your creepy-ass games and I have the right to tell you, that in fact, your game is creepy as hell.

[Ashtagon]

Unbiased observer walking in and attempting to point something out.

Rape may or may not be an appropriate subject to bring up in an rpg and for you that may be your decision however coming into a random thread and enforcing your opinion on other people is wrong. ...

Enforcing? I merely gave my opinion. As a practical point, I'm not in a position to enforce anything.

To answer the OP's original question. I either walk out of the game, or eject him from the building, depending on who's home it is. And that person is shunned Amish style, and banned from all future gaming sessions and non-gaming social events, ever. That's what happens if a GM pulls that scenario with me.

This would all happen long before the Golden Ice feat comes into consideration, rendering the feat irrelevant.


We are dealing with 2 PC's in this case. One really evil, and one really good.

Well, in that case, the player of the raping character get shunned and banned as above.

[TaiLiu]

We are dealing with 2 PC's in this case. One really evil, and one really good.
...I'm not sure what to think of your players.

[Zanos]

-Snip-
It is presented as a theme in many other forms of media so I fail to see how it is any less appropriate then in a movie or television show. That doesn't mean I would like to see it described in detail/happens right in front of the players at any of my tables.

I do agree however that a player doing that to someone else's character is beyond the bounds of any table I would play at or run, and should not be encouraged or allowed.

To the actual question though, the feat comes into affect as soon as there is contact between a "hand, fist, or natural weapon." As soon as the...uh...grapple starts, I would imagine there would be contact.

[Caylus]

{Scrubbed}

[Ashtagon]

{scrubbed}

[Jeff the Green]

*takes a deep breath*


A person with PTSD related to murder or general violence will likely avoid D&D altogether as violence is inherent to the game. A person with PTSD related to sexual assault won't because there aren't rules for rape and so they wouldn't expect to encounter it.

Rape is a special form of violence because it represents an absolute denial of the victim's personhood by the rapist. General violence, even murder, doesn't.

D&D is a role playing game about combat, in which sex and sexualities violence can be glossed over. It is not a game about rape in which combat can be glossed over.

How many amputees do you know have their PTSD triggered by images of swords?

[Spuddles]

{Scrubbed}

[Equinox]

I agree that rape and sexuality are extremely sensitive topics, and should not be inserted into the game unless everyone is quite certain everyone else is on board with this.

Generic violence is another matter. The game is pretty much made to be a violence simulator, so by sitting down to play it you tacitly agree to partake in depictions of violence on some level or another.

[Jeff the Green]

I've been beat up before. I find your enjoyment of playing a mugging simulator extremely offensive. The numbers will show that because you are female, you will never experience anywhere near the level of violence and senseless beating a male will. If you knew what I have gone through and that saying just one wrong word can result in broken teeth and concussion, then you would understand that attack rolls have no place in RPGs.

Uh-huh. Pray tell, what numbers are you talking about?

The fact is that mugging/generic violence is qualitatively different from sexual assault. How many victims of mugging are disbelieved because people think they just regret giving that poor homeless person money? How many muggers enjoy social opprobrium from large portions of society?

It's especially different in the context of D&D. There are rules for how likely you are to hit someone with a punch and how many punches it takes to knock someone out. There aren't rules for how likely it is your rape victim will commit suicide, whether they'll be believed by the police, or how many times they'll be called a slut. So, again, someone who has PTSD triggered by depictions of general violence (which is pretty rare, actually; it's usually much more specific situations) knows to avoid D&D. Someone who has PTSD triggered by depictions of sexual assault wouldn't.

The problem is not so much that a given game might include sexualities violence. I know survivors of sexual assault who'd like it as a way to process their emotions. It's that the op was at best insensitive to survivors of sexual assault (a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests at least 50 have seen this thread so far) in describing it without trigger warnings (no, a mature content warning is not the same thing) and assuming that people would be okay with it. It's that people like you are making false, facetious, and clueless analogies. And it's that you are contributing to a culture that minimizes and denies the unique and real harms sexual assault causes.

[Spuddles]

Yeah, alright. I'll scrub my post and hope the mods do the same with you and Ashtagon's tumblr logic.

[Virdish]

You have the right to come in here and talk about your creepy-ass games and I have the right to tell you, that in fact, your game is creepy as hell.

When did I say that I played in games that involved rape? And secondly look up the phrase ad hominem and then think about it. I did not even espouse the game in question as being ok. I simply said that it was not your place, nor anyone elses, to make that call.

[Mr.Bookworm]

{Scrubbed}

[Talya]

I've posted this elsewhere before, but it bears repeating.

Respectfully, I disagree. I've been a victim of the topic you are discussing, so I feel qualified to say this.

Playing an RPG is not necessarily primarily about combat. It is, in its purest form, playing an interactive story. Much like the late great George Carlin once said about taboo subjects in comedy, the same thing applies to storytelling as does to joking: you can tell stories about anything. There are no taboo subjects. Not everyone will want to be part of or tell these stories. Not all of them are suitable for this board. But you're not being "creepy" or playing the game wrong or such just because you include something that really happens in life in a game. Now, there are some ways that are more offensive than others, but even then, if nobody at the table is offended, there's ultimately no problem. You're creating a form of art when you play an RPG, and art can be horrifying (and there are few things more horrifying than this subject.) Art can be erotic. Art can be violent. Art can be dramatic. Art can be anything we want it to be.

[Fates]

Playing an RPG is not necessarily primarily about combat. It is, in its purest form, playing an interactive story. Much like the late great George Carlin once said about taboo subjects in comedy, the same thing applies to storytelling as does to joking: you can tell stories about anything. There are no taboo subjects. Not everyone will want to be part of or tell these stories. Not all of them are suitable for this board. But you're not being "creepy" or playing the game wrong or such just because you include something that really happens in life in a game. Now, there are some ways that are more offensive than others, but even then, if nobody at the table is offended, there's ultimately no problem. You're creating a form of art when you play an RPG, and art can be horrifying (and there are few things more horrifying than this subject.) Art can be erotic. Art can be violent. Art can be dramatic. Art can be anything we want it to be.

This. Exactly this. I do not personally include rape in my own campaigns while I have included things such as systematic slaughter, torture, terrorism, slavery, and genocide- I do this because I know that my players are mature enough to take them seriously while still comfortable enough to play in a game that includes such things; I simply do not believe that my players would be comfortable with me including rape, and so I avoid it. I don't do this, however, because I feel in any way that these issues are less significant than rape- how could anyone ever make that judgement? To do so would be to trivialize those who have been victims of the other abhorrent things I've mentioned and so many more, and that includes those whose loved ones were victimized. It is insensitive and cruel to do so, and yet so many people on this thread are already guilty of just that.

So if the OP's game includes rape, it does not necessarily mean that his DM is evil or insensitive. It may simply mean that out of the countless abhorrent things that happen every day in our society, rape is one with which the players are comfortable playing. If the DM has already ensured that that falls within the players' comfort zones, and is prepared to handle the subject maturely, then there is no problem whatsoever. If- and I am liable to suspect this given the OP's relative apathy- that the DM and the players are not taking the issue seriously, than perhaps they should not include it in their game. But then again, I feel the same way about murder as well, but I'm in the minority in that regard.


Now, one PC attempting to rape another is a very, very serious business and could (and should!) have a huge weight on the stability of the campaign....

Agh, I've hit a dead end here. Too much to think about. That's it from me, I hope I haven't made a complete ass of myself.

EDIT: Oh, and please, please don't refer singularly to women when referring to rape victims. Some one in ten rape victims is male, and in fact I personally know one such person and take great offense at male rape victims being so regularly ignored simply because they are in the minority.

[Fates]

{scrubbed}

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: If you think to yourself "I should mark this thread/post 'mature content'" -- don't post it. If you think to yourself, "this thread seems really inappropriate" -- don't post in it. If you didn't think either of these things about this thread -- please review the Forum Rules.

Locked for review and permanently.