PDA

View Full Version : There's evil, and then there's just plain sick.



Gerrtt
2007-04-18, 07:33 PM
OK...here's the short version. I'm playing in an evil game at a local games shop once a week. It's been fun so far dispite the fact that we have only had 1 combat and we're on week 4. However, we just had a new character enter the game with a somewhat disturbing personality feature; pedophillia.


Now, evil is one thing but the way I see it pedophillia is a whole other ballgame. From what I've talked to with the other players, we're pretty sure that if that goes on and we find out about it he's going to meet a rather nasty end, but is this reaction warrented? Am I just overreacting? I mean, sure, I know it's not my cup of tea but is it wrong for me to not want to be involved in a game where that takes place?

Any thoughts out there on what we could do about this player? Talking to him is obvious, but it's not really fair for us to say he can't play what he wants...but dude...nobody wants to think about a gnome pedophilling the next human kid we come across.

Tiberian
2007-04-18, 07:36 PM
I would just have the group talk to the player and tell them that their uncomfortable with the player's choice of character. Its kind of a bizarre case though, if the player is just experimenting with his roleplaying skill, he'll understand. If he's doing it as a kind of wish fulfillment, um..that's bad.

Tyger
2007-04-18, 07:38 PM
Evil is pretty relative really. If you're character is Lawful or even Neutral Evil, its quite likely that a diseased mind (as pedophilia is) would be abhorent and suject to a swift stab in the throat... but that's just my interpretation.

There are some things that I don't think should be RPed... rape and pedophilia top those lists. But then I am a pretty puritan bloke. The way I see it is that no one should have fun (which is the whole point of RPing, isn't it?) doing things that are just universally accepted as morally repugnant on that level. Especially if his "fun" is going to negatively impact upon the fun of the others at the table.

I say, stab him in the back and take his stuff - you know, just to end his suffering. :smalleek:

johhny-turbo
2007-04-18, 07:40 PM
Well, how serious is he? He could just be saying it for shock value and aside from the occasional creepy remark he might not really follow through with it.

kamikasei
2007-04-18, 07:42 PM
Of course it's fair to say he can't play what he wants. If there's something that the whole rest of the table doesn't want in the game, it's entirely unfair for one player to insist on bringing it in.

This particular issue is something people are extremely sensitive about and you generally wouldn't need to justify the desire to keep it out of play. If part of the point of this game is to be creepy, messed-up dudes indulging in "forbidden" behaviors then, maybe, the player could handle it as being an aspect of his character that's there but is never seen in play. Maybe. In all likelihood, and especially if it's more of a let's-take-over-the-world-mwahaha style of Evil game, you shouldn't feel at all bad about asking the player to change the concept or stay out of the game.

edit: I agree with Tyger's first paragraph above, that it would be entirely within character for many Evil characters to abhor a pedophile and either refuse to associate with him or even (they're Evil after all) murder him (more for offending their taste than their morality... but even the latter, for a Lawful Evil character).

Roethke
2007-04-18, 07:42 PM
I'd say you're totally within bounds asking him to change his character. It's simple courtesy-- if he's making the entire player group uncomfortable, then, regardless of some greater principle of 'you can play what you want', he should change.

Secondly, as regards ANY sexual content in games, most groups I've been in tacitly figure out G,PG,PG-13, etc, and violations in either direction usually end up with the character being called a prude, or groans of disgust, so it's pretty self regulating. If this guy is throwing things out of whack, then it's gotta be addressed so everyone can go back to having fun.

Finally, when you do talk to him, maybe ask why he made the character that way? I mean if it's just a lark, (okay a weird, weird lark), or maybe he read 'Pervy Hobbit Fancier' online and was inspired, or something, then changing to keep the group happy should be no big deal. Or maybe he comes up with a good explanation, and it's no longer as creepy. But if he's seriously, emotionally, committed to this character concept, then probably a good idea to ask if yourselves want to be hanging around with him.

.02
~R

Lord Tataraus
2007-04-18, 07:46 PM
That is very disturbing. I would never allow something like that in my campaign, I would tell him that he changes now or he is gone. I would talk to him and if he doesn't change he needs help, but until then kick him out.

Gerrtt
2007-04-18, 07:47 PM
Yeah, see, I'm not really sure how serious he is cause he joined the game and then wrote his character profile up afterwards. He did say that he was playing the character he was because someone thought it was funny, so I'm not sure how serious that means he is. Now, honestly, if it doesn't play out in game (at least, where we can see it, that is, as a private RP thing between him and the DM) then while still disturbing it's not as bad. But I'm pretty sure my character is going to think it warrents a Finger of Death if he does something to a little kid. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't totally crazy.

johhny-turbo
2007-04-18, 07:56 PM
edit: I agree with Tyger's first paragraph above, that it would be entirely within character for many Evil characters to abhor a pedophile and either refuse to associate with him or even (they're Evil after all) murder him (more for offending their taste than their morality... but even the latter, for a Lawful Evil character).
It'd depend on the specific character of course, I don't know about you but I'd say Marquis de Sade (and the protagonist in his works) would be LE but certainly wouldn't be offended by a pedophile (look up the 120 Days of Sodom on wikipedia if you wanna see why sadism is named after him)

But a Torquemada LE character, I'd totaly see them slaughtering anything that offends him

TSGames
2007-04-18, 07:56 PM
Any thoughts out there on what we could do about this player? Talking to him is obvious, but it's not really fair for us to say he can't play what he wants...but dude...nobody wants to think about a gnome pedophilling the next human kid we come across.
*Emphasis Added*
Ewww...a Gnome?! Kill it! Kill it at once!!!

Seriously though, if everyone at the table has agreed to kill him if he RP's his character then it's pretty clear he's overstepped some kind of boundary. I think that as soon as your characters discover this behavior they should kill him and take his stuff. It's not because it's an evil party; I would recommend it even for a good or neutral party. While I don't support metagaming, the fact is that a line was clearly crossed and the reprimand must be had. When your evil +1 daggers of backstabbing slash into him achieving retribution hopefully, just maybe, he will learn that he's gone too far and the line will not be violated again.

Fat Daddy
2007-04-18, 07:58 PM
You're not crazy. Personally, as a DM I wouldn't allow this and as a player I wouldn't play in a game where this was allowed. As someone already said, something that is universally morally repugnant and makes everyone else uncomfortable is not good for the game.

Keep in mind that I do not like this type of game at all. It is why I don't play in any games/campaigns that use or allow the BoVD. Just no need for it. The game is (for me) a creative escape not a rehash of the sickness we all see on the news every day.

Belteshazzar
2007-04-18, 08:16 PM
I could see Many evil characters being repulsed by this character as well as the good ones (assuming they weren't demonic.) I mean heck they may have kids too (take the mafia for example of lawful evil) 'If' you allow this character (and I am 'not' suggesting you you do) then be aware that anyone with mind reading would probably kill him on sight.

Maxymiuk
2007-04-18, 08:24 PM
I've started an evil game 3 weeks ago, and I have the good fortune of running for players mature enough that they talked about stuff like that beforehand and decided where the limits are.

I'd say. sit down as a group and have a similar talk among yourselves. Let the guy know that not everyone is comfortable with the topic.

the_tick_rules
2007-04-18, 08:35 PM
what about michael jackson, is he evil hehe.

MusScribe
2007-04-18, 08:55 PM
I'm going to agree with most people here.

Having a talk, maybe building the character concepts as you talk, would probably be best. Most of the problem is that there's a limit for personal preference.

For example, as a number of people here have said, they wouldn't allow the character. Or, wouldn't play with the character. Personally, it would depend. I mean, if it was one that forced himself on kids, that would probably be a bit much for me.

On the other hand, it could be a gnome who finds himself attracted to those of his size. Of course, in human lands, the only ones who meet these criteria are children. Now, he doesn't do anything, and is attempting to keep himself under control. That I'd probably be fine with, as long as the character was well thought out. It allows for a number of roleplaying possibilities, interesting situations, and if it gets to be a problem, could have the personality trait (or, if needed, the character) out.


But again, it comes down to personal comfort, as it is a game, to be played for fun. So if you (and, moreso, your whole group) are uncomfortable with the character - definitely say something. There are boundries people are comfortable with, and there are two ways to discover them. Talk them over or overstep them in game. I don't suggest the latter.

Diggorian
2007-04-18, 08:58 PM
You're not overreacting at all. Not only is it evil beyond evil, but you're gaming this campaign in public. Unless it's in an area away from the other game shop customers, could get your group kicked out. D&D doesnt need anymore ill-fame. Bring it up with him before your next session.

If this ... vice plays out off camera only with note passing, I'd say let him. This shouldn't be narrated ever. It's the blackest of a deep dark secret, could almost be a Flaw. Were it me I'd only tell the DM and revel in the secret.

Gnome with a human kid ... it's extra sick cause in a way it makes sense with ... size. *fails Will save, faints*

MusScribe
2007-04-18, 09:04 PM
I did miss the fact it was in a game shop...

In that case, I'll agree with Diggorian, in that if it's in front of other game shop customers (or could be in front of), then you should definitely suggest he leave that part out.


I mean, it's one thing when its with your own group that are comfortable with it, but for random people - possibly with their own kids there, it is definitely too far.

Cocktail Umbrellas
2007-04-18, 09:09 PM
I think it's certainly a matter that needs to be talked about.
Pedophilia really isn't funny. At all ^^;;....

Unless the pedophilia joke has to do with something silly like an elf and a human ("90 year old dating a 25 year old- oh how awkward tee hee hee") it's probably best to have at least that aspect of the character be eliminated. I think that when it comes to D&D non-consentual stuff should be kept away, just too sensitive a topic.

I find it funny that I'm saying this considering that there is often death, murder and other rather serious topics involved in the game, but I suppose pedophilia is just something that is so out of context in regards to the typical 'adventuring' invovled in gaming that I don't think it appropriate.

Meat Shield
2007-04-18, 09:10 PM
I would definitely throw up a red flag on this one. Here in Nashville, the only real FLGS in town was thrown on the front pages because one of the employees was arrested for even counts of child rape, four counts of aggravated sexual battery involving a child and two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. Needless to say, this was unneeded publicity. (The FLGS is the Game Keep, the employee in question was Jeremy Duffer. Link (http://www.amw.com/fugitives/case.cfm?id=37932))

To make things worse, he escaped custody and was not found for months until he was arrested while working at a travelling carnival.

This sort of thing that your friend is doing will only feed into the paranoia some people have about D&D. They have not gotten over the stuff from the 80s when it was all about Satan and your kids will be turned into witches blah blah blah. Stuff like this is not just uncool, it is actually hurtful to the game. Please make him stop.

MusScribe
2007-04-18, 09:19 PM
Very true Cocktail Umbrellas...

I mean, if you consider the starting ages - a Gnome is at least 44, while a Human is at least 16 (at most 27). And an Elf...

And, it is interesting the amount of serious topics that get joked about (death/murder/assassination, arsony over a whole town, mass destruction of worlds/planes, serial killing*, etc) - but things like this are so unusual that they aren't appropriate (as opposed to the other stuff)

*What would you call the systematic slaughter of anything that happens to be living in a specific area not of a specific (or group of specific) type?

Lolth
2007-04-18, 09:31 PM
Well, I hear that murderers in prison hold a special contempt for that sort of thing, so evil putting up with it is certainly not a given.

henebry
2007-04-18, 09:31 PM
Have any of you seen the classic Weimar Germany film "M", starring Peter Lorre? I ask because the situation described by the OP (a bunch of evil characters dumbfounded by the greater evil of pedophilia) is pretty much the plot of that movie. Lorre stars as a pedophile (& serial killer? not sure after all these years) who is hunted not just by the decent folk of his town but ultimately by the mafia and underworld.

Matthew
2007-04-18, 10:39 PM
Very weird. I don't know why anybody would want to bring that concept to the table, but then, I have heard many stories of so called 'evil' parties, that appear to have been nothing more than vicarious murder/rape fantasies being played out collectively. No way I would allow this to fly, except perhaps under the most exceptional of circumstances (Never say never, so I am told).

EvilElitest
2007-04-18, 10:50 PM
Dude, their is a reason why it is one of the most serous crimes in the US.
Really, that is more than sick, that is depraved.
Child mosletation is not funny, as a 15 year old i have heard a lot about it and it is not funny in the least.
If one of my players even suggested doing that, i'd kick them out
If another player wanted to play this, here is what i and you should do

Talk to the DM and him in front of the other players, say how you are really uncomfortable with the idea, really uncomfortable and it is borderline offensive. It is not enjoyable and it ruins the game
Now the player in question should catch on and will
1. quit it
2. Stay dedicated to it and keep at it dispite your complaints, then we have a nasty problem
Ehter demand that hte DM stop him / kick him out, or leave.

It is sick, gross, depraved, fundamentally wrong, awful, inmoral, cruel, tramatising, offensive, brutal, awful, and simple inhumain. Joking about this things is even worst than joking about things like rape or the Holocust.
Just no, no no no
from,
EE

lsfreak
2007-04-18, 11:22 PM
Really depends on the maturity and evil-ness of your game, which pretty much needs to be laid out ahead of time. This is obviously far above what your group is willing to deal with, and this should be pointed out and dealt with. Personally, that's about the only level of "evil" that still gets me and I refuse go in-depth whatsoever about.

EE, what about the torture or at the very least genocide present in most D&D games? >.> Is that not also sick, gross, depraved, fundamentally wrong, awful, immoral, cruel, traumatizing, offensive, brutal, awful, and simply inhumane? (Sorry, love to bring up ethics/morality in such situations).
Probably shouldn't answer that, as it's a thread hijack, but just something to think about :P

I_Got_This_Name
2007-04-18, 11:23 PM
*What would you call the systematic slaughter of anything that happens to be living in a specific area not of a specific (or group of specific) type?

Ethnic Cleansing? Genocide?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-18, 11:24 PM
Totally awesome? A very good night?

kpenguin
2007-04-18, 11:25 PM
My two cents:

As long as the player doesn't RP it and keeps in the background, I don't see why not. Pedophilia is not necessarily considered universally abhorent and in real life I would put it below the kind of wanton destruction and torture common in D&D on the list of great evils, although certainly a bit more disturbing. There are many historical pedophiles that are not considered as absolutely evil as many other historical figures who have commited crimes that are commonly incoperated in D&D. Was Socrates more of an abomination than Hitler? To modern players, pedophila is disturbing, but to say that a bunch of evil characters who are prone to torture and violence and so forth would hunt down and destroy a pedophile simply because of he/she is a pedophile is absurd.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-18, 11:29 PM
DID I JUST SEE GODWIN'S LAW?!

http://www.spindizzynews.org/argument.jpg

You brought this upon yourself.

kpenguin
2007-04-18, 11:34 PM
Fine, replace "Hitler" with Stalin or Saddam or Nero or whoever you want, my point is still the same.

J_Muller
2007-04-18, 11:37 PM
...that pic wins at the Internet.

Assassinfox
2007-04-18, 11:38 PM
Fine, replace "Hitler" with Stalin or Saddam or Nero or whoever you want, my point is still the same.

Too late. You've already invoked Godwin's Law.

Lilivati
2007-04-18, 11:43 PM
Everyone has their own personal boundaries regarding how much "reality" (in the sense of real world problems and evils) they want to see in their games. I think it's good to know where those boundaries are because beyond them is when it stops being fun. If you choose to talk to the player, instead of phrasing it as "it's wrong for you to play this way", try "it makes me really uncomfortable, and keeps me from enjoying the game. Would you consider changing it?"

I had this conversation with a DM once in a game that had involved PC rape (which is my personal line- it's one of the few things that can come up in a game that truly, deeply unnerves me). I knew it was an evil and a mature game, and I made it clear that I blamed only myself for becoming involved in it, but wanted to make him aware of my discomfort, and he was very understanding about the whole thing. I think people have a sense that everyone is there to have fun and don't have a goal of making it not fun.

Diggorian
2007-04-18, 11:44 PM
I think kpenguin has a good point. My own group could handle such perversion if played conservatively. My own LN character advocates slavery as less wasteful than coup de gracing defeated foes and smarter than turning them loose to kill ya later.

Still, if it damages fun for the players it's gotta go.

MusScribe
2007-04-18, 11:45 PM
Alright, kpenguin, I think you have put forth the example that I most agree with.
Especcially those games that claim to be roughly Middle Ages time period. Where it's generally accepted that girls would be married (and often pregnant) by 15/16, and occassionally even younger.
I mean, yes, there's a problem when you combine it with other things already mentioned, but by itself, especcially in the background I'm still going to say it wouldn't be too bad.

As for I_Got_This_Name / Viscount - Exactly my point. (And I think that Genocide / A very good night would be the best answers, probably - that or 'Generic Hack-n-Slash Dungeoncrawl')

EE, I think it's definitely interesting how much we agree, but I have to ask. Where is anyone joking about child molestation?

McDeath
2007-04-19, 01:02 AM
Even evil people can have moral objections. If they offend your character, you can certainly attempt to kill them. The better solution, however, would be to castrate him.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-19, 01:08 AM
Or eat his eyes. His delicious, delicious eyes.

You're evil, dude. You don't really need much more reason to do terrible things. Killing stuff because it offends you ought to be like taking the dog out for a walk or grocery shopping.

Fhaolan
2007-04-19, 01:21 AM
The most disturbing thing here is that the player chooses to run a pedophile because someone thought it would be funny. Who thought it would be funny? 'Someone' sounds a lot like 'himself' trying to put the blame on another. Thinking pedophilia is funny is very immature to begin with, trying to shift the blame even more so. This does not sound like the kind of person you want to associate with, let alone encourage.

[Disclaimers: I've never played in an 'Evil' campaign that worked. It always fell apart due to immaturity of some of the players. I find that 'Evil' campaigns attract these kinds of players, so you have to be prepared for it.

I have one funny Evil character. He's very successful, but utterly incompetent. He's so incompetent, he's gone out the other side and come back around again to competence. That’s what’s funny about him. Not his Evil deeds, but the fact he’s so blasted useless that he keeps getting away with everything.]

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-19, 01:26 AM
I'd actually be mortified if I ever found an evil campaign that worked without humor. That means the players are dead serious on committing atrocities. I'd much rather a bunch of immature kids making rape jokes than a couple of grown men seriously roleplaying murdering innocent people to further agendas.

Jothki
2007-04-19, 01:49 AM
It is sick, gross, depraved, fundamentally wrong, awful, inmoral, cruel, tramatising, offensive, brutal, awful, and simple inhumain. Joking about this things is even worst than joking about things like rape or the Holocust.
Just no, no no no
from,
EE

Seriously think about what you just said. No way in hell is pedophilia worse than the murder of millions of people.

It's fairly odd that we have such a strong knee-jerk reaction to sexual abuse, but don't mind mass-murder. Would you allow an evil party to set up concentration camps and commit genocide? If you would, I see no strong reason to disallow pedophilia. If you feel uncomfortable enough that including it in your game would make it less fun then go ahead and disallow it, but there's no reason to make a moral issue out of it.

RiOrius
2007-04-19, 02:10 AM
The most disturbing thing here is that the player chooses to run a pedophile because someone thought it would be funny. Who thought it would be funny? 'Someone' sounds a lot like 'himself' trying to put the blame on another. Thinking pedophilia is funny is very immature to begin with, trying to shift the blame even more so. This does not sound like the kind of person you want to associate with, let alone encourage.

Listen, and this goes to a lot of people I've seen posting in this thread: just because someone can discuss and/or joke about a topic you can't doesn't mean they're a bad person.

Don't get me wrong--it's fine that sensitive topics make you uneasy. Everyone gets unnerved by something. But I'd recommend against judging people so harshly based solely on the fact that they can find humor in something that horrifies you. It's really insulting and kinda stinks of prejudice (in the sense that, if you got to know myself or one of my friends who can joke with me about sketchy stuff, you'd like us until such a joke came up). You're giving in to a knee-jerk reaction, which is rarely a good idea.

Sorry for the threadjack. As far as the OP goes, I don't really have anything new to add: as has been said elsewhere, discuss it with the other players, request that the guy change his character, and try to set some limits or guidelines for what is or is not appropriate.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-04-19, 02:49 AM
I hate people unable to play any form of evil but "Chaotic JESUS CHRIST WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?!"

In our evil game, two of the five characters started betraying everyone and everything, including the rest of the players (some repeatedly, and see my sig for the last time), killing, torturing, lying, hiding important plot points from the rest of the group so the main story never happened...
Oh yeah, and then kidnapping a family of seven and forcing them to rape eachother.
Then they tried to piton my new character's balls to the wall.

Tengu
2007-04-19, 04:06 AM
If it freaks out the other players, be it pedophilia or even liking strawberries (because for some reason everyone but this one player have a fear of them), it has to go. The point of RPGs is to have fun, not to make the other players and watchers (if there are any) feel horribly awkward and/or disgusted.
BoEF (why do I refer to it so oftenly! Why!) says that only the most spineless and evil communities wouldn't condemn pedophilia - and since there are many shades of evil, it's more than reasonable to consider other evil people having issues in one of their companions being a pedophile. Not that better reasons and examples haven't been given before.
By the way, the general immaturity and lack of team cooperation of many (not all, of course) evil characters is one of the reasons I disallow them in my games.

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-19, 04:29 AM
I agree with MusScribe. What's the age of the Gnome vs these "little children"? Paedophilia is generally abhored all over(except in certain tribal settings), but ephebophilia(desire for relations with someone in their teens), while frowned upon, is sometimes accepted(eg. Rich 40+ old man marries a woman less than half his age). Of course, I'd kill him for being a Gnome before the paedophilia(if indeed that is what it is, and not ephebophilia).

In the Middle Ages(which is around the time period, technology-wise, that D&D is set in), it was not uncommon for girls(term for any young person) to be declared "adult" at the age of 14 or so, and married around the same age. Back in China, teenage girls from poorer families would be wed to infant boys(unknown when they actually consumated it, if ever, although mid-teens for the male would probably be a good guess), in order to get a better life(little better than a servant to the boy, but you're not slaving in the fields).

lord_khaine
2007-04-19, 05:17 AM
its also a cultural thing, correct me if im wrong, but as i recall in the ancient rome they also had some "fun" ideas about what was proper among men and boys?

still ill throw in my copper piece with the rest of the posters, and say if it freaks you out that much then ask him to drop it, either in or out of game.

Saph
2007-04-19, 05:43 AM
Gosh, you're playing an evil campaign, and the players are doing evil things. Who would have thought it? :P

I'm tempted just to say that it's your own damn fault for not thinking out likely consequences earlier, but that wouldn't be very helpful, so I'll echo Meat Shield and Diggorian:

Get rid of the guy. Now. Either kick him out of the group, or kill his character over and over until he gets the message. You are playing in a public location and you've got one of your group who is, to all intents and purposes, fantasising about performing one of the most loathed and hated crimes in the entire country. By the fact that you're playing with him, you're going to be seen as accepting this behaviour. Doesn't matter if you actually do - that's how passers-by are going to see it. It'll repulse most people who enter your game store, and the ones who aren't repulsed by it are going to include some guys whom you REALLY do not want hanging around you.

If you are going to play this sort of game, then for the love of God do it in private. Doing it in a public place is insanity.

- Saph

daggaz
2007-04-19, 07:02 AM
Too late. You've already invoked Godwin's Law.

Actually, Godwin's Law merely states that the probability that Hitler or Nazis will eventually be mentioned in any online thread or forum eventually approaches one. And Godwin himself explains that he coined it for pointing out 'inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations to Hitler or Nazis.' The comparison here is certainly appropriate, and kpenguin raises a very good point by doing it. Namely, that pedophilia is not necessarily a greater evil than many of the other evils commonly portrayed in DnD which are often taken more or less for granted by many players. Seriously... do you think Socrates is a worse man than Hitler? The question has merit.

That said, I think everybody else has made the most obvious point... that pedophilia tends to be strictly taboo in our cultures and causes a large amount of discomfort in most people, and as DnD is about having fun, it is under most circumstances very innappropriate subject matter and you shouldn't feel bad for voicing your opinion over this, or eventually even leaving the game.

Shadow of the Sun
2007-04-19, 07:07 AM
I'd punch him. In the face. So hard it exploded out the back of his head.

Seriously, I'd probably break his legs or something. I am a nice guy, but somethings should never be done.

Telonius
2007-04-19, 09:02 AM
Since it's in a gaming shop - no. Do not allow it.

If it had been in a private campaign... If it's making the other players at all weirded out, no. Do not allow it. That violates Rule Zero - have fun.

If I were DMing the campaign, I would have to look very, very closely before I allowed it, even assuming everybody else was okay with it. It's supposed to be an evil campaign, with evil characters, and you can't get much more vile than what he's created. If he's doing it to be funny, no. If he's doing it on a lark, no. If he's doing it as wish fulfillment, call the cops. But if he's genuinely trying to roleplay what he sees as the worst of the worst ... maybe. Maybe. And even then he's paying for the pizza.

jameswilliamogle
2007-04-19, 09:11 AM
Its weird... I don't think I could stomach someone playing a pedphile. Actually, I know I can't even stomach the RP of killing of innocents. I physically get sick, even if we're drow, and the victems are cowering goblin women and children.

I'd definitely have a sit-down w/ the player, and ask him to pick something else out of the Book of Vile Darkness to play with (like the sacrifice part). Or I'd boot him.

Ferreon
2007-04-19, 09:13 AM
(snip)...BoEF (why do I refer to it so oftenly! Why!) says that only the most spineless and evil communities wouldn't condemn pedophilia - and since there are many shades of evil, it's more than reasonable to consider other evil people having issues in one of their companions being a pedophile. Not that better reasons and examples haven't been given before....(snip)

Possibly because it actually CAN be used as a serious roleplay tool? (I admit, I bought it for giggles, but I can actually see some of the background stuff being useful)

my £0.02

He's playing a character, that indulges in the most vile thing most of us can think of. Is this something to be lauded, as an example of attempting to stretch ones roleplaying skills, or shunned as an example of something that will cause more harm to the hobby than good?

Both.

If he can convincingly portray a small, insignificant race more normally used as comic relief (can you tell I dislike gnomes?) as creepy and disgusting beyond almost all measure, then at the end of each session, he should receive a standing ovation (of course, I remind you of the famous quote about the abyss :smallwink: ). However, these sessions should never be held in public, where casually misheard and/or misunderstood comments can ruin what little good reputation our hobby still holds.

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-19, 09:39 AM
I find it a bit odd. Everyone here is automatically assuming that the fella in question is targetting barely-weaned kids. I'm still waiting to see the OP post the age-ranges. Something like "early teens" is somewhat questionable, but not out of the range for the period. Mid-teens shouldn't be a problem, and anything under 10 is definitely in the "Uh-uh" category.

Telonius
2007-04-19, 09:52 AM
At least in the parts of the US that I've lived in, anything under 14 or so is considered statutory rape (though the exact age level varies by jurisdiction, and there are other rules as to how old the older party is allowed to be). 13 years or 13 days, it's generally considered equally sick, evil, and illegal.

prufock
2007-04-19, 09:55 AM
Gaming is supposed to be fun. Once it ceases being so, then a change must occur. I think the guy was well within his rights as an EVIL character to take the personality feature, but you're also well within your rights to express your concerns, especially if the whole group feels the same way. It has to be a somewhat democratic process (after all, if you're playing an evil campaign, I assume everyone in your group is okay with murder, theft, torture, manipulation, etc. - you probably wouldn't cave to one player's objection to those). Most people can be reasoned with.

prufock
2007-04-19, 09:58 AM
I find it a bit odd. Everyone here is automatically assuming that the fella in question is targetting barely-weaned kids. I'm still waiting to see the OP post the age-ranges. Something like "early teens" is somewhat questionable, but not out of the range for the period. Mid-teens shouldn't be a problem, and anything under 10 is definitely in the "Uh-uh" category.

FYI, pedophilia refers to attraction to pre-pubescents, so it wouldn't include (usually) people in their teens.

Kamakazee_Gnome
2007-04-19, 09:59 AM
You could introduce Sanity, and reduce the character to a gibbering idiot... might not go so well in an Evil campaign though.

I've also found a Disintigrate to the groin works well against that sort of character. Solar's arrows work for that, too.

If you're opposing these characters using the BoED, possibly have powerful clerics of Lastai or some such diety try to kill him untill he gets the point.

Or just kill the character, take his stuff, and kick the player out of the group unless he can play something more... sane.

Fhaolan
2007-04-19, 10:40 AM
Listen, and this goes to a lot of people I've seen posting in this thread: just because someone can discuss and/or joke about a topic you can't doesn't mean they're a bad person.

Don't get me wrong--it's fine that sensitive topics make you uneasy. Everyone gets unnerved by something. But I'd recommend against judging people so harshly based solely on the fact that they can find humor in something that horrifies you. It's really insulting and kinda stinks of prejudice (in the sense that, if you got to know myself or one of my friends who can joke with me about sketchy stuff, you'd like us until such a joke came up). You're giving in to a knee-jerk reaction, which is rarely a good idea.

This is not a knee-jerk reaction. This is a reasoned reaction built up from nearly thirty years of experience with gamers and sci-fi/fantasy/anime/furry conventions.

If you're the kind of person who truely finds humor in pedophillia, rape, genocide, or any of the things that I consider evil, then you're not the kind of person I want to play RPGs with. I've played RPGs with people like that before, and none of those experiences are ones I want to repeat in any way, shape, or form.

In my experience, most people who *say* they find humor in those topics seem to be doing it in order to get a reaction out of the listeners, not because they truely find it funny. It appears to me to be an attempt to get attention. If you need to do that to get my attention, I again do not believe that I want to game with you.

These topics don't make me uneasy. They make me angry. The fact that some people find them a source of humor makes me even more angry. I'm not 'weirded out', I'm not 'squicked'. I've lived too long, and seen too much stuff to find anything like that even vaguely humorous.

Runolfr
2007-04-19, 10:48 AM
Now, evil is one thing but the way I see it pedophillia is a whole other ballgame. From what I've talked to with the other players, we're pretty sure that if that goes on and we find out about it he's going to meet a rather nasty end, but is this reaction warrented?

There's nothing to prevent villains from having moral lines that they won't cross, and murdering someone who violates your personal standards of behavior is usually evil behavior in its own right.

Gerrtt
2007-04-19, 10:50 AM
Wow...lots happened since I went to bed, I'll try to address the important questions:

1) In regards to why we didn't discuss it before we started playing; he was added to the game after we started and the DM didn't really enforce submitting backstories before play. So after the first annoying session (did I mention that he only speaks in rhyme?) he submitted his backstory and I was the first person to read it. I'm not sure if the DM has read it yet or heard about it, but the people who have read it have been talking. Nobody has been able to contact the guy yet either.

2) Concerning the ages we're talking about, he did not specify his own age or the age of those he was attracted to in his backstory, although he did say that they were targetted due to their innocent, easily-decieved naivety and refer to them as younger individuals (then saying openly...pedophile). Since it hasn't come up in game I can't say any more on the subject cause I dont know.

3) I'm not sure if he meant that the pedophilia or the fact that he always spoke in rhyme was what was funny when he said what he did about choosing the character because someone said it was funny. I'll have to get back to you on that.

That's all I've got for now, but as a group it's being discussed, so far three of the six are openly opposed to the idea of a pedophilic character taking part in the game.

Runolfr
2007-04-19, 10:52 AM
Any thoughts out there on what we could do about this player? Talking to him is obvious, but it's not really fair for us to say he can't play what he wants...but dude...nobody wants to think about a gnome pedophilling the next human kid we come across.

Incidentally, the BoVD does address such situations in evil parties. Basically, that kind of behavior needs to take place "off camera", if at all. The DM should minimize opportunities and never roleplay out the sordid details. It's hard to argue that an evil PC should not have vile personality traits, but there's definitely no need to focus on them.

Gerrtt
2007-04-19, 11:00 AM
Which I'm totally fine with. If it doesn't show up in game then I dont care. I just know that I neither want to hear that it happened or a description of it.

Saph
2007-04-19, 11:01 AM
That's all I've got for now, but as a group it's being discussed, so far three of the six are openly opposed to the idea of a pedophilic character taking part in the game.

My advice stands . . . get rid of the guy, fast. You're setting yourself and your friends up for all sorts of trouble if you don't. Fhaolan's post is worth re-reading, too, although I personally don't think it matters much if this guy thinks it's funny or not. You still don't want to be playing in a public gaming store with him.

- Saph

Runolfr
2007-04-19, 11:04 AM
I would definitely throw up a red flag on this one. Here in Nashville, the only real FLGS in town was thrown on the front pages because one of the employees was arrested for even counts of child rape, four counts of aggravated sexual battery involving a child and two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. Needless to say, this was unneeded publicity. (The FLGS is the Game Keep, the employee in question was Jeremy Duffer. Link (http://www.amw.com/fugitives/case.cfm?id=37932))

How the hell did I miss that story? (Probably because I don't watch the local TV news much, but still...)

Em
2007-04-19, 11:29 AM
Hang on... a truly evil character would kill a child, and as you're playing in an evil campaign you wouldn't complain about that.

I'm too soft-hearted to play an evil character at all - you can't play in an evil campaign then be shocked when the characters do evil things!

I know how serious paedophilia is, but... it's an evil campaign. The player shouldn't apologise for roleplaying well.

Sexual things in-game are amusing sometimes, because it's embarassing to discuss sex intimately with your friends, especially if you're male, but you're a pretty awful roleplayer if you can't at least make an attempt to portray all aspects of sexuality, from the positive to the truly terrible.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-04-19, 11:30 AM
I say go with your gut on this one. There's a phrase I saw on Wikipedia once, which I can't specifically remember, but it was basically a philosophical idea. It went like, "if something fundamentally revolts you, on an instinctual level, don't ask 'why.' Just stay the hell away."

Set the boundaries early. If you're cool with that kind of thing taking place 'off camera' but you don't want to listen to some guy at your table squeeze air off his tongue to make "realistic sound effects" during the vile deed, say it up front. Get your friends who agree to speak up, too.

I personally would allow what is technically pedophilia only under specific conditions. Even the Greeks would be disgusted if the 'junior partner' was too young, so the character would have to be from a culture/time period where it was accepted (and even in the Ancient World it was rarely publically talked about) and the partner would have to be at least a young teen. I'd consider it similar to RPing through human sacrifice with Mesoamerican characters in a setting (which I've done). I wouldn't even think of including it as a story element, though, and if a player tried to get "gross" I'd tell him to knock it the hell off or leave my table.

Green Bean
2007-04-19, 11:45 AM
Well, this is an evil campaign, so just as this guy can play a paedophile, you can murder him/get rid of him in suitably messy way. It would even be pretty easy to RP.
Lawful Evil? Perhaps your personal code requires you to spare children. Neutral Evil? As soon as the gnome gets caught (and he will be caught eventually), people are going to come after whoever he was with. Ditch him now before he becomes a liability.
Chaotic Evil? Since when do you need a reason?

And if the guy protests, tell him you're roleplaying in the same way he is.

EvilElitest
2007-04-19, 11:51 AM
Really depends on the maturity and evil-ness of your game, which pretty much needs to be laid out ahead of time. This is obviously far above what your group is willing to deal with, and this should be pointed out and dealt with. Personally, that's about the only level of "evil" that still gets me and I refuse go in-depth whatsoever about.

The most evil D&D gets in BOVD, and that has nothing on this, that is even to depraved


EE, what about the torture or at the very least genocide present in most D&D games? >.> Is that not also sick, gross, depraved, fundamentally wrong, awful, immoral, cruel, traumatizing, offensive, brutal, awful, and simply inhumane? (Sorry, love to bring up ethics/morality in such situations).
Probably shouldn't answer that, as it's a thread hijack, but just something to think about :P
I never said torture is not depraved, but it can be uses while not being totally depraved. Hence, while a PC being torture is a dark scene, a child being tortured is just sick
Genocide is awful, but it can be used as a D&D tool without getting into details and still be scary. Child moseltation is wrong and their is not way to make it appear less so
Seriously think about what you just said. No way in hell is pedophilia worse than the murder of millions of people.


It's fairly odd that we have such a strong knee-jerk reaction to sexual abuse, but don't mind mass-murder. Would you allow an evil party to set up concentration camps and commit genocide? If you would, I see no strong reason to disallow pedophilia. If you feel uncomfortable enough that including it in your game would make it less fun then go ahead and disallow it, but there's no reason to make a moral issue out of it
I never said i was comfortable with mass murder, but i could have that in a game without making myself or any of my players feel upset, but not going into any details.
Example, i've had an inmatation of the Holocust in my games, but i only disribed the most basic actions taken and didn't go into any details about the torture. The Player caught on, didn't ask for details and saved teh day. Same with genocide ect, you can use htem without hte details
And you seen nothing wrong with pedophila? I hope i am miss understanding you here

from,
EE

Cocktail Umbrellas
2007-04-19, 12:05 PM
Though I already mentioned that I personally wouldn't want non consensual sexual anything in any campaign, even an evil one, it really is a matter of what the individuals playing are comfortable with (maybe in very strict circumstances, but the idea gives me shivers in a bad way).

All things considered, campaign I'm in now is all evil save for one CN character. Evil can be done in ways other than pedophilia, and in ways that though still certainly 'evil' do not cause the players to be very upset. What is most important of all though, is that the line between fantasy and reality is a clear one. One of the most evil characters I've ever encountered is played by an individual who is one of the biggest sweethearts I know. Clearly drawn lines are important, because that way if what is going on in the story is upsetting, you know the individual will drop it immediately if you speak up out of character. If such is the case with this individual, I'm sure upon discovering that a part of his character is making actual individuals upset, that he will set the trait aside willingly because he would realize that there are other creative ways to be ‘evil’ that don’t upset everyone. If such is not the case, then I would not want to play because if such a trait is so close to one’s heart that one cannot abandon it, I’m really not interesting in associating with an individual with those sorts of ‘tastes’.

Players aside, seeing as this is being played out in a public place, I’m not even sure if an evil campaign is a good idea. Mind you I don’t know much about playing in gaming centers, maybe this is commonplace. But I second (or third or something) the idea that RPing pedophilia in a public place is really probably best left out.

There, I’ve said all I have to say for real this time, I’ll leave the scab alone now ^^;;

Last_resort_33
2007-04-19, 01:12 PM
I'm gunna go out on a limb here and say that Evil is Evil is Evil. What a character DOES is what makes him the character... if other evil character's personal tastes go against this, then by all means eliminate him. However, I must point out that many of the graphic ways that MANY players can think of torturing someone, paedophillia only bobs somewhere around the middle... it IS sick, but there ARE worse things in the world.

Heck if the standards of Good and Neutral characters are to wander round "clearing a dungeon for treasure" then that is basically genocide, if THAT is good, then you've got one hell of a jump to make to be Evil.

In D&D, it seems that Evil is not evil. Evil is wearing black cloaks and scrying with arched fingers going MWahahahahahaha!!

That said, graphic roleplaying of it is completely out of the question, but just mentioning that it is one of the character's motivations is not. If he starts to get graphic, then just use the words "ok, we get the idea. That is enough"

ravenkith
2007-04-19, 06:14 PM
I'd kill his character in a way so that he didn't know it was me.

Anyone brings him back, kill the character, and the character who brought him back, again, without incriminating yourself.

The worst thing you can do to a pedophile, historically, is put them in general population in a prison, and make it known what they are in for.

They don't last long, usually.

Even criminals have morals, apparently. <shrug>.

Personally, the only evil I find interesting to play are those characters who are horrifically intelligent, and have no compunctions about manipulating those around them to guarantee their own survival and prosperity, but at the same time, don't screw over their party members because it's wasteful of resources.

Fishies
2007-04-19, 07:22 PM
More wrong than pedophilia is necrophilia AND pedophilia.

Maxwell
2007-04-19, 08:30 PM
Ask the player to at very least keep it in his background. Then, if he doesn't, kill him. Fairly of course, but not too fairly.

Wooter
2007-04-19, 08:49 PM
I would allow a pedophile character under two conditions. One, that he neveractually have sex with a child during the game. He could profess non-explicit longing, but he would always be kept in check by the rest of the party.

The second condition is that he always speak like Peter Lorre. If he can't do a good Peter Lorre impression, then he'd have to change his character.

EvilElitest
2007-04-19, 10:12 PM
So what has happened?
from,
EE

Demented
2007-04-19, 10:25 PM
More wrong than pedophilia is necrophilia AND pedophilia.

Not really... I mean, dead is dead. Necrophilia's more icky and disrespectful ("Seriously, that's MY body! Stop that! Oh, EW, put that down!") than it is sick. Not to say that it isn't sick to some extent. But, point is, Evil + Evil = Evil, not EvilEvil. It's not exactly additive.

Dervag
2007-04-19, 10:32 PM
Heck if the standards of Good and Neutral characters are to wander round "clearing a dungeon for treasure" then that is basically genocide, if THAT is good, then you've got one hell of a jump to make to be Evil.Not necessarily.

First of all, many dungeons are the equivalent of real-life military bases of some sort, and the inhabitants thereof are the equivalent of armed forces. In which case the word 'genocide' is not applicable to characters who bust into the dungeon and loot the place, any more than it is to people who kill large numbers of enemy soldiers in war.

Secondly, most good or neutral PCs will be satisfied with a military victory over the combatant forces of their enemies, forcing noncombatants such as females and children to retreat. If they are not, and pursue the noncombatants to destruction as well, then that's a good reason to shift their alignment towards Evil.

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-19, 10:39 PM
FYI, pedophilia refers to attraction to pre-pubescents, so it wouldn't include (usually) people in their teens.

And I don't. However, a lot of people throw the term around a lot these days, even going so far as to apply it to anyone who has an SR charge against them, even if it was them being 20 and their partner being a day shy of their 18th birthday(or insert whatever age is considered the "majority" in your country or state). Hence, why I am not rushing to judgement on this.

Edit: I see that the OP has responded, so here's my take on it. As long as he doesn't do it in front of the other players, the other players don't really have any solid "reason" to take him out. Mind-reading is no proof(remember, Cliffport PD refuses to use Divinations because of how easily they can be faked), so you'd literally have to catch him red-handed, with his pants down. As long as it's limited to notes passed to the GM(along the lines of "During the evening, I sneak out, and I lure that farmer's 15 year old daughter we met yesterday to a spot in the woods, where I have my way with her, then dispose of her body{or the other way around}.").

On the other hand, maybe he just says the character is paedophilic, but all it's limited to are longing glances at potential targets(perhaps he's too afraid of the consequences if he were to carry it through). In that case, your case for killing him definitely has no legs to stand on.

In closing, the discussion of paedophilic characters in public places might be evil, but having an evil campaign in public, period, isn't a good idea either.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-19, 10:47 PM
That said, graphic roleplaying of it is completely out of the question

Not to pick you out here, last resort 33, as I've seen this same sentiment expressed my numerous others here, but would you say "In all cases, never graphically roleplay these themes" or "graphic roleplaying these themes in the OP's game is out of the question"?

PnP Fan
2007-04-19, 11:27 PM
You're not overreacting at all. Not only is it evil beyond evil, but you're gaming this campaign in public. Unless it's in an area away from the other game shop customers, could get your group kicked out. D&D doesnt need anymore ill-fame. Bring it up with him before your next session.


Thank you Digg!!!!
I was going to make this point, but the Digg speaks the truth. Stomp this out now, for your own comfort, for the sake of gamers in your town, for the sake of the shop keeper that allows you to play in their store. No one needs this kind of bad attention.
I sat in with a group of guys once that had well, a creepy individual. When his creepiness surfaced in a similar fashion . . . well, truthfully I have no idea what happened to him, but I know that he doesn't game with these guys any more.
I would seriously have a sit down with him and explain the situation to him, and ask him to change his concept a bit. If he's adamant, then ask him not to come back to your game. If he keeps showing up, talk to the shop keeper, or move your scheduled time. If he's just got a weird sense of humor, then he'll probably be cool with changing, otherwise you don't need this complete stranger around, who seems to think the best way to ingratiate himself into a group of strangers is to RP a pedophile.

Fhaolan
2007-04-20, 01:37 AM
Not to pick you out here, last resort 33, as I've seen this same sentiment expressed my numerous others here, but would you say "In all cases, never graphically roleplay these themes" or "graphic roleplaying these themes in the OP's game is out of the question"?

You didn't ask me, but I'll give my opinion anyway. :smallsmile:

Graphic roleplay of evil actions... no problem. It's roleplaying, and that's not a problem. In the OP's game... that's a different matter.

This game is being played in a game store, and unless this is a closed back room or after normal business hours, at some point there will be young children and their parents close enough to hear the game. True, it takes a bit more than a few parents freaking out about how the store is a place for rapists and child molesters to congregate and act out their sick fantasies to get the store's business license pulled. The store owner, however, is going to take a dim view of the bad publicity for his/her store and will very likely boot the entire group out.

No, I've go no problem with the roleplaying of evil characters. What I've got problems with is real people, in real life, thinking that pediphillia is funny, amusing, and who want to share in 'how funny it really is'.

Last_resort_33
2007-04-20, 05:22 AM
Not to pick you out here, last resort 33, as I've seen this same sentiment expressed my numerous others here, but would you say "In all cases, never graphically roleplay these themes" or "graphic roleplaying these themes in the OP's game is out of the question"?


Graphic roleplaying any themes in a situation that makes anyone present uncomfortable is wrong. (This is solved in one of two ways, either asking the player to tone down his roleplaying, which is probably the best, or in one particular VtR Chronicle which had heavy dark sexual themes, instead, we asked the 11 year old to leave the game group until the chronicle was finished.)

Graphic roleplaying in a situation where the entire group understands, is mature enough and mentally prepared for the roleplaying involved in a truly evil campaign, with unanimous agreement on what is, and is not acceptable, then that is OK.

Zincorium
2007-04-20, 05:35 AM
Mind-reading is no proof(remember, Cliffport PD refuses to use Divinations because of how easily they can be faked), so you'd literally have to catch him red-handed, with his pants down.

Requiring explicit, fairly gathered proof and presuming evil until then is hardly required of a definitively evil person, such as...any member of the group. I'd say even a strong suspicion would be enough to bring out the thumbscrews and/or mind reading spells, and after that you've 'proved' it to yourself well enough that you'd feel confident going through with it.

On a side note, gnomes and thumscrews go well together.

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-20, 06:30 AM
Requiring explicit, fairly gathered proof and presuming evil until then is hardly required of a definitively evil person, such as...any member of the group. I'd say even a strong suspicion would be enough to bring out the thumbscrews and/or mind reading spells, and after that you've 'proved' it to yourself well enough that you'd feel confident going through with it.

Ahh, but as a player, if you don't at least find some in-game way that doesn't involve OOC knowledge, you're metagaming.

Zincorium
2007-04-20, 07:13 AM
Ahh, but as a player, if you don't at least find some in-game way that doesn't involve OOC knowledge, you're metagaming.

Like I said, a suspicion is all it takes.

"Hm, I don't think my companion is being honest with me, I'll have to interrogate him under duress to make sure he isn't plotting against/stealing from me."

*Thumbscrews*

"Egads! He is indeed loutish and repulsive, if not in the exact way I was thinking. I'll just dispose of his noisome carcass and be done with it."

Wolf_Shade
2007-04-20, 09:26 AM
I think I'm with Last Resort on this one, only in logic though.

If you are playing an evil campaign, the "There's evil and then there's just plain sick" approach doesn't work. There is no moral high ground from which to attempt to condemn the player for his roll playing choice.

If you've got an issue with it, your only course for argument is that you are uncomfortable with the decision and would rather the player not play that way. If you are fully uncomfortable to the point of being unable to play and the other player will not stop and is not kicked out, your only recourse is to leave.

Diggorian
2007-04-20, 10:06 AM
As a DM, I advocate pre-game interviews with all new additions -- one on one. It can eliminate this kind of problem pre-emptively, and makes the players more focused on contributing to the game cause in a sense they earned their spot. Something given has no value.

I know this can be hard when ya dont live in gamer rich locale. I, myself, was fortunate enough to start out of a gaming shop in a college town with crops of fresh gamers coming in as others graduated and left. Still, if your gonna pour time, creativity, and cash into your game you should definately be protective of it.

@ PnP Fan, you're welcome and welcome to my sig. :smallbiggrin:

Corolinth
2007-04-20, 10:34 AM
This is the fundamental flaw in running an evil campaign. Everyone has different notions of what constitutes true evil, and different lines drawn in the sand that they won't dare cross. The biggest problem you're encountering, however, is not the person roleplaying a pedophile, not the group's objection to it, but the fact that you're playing an evil campaign in a public setting. Someone commented that D&D doesn't need any more bad press, and that a pedophile character in a game run at a gaming store is going to bring the bureau of morality down on your heads. News flash: anything that goes on in an evil campaign is likely to bring the bureau of morality down on your heads. This is not the only line that will be crossed.

A lot of people don't have the stomach for evil in a fantasy setting. I'd venture to guess that over 75% of the people who play D&D can't tolerate it. That doesn't create a huge problem for most campaigns, because you're good guys fighting against evil. You don't see that line being crossed very often, and usually when you do you end up defeating the perpetrator. Good triumphs. Evil has to be handled intelligently.

In an evil campaign, actions that cross the line become the norm. Most people would never think to murder someone; not so in the evil campaign. Most people would never consider torture a viable option. Again, not so in the evil campaign. What else are you supposed to use the intimidate skill for?

There's really two fundamental types of evil in a D&D game. There's bad guys, and then there's evil. Most people, when they hear the words, "evil campaign," they think of bad guys. We're going to make villains, and we'll go rob a train. The innocent people on the train who get in our way get killed. That does constitute evil on the D&D alignment system.

Then there's evil. Real evil attacks the train to kidnap all of the passengers and sacrifice them to the dark gods in return for twelve virgin priestesses of the god of light and fuzzy bunnies, so that we can deflower them... after killing them. The loot that was on the train? Oh now that's just a bonus. The only way my day could get better would be if there was a puppy on this train that I could kick, and maybe a baby to eat.

This sets up the problem. Suppose you're in a gaming group with three other PCs. You just robbed a train and killed some passengers. You're some seriously bad, bad guys. You deserve an eternity of agonizing torment in the bowels of Hell. Then along comes Joe with his sacrificing and necrophilia, and you realize that you're the low-calorie version of evil. Nobody likes that feeling. People are generally not evil. They do not like to play out an evil scenario, go to where they feel the line is, what they feel is the evilest of the evil, and then be shown that there is worse. Nobody likes to see that what they view as the baddest of the bad is actually just a gateway to a whole new world of seriously evil stuff. We, as generally not-evil people, like to think that there is a bottom to the pit of evil. We absolutely do not like the idea that the hole just keeps going down.

Is this guy sick and fudged up for wanting to play a pedophile? Well it's possible. He could be. Most likely he's perfectly normal. If you guys aren't comfortable with his character, however, then you do most definitely need to talk to him. You need to get an idea of how far you guys are going with evil.

Do not play this game at the local gaming store, though. One of your concerns was that this campaign was run in public, and that screams of not seeing the forest through the trees. Pedophilia is going to disturb some people in the gaming store. Gee, you think? It's an evil campaign! I wonder what else is going to disturb the patrons of the store?

I'm not trying to run you into the ground with this. I just want you to understand how a public place isn't the best choice of locations to run an evil campaign.

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-20, 01:08 PM
As far as where his "perversion" stands in the BoVD, it's between Necrophilia and Beastiality. All 3 basically involve having relations with those unable to give informed consent(well, unless you have Awaken Animal or Awaken Undead, or they're intelligent Undead, or the kids are actually 5000 year old Druids of Reincarnation Cheese who happened to dip once too often in Elixirs of Youth. :P).

Meschaelene
2007-04-20, 03:11 PM
Having this character RPed in a public setting sounds like a recipe for disaster.

That said, here would be my rules:

1. Don't shove your character's freakishness into the faces of other players: I've played a necromancer who was a necrophiliac, and it worked out OK. I made sure everything happened "off-screen" and it was treated like the horrible, dark secret that it should be. The other PCs had to do a lot of figuring and tailing to figure out what I was doing when I disappeared from camp now and then.

2. Don't be offended if the other characters kill off your freakish monster of a character: When the above character was discovered, I specifically asked that they not meta-game because I was a PC.

3. Details are powerful -- and there is no need to detail the actual act. When the above PC was discovered, there were 3 bodies posed around a table as if having tea and he was dancing a waltz with the 4th body -- all the bodies in formal dress and having proper place-settings. There was no need for him to be discovered in the "act" itself, as it was evident anyway.



The really horrible stuff always happens on the fly, anyway. The Cyberpunk group was in a bar trying to find company for the evening. We had house ruled that seduction was applied to empathy to determine how emotionally fulfilling a love affair was -- but that it could be combined with anything else (depending on what you did) to try and "pick someone up". It was amusing seeing the smart guys trying to be witty, the reflex/dex guy dancing, and the strong guys urging women to feel their muscles as they flexed -- and then one player said, "Hmmm. My highest score is Tech. How do I use that to seduce?" "Well, pharmaceuticals is listed as a Tech-skill." :)

Vodun
2007-04-20, 06:35 PM
In a rather off-topic observation, I think thats the first time Ive ever seen pedophile used as a verb, as in the sentence "gnome pedophilling the next human kid we come across."

Corolinth
2007-04-20, 07:18 PM
That's because the verb form of pedophile would result in a mod editting the post.

Gerrtt
2007-04-20, 07:30 PM
OK, slight update here;

The group of players that are against a pedophillic character being part of the game have presented their case to the DM and the DM (somewhat begrudgingly) has agreed to talk to the player in question about the issue. More news as it develops, but tonight is our game night (in theory) so I should know more within the next 4 hours.

PnP Fan
2007-04-21, 10:30 AM
I've noticed several posters supporting the idea of killling the character. I seriously doubt that will help. Killing the character will do little but provoke the player of the character. Moreso if he doesn't see the pedo aspect of the character as particularly important (it's hard to tell without actually meeting the guy), and just as some random, horrific thing that is part of the character to qualify it as "evil". Talking to the player directly is almost always the best solution to these sort of conflicts.
As far as playing evil games in public. In the generalist sense I agree, especially if things like pedophilia, rape, necrophilia, murder of innocent bystanders, etc. . are going to receive screen time. But in the case of the "train robbery" flavored bad guys, I think to the casual observer this wouldn't look any different than any other D&D game. I mean, the typical game for beginning players basically involves busting into someone's underground home, and slaughtering anything that "isn't one of us" and moves. Yeah, they happen to be orcs/gobs/hobgobs/undead/whatever, but to the casual observer this probably doesn't look much different that the train robbery, or a home invasion in the middle of a town. Now, if you have people who actually sit and watch while you game (which is a disturbing and uncomfortable feeling I might add) then the evil elements are probably going to become more visible. And no, I'm not advocating "Orc Rights" or anything silly like that, I'm just saying that to the casual observer, Home Invasion vs. Dungeon Crawling pretty much sounds the same.

mauslin
2007-04-23, 09:15 PM
Hmm, I wonder if it would bug people as much if you turned it around.

What if a person who role-played a gnome who pretended to to be a child prostitute to attracted pedophiles, and then bribed/robbed/satanically murdered them afterwards? Would that be crossing a line?

Wooter
2007-04-23, 09:24 PM
No, that would be awesome.

Koga
2007-04-23, 09:54 PM
*Shakes head at your pedo player problem and smacks the pedoplayer with a Japanease fan*

YOU FOOL! THIS IS WHY YOU SCREW HAFLINGS OR GNOMES! To avoid this sortof thing but reap all of the bennefits...


And mauslin that would just be chaotic awesome. It sounds like something The Koga would do. It's pure Satanist! w000t!

The Koga doesn't see enough hardcore Satanic evil in his games.

"Oh, I'm chaotic evil cause I buy prostitutes and kill babeis hurrhurrhurr!"

No, you're just a whoremongering barbarian that should be crawling in the mud building The Koga's next temple to worship his dark masters in...

PnP Fan
2007-04-24, 12:19 AM
umm yeah. . .
mauslin: The character you describe is more in line with the "vengeful victim" which has this weird twisted sense of justice to it, so they probably wouldn't find it so nauseating.