Need advice on dealing with a problem player

[Aetis]

A new player recently expressed interest in joining a 3.5e game I am DMing. He is fairly new to D&D, but he has played a warlock in a 5e game in the past. I'm usually down to playing with more people, so I decide to let him in.

The party currently has a wizard, an ex-paladin kensai, a duskblade, and a swashrogue daring outlaw build. We are at about lv 10ish and play with decent amount of optimization. The party asks whether he would be down to playing a cleric, but he apparently wants to play a sword & board style Knight class. I warn him that that style of combat and the Knight class aren't very good in 3.5e, but he says not to worry, that he is going to draw aggro with test of mettle and play tank. I'm kinda worried that he will be straight up worthless in combat, but I figure maybe he's seeing something I'm not seeing and give him the benefit of the doubt.

Game starts, and party is meeting the eccentric lord and ruler of the large trading port they are in. The lord tells one of the maids to show them the guest rooms they will be staying in. Soon as they were sufficiently far away from the lord, the Knight immediately asks how old the maid is. She is 12yr old orphan who was lucky enough to be hired by the lord mayor's household. The Knight immediately starts hitting on her, much to surprise and disgust of the rest of the table. When other players tell him that they are not comfortable with this, instead of stopping he defends his action by arguing that Knights in medieval age married very young girls. I decide to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is just a hardcore immersion player who is a stickler for historical accuracies. I have no idea if medieval knights actually married 12 year old girls. I pull him aside and tell him that the campaign is not set in medieval times. He acts surprised and whines about the 3 page backstory he wrote for his character going to waste. Whatever. We return and he slightly tones down his advances to the poor NPC girl.

We have a series of rather difficult combat encounters against some mercenaries and undead. The Knight becomes very flustered when his test of mettle doesn't successfully pull aggro from the nearby enemies. I tell him undeads are immune to his challenges. He pouts and proceeds to wade into melee with his sword and shield, doing measly 1d8+2 damage to whatever he was fighting. I don't have the heart to tell him that swords aren't very good against skeletons and just secretly pretend skeletons randomly lost their DR/Bludgeoning. His character was complete crap in combat as expected, and after awhile, the most of the enemies just ignore him in the fight.

After few more creepy advances on the poor maid and few more encounters where he gets carried, we are at a boss fight where party has to defend the town square (where most of the townsfolk are hidden in rope tricks) against an incoming horde of bloodthirsty demons. At this point rest of the party is getting pretty tired of the Knight, and the Kensai asks him to just stand to next to the Wizard and yell Shield Ally through combat. The Knight says he got it, but on turn 1, he immediately charges into the oncoming horde, and dies. Rest of the party manages to win the fight by themselves since he was pretty rubbish in combat anyway.

I expected him to be angry about his character's death, but apparently he had a lot of fun carrying the party (huh???) and that he is looking forward to his next character. Then he left.

I don't know if I want him around in my future sessions, but I would feel bad kicking him after one session. My players haven't said anything yet but I'm pretty sure they're just being polite.

What should I do?

[Venger]

Soon as they were sufficiently far away from the lord, the Knight immediately asks how old the maid is. She is 12yr old orphan who was lucky enough to be hired by the lord mayor's household. The Knight immediately starts hitting on her, much to surprise and disgust of the rest of the table. When other players tell him that they are not comfortable with this, instead of stopping he defends his action by arguing that Knights in medieval age married very young girls.

why do you want to spend any time with a person like this? it's okay to exclude people from things (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html) it doesn't make you a bad person.

you're not booting him from the group because he's bad at dnd, you're booting him for this. your party is undoubtedly just being polite because they want to avoid confrontation. your instinct is correct

[Grim Reader]

Crap in combat can be fixed.

The hitting on a 12-year old, and only "toning it down a bit" when called on it is a red flag so huge I feel like I am in Beijing on may day. I don't know they guy, or your players, but I feel this could go badly pear-shaped.

What does your other players think?

[Venger]

Crap in combat can be fixed.

The hitting on a 12-year old, and only "toning it down a bit" when called on it is a red flag so huge I feel like I am in Beijing on may day. I don't know they guy, or your players, but I feel this could go badly pear-shaped.

What does your other players think?

I mean it kind of already has.

his reaction when the other players told them "hey dude, you trying to seduce children is making us really uncomfortable, cut it out maybe?" was to defend how his behavior was historically accurate (?) rather than just not doing it. he is not considerate of the feelings of the group.

[Recurver]

When people do poorly in combat but still feel they did well in the game it's usually because they feel they did great in the roll playing portion as opposed to doing well in combat. Going out in a blaze of glory to help defend a helpless town feels like a victory to this person.
I suggest letting this person join again. I had a similar experience with a player during an evil campaign i ran a few years back, he was a necromancer grey jester and tried to collect as many children as he could to protect him (much to the disgust of all the other players) after the ones he already had died i simply removed the option from him with an in game solution, i had all the orphanages guarded properly by clerics and paladins, and he just happens to never run into any families with kids when walking about.
After a while he completely forgot about the kids idea and moved on.
As far as making characters are concerned, Wanting to be a knight is no problem, Just call yourself a knight but take another class, in game you don't have to be called what class you are. simple fix.
If problems persist than i recommend politely removing him from game.

[Cheech]

I would ditch him in a second. He seems determined to just play the game he wants to play, with no interest in whether it contributes to a good experience for the other people at the table.

Pretty much everything you've told us about his actions contributes to this picture, but honestly, just continuing to hit on a 12-year-old character after it's been made clear the other players aren't comfortable with it would would probably be enough on its own. That's a very high level of not-OK

[Name1]

...You guys ARE aware that adulthood for humans in D&D is 15, not 18, right? Would you still bitch around if he hit on a 15 year old? From what I could read, you are the kind of... "person" that would.

Really, I see the problem with the lack of teamplay: The fact that he was being carried the entire time, played a class that was specifically called out to suck on purpose without any sort of optimization knowledge (and even got told that it doesn't fit the scenario) and refused to use the suggested tactic because he couldn't think about anything else. Kicking him this early without allowing him to make up for his mistakes is a **** move in this case, because really, I think we all started out sucking at D&D when we first played it. Heck, build a character for him, since you obviously didn't care to explain to him that you decided against a medival setting and had him write 3 pages of backstory on it, that's the least you could do.

The fact that he hit on a 12 year old ingame... So what? Not like anyone actually get's hurt in the process. This isn't child molestation or child pornography where there actually was/is a victim (and there would be more victims if it continiued), it's a freaking game. If I were in his situation, my character would hit on a 12 year old if my backstory would make that an IC action, especially if no one bothered to point out that it's not acceptable in the setting despite that being the norm in that age. If you guys are uncomfortable with it, I'd stop (I'd reserve the right to bitch about homosexual PCs for the sake of it though). The fact that he toned it down makes total sense: Why would the character go from full-on to full-stop within seconds? That would be 100% OoC.

You should let him join up again and explain the situation. Not everyone has your view point on what the game should be, so you probably just talked past each other. Tell him why there's a problem and where it is. The fact that the character died would help: He now has no reason to continue to persue the relationship at all, since his new character may not be interested in her for whatever reason. Tell him teamplay is important: He comes from 5e. 5e. These two are different systems so you have to introduce him to it.

Of course, you could just kick him for being a newbie. But then let that be the reason and be open about it instead of... You know.

EDIT: Sorry for getting so pissed off, it's just... How can that even be a concern? What if I were to join as a pacifist and would be uncomfortable with violence? 3.5 is a RPG where you gotta expect stuff like that. Restricting roleplay, especially on something so insiginificant just really hits me in the wrong spot.

[Yael]

...You guys ARE aware that adulthood for humans in D&D is 15, not 18, right? Would you still bitch around if he hit on a 15 year old? From what I could read, you are the kind of... "person" that would.

Really, I see the problem with the lack of teamplay: The fact that he was being carried the entire time, played a class that was specifically called out to suck on purpose without any sort of optimization knowledge (and even got told that it doesn't fit the scenario) and refused to use the suggested tactic because he couldn't think about anything else. Kicking him this early without allowing him to make up for his mistakes is a **** move in this case, because really, I think we all started out sucking at D&D when we first played it. Heck, build a character for him, since you obviously didn't care to explain to him that you decided against a medival setting and had him write 3 pages of backstory on it, that's the least you could do.

The fact that he hit on a 12 year old ingame... So what? Not like anyone actually get's hurt in the process. This isn't child molestation or child pornography where there actually was/is a victim (and there would be more victims if it continiued), it's a freaking game. If I were in his situation, my character would hit on a 12 year old if my backstory would make that an IC action, especially if no one bothered to point out that it's not acceptable in the setting despite that being the norm in that age. If you guys are uncomfortable with it, I'd stop (I'd reserve the right to bitch about homosexual PCs for the sake of it though). The fact that he toned it down makes total sense: Why would the character go from full-on to full-stop within seconds? That would be 100% OoC.

You should let him join up again and explain the situation. Not everyone has your view point on what the game should be, so you probably just talked past each other. Tell him why there's a problem and where it is. The fact that the character died would help: He now has no reason to continue to persue the relationship at all, since his new character may not be interested in her for whatever reason. Tell him teamplay is important: He comes from 5e. 5e. These two are different systems so you have to introduce him to it.

Of course, you could just kick him for being a newbie. But then let that be the reason and be open about it instead of... You know.

EDIT: Sorry for getting so pissed off, it's just... How can that even be a concern? What if I were to join as a pacifist and would be uncomfortable with violence? 3.5 is a RPG where you gotta expect stuff like that. Restricting roleplay, especially on something so insiginificant just really hits me in the wrong spot.

My gaming group calls a lot for situations like those, child abuse/molesting/sex isn't actually common, but still dark topics like Deep-Web-level sh** happens more than often. But still, we're all grown ups. I've got to admit, though, that I have the flaw that I'm too loyal to my wife, so I can't recall having an in-game relationship :smallconfused:

Whatever, those kind of things shouldn't make anyone confortable, unless they aren't used to those things. Games should be for have fun, and that's it. That's why my last PTU game turned dark as it could get and still we had a lot of fun. I don't know if I'm making my point, here...

[CaPtMalHammer]

This is a quandary indeed. One the one hand he seemed to have fun and that's great on the other hand he seemed not to be aware of the others in the group which is really bad. As for him being crap in combat that can be fixed or he could enjoy a Don Quixote style character who thinks he's far more then he really is. That is an issue fix just by talking with him about it. The roleplaying issue is harder to deal with. He is not incorrect in the historical fact that people did marry young due to the life age expectancy being much much less then it is now. It was not unheard of that a girl of 14 or 15 would be married off and even younger but of course that was middle age back then. Most people never saw past 30 or 35. Now that's not to say its still not creepy. You should bring it up to him that this is a fantasy world and girls that age are not normally sought after and it can come across as creepy. If he still denies you and tries to do what he wants with no regard for the group I would ask him to leave that he is not a good fit for this group. And just because its historically accurate does not make it right to do In a d and d game.

[Name1]

If he still denies you and tries to do what he wants with no regard for the group I would ask him to leave that he is not a good fit for this group. And just because its historically accurate does not make it right to do In a d and d game.

See, this is a different scenario compared to what we had before, because that includes willingness to talk, which I didn't feel was there before. Though I have to say, the historically accurate part... not 100% on that one. I know my sunder build would do better with a d20 modern anti-material rifle, but personally I feel that it would disrupt the games immersion whenever I pull it out. To call attention to something as minor as her being actually 12 is more disruptive than it helps, and it showed from what I could tell.



My gaming group calls a lot for situations like those, child abuse/molesting/sex isn't actually common, but still dark topics like Deep-Web-level sh** happens more than often. But still, we're all grown ups. I've got to admit, though, that I have the flaw that I'm too loyal to my wife, so I can't recall having an in-game relationship :smallconfused:

Whatever, those kind of things shouldn't make anyone confortable, unless they aren't used to those things. Games should be for have fun, and that's it. That's why my last PTU game turned dark as it could get and still we had a lot of fun. I don't know if I'm making my point, here...

Not sure... on one hand it feels like you are saying that something like that shouldn't concern someone too much, but on the other hand you said that unless part, which means you think that everyone's safe space should be respected, right?... I'm confused^^°

[Geddy2112]

The problem is not that his character hits on young girls, or that he is weak and unoptimized and does not mind dying foolhardily, it is that the group is uncomfortable and not okay with it. In some groups, all of this might be a-ok, but your group is not okay with him being useless and doing things that make them uncomfortable. Full stop.

Debating if this should be okay or accurate or immersive or whatever is all besides the point. If the group says to cut it out because your actions are openly making people uncomfortable, stop. If the group is uncomfortable with people playing stupid crap builds that constantly get the party into trouble, need saving, are deadweight etc, and say so, then don't do it.

Make it clear to the player about the general group dynamic-give em the benefit of the doubt as he likely came from a game where his playstyle and character choices were not only accepted, but likely encouraged. Let him know that in this game you will be expected to carry your weight in combat(and that he did not actually do so), that certain cultural norms of the med-evil times are not in this setting, and most importantly, if you are making the group uncomdfortable through your actions and they politely ask you to stop, then stop.

His character dying is probably the best thing to happen-again, benefit of the doubt. He is new to D&D and totally new to 3.5, he tried something and it failed, but he had fun. We all make mistakes when we start, we all fall the first time on the bike and scrape our knees. He has a fresh start, in both mechanics and concept.
His expectations were different, but he had fun and wants to come back. He has to build a new character right? Now is your chance to help him-let him write a cool backstory, and work together to curtail things that your group will find erm, as well as work up the cool parts that fit into your setting. At level 10 he can be a pretty big heroic type, so let him play all that up. Likewise, ask what he wants to play mechanically, and build that-he wants to be a heroic sword knight, and the group needs a cleric? What about a cleric of a chivalary knight deity who has a sword and shield? He wants to charge in and hit things with a sword? Build him the best most powerful version of that. Sure it might not be totally optimized, but he is new and it will be better than anything he can make.

Let this be a chance to teach him to be a better player, not punish him for making noob mistakes. We have all played that stupid sword and board build that rushes into combat and dies. We have all done erm things. We kept playing and got better, through time and people mentoring us.

[Yael]

Not sure... on one hand it feels like you are saying that something like that shouldn't concern someone too much, but on the other hand you said that unless part, which means you think that everyone's safe space should be respected, right?... I'm confused^^°

Yeah, kind of :smallconfused:

I guess my point of view gets shaped by the fact that I almost always play with the same group of friends (which increases over time thanks to gaming in general), and I'm pretty much used to them and their playstyle (I lived with a friend for two years, whom I roleplayed with for these two years).

About the 12 yo gurl, it's still in-game; what would people say if he instead hit on the buttler? I mean, if that kind of content isn't allowed at your table, then it should be clarified from the start.

Now, the point of a Knight is to take the damage, at least in a mechanical perspective. That what he did in combat was just dumb and I'm really glad he enjoyed his *short* playthrough, and if everyone else won the encounter in the end, there shouldn't be a problem at all. There are worse cases (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502963-Is-chaotic-crazy-an-alignment-After-last-week-it-should-be), imho.

EDIT.

The problem is not that his character hits on young girls, or that he is weak and unoptimized and does not mind dying foolhardily, it is that the group is uncomfortable and not okay with it. In some groups, all of this might be a-ok, but your group is not okay with him being useless and doing things that make them uncomfortable. Full stop.

Debating if this should be okay or accurate or immersive or whatever is all besides the point. If the group says to cut it out because your actions are openly making people uncomfortable, stop. If the group is uncomfortable with people playing stupid crap builds that constantly get the party into trouble, need saving, are deadweight etc, and say so, then don't do it.

Make it clear to the player about the general group dynamic-give em the benefit of the doubt as he likely came from a game where his playstyle and character choices were not only accepted, but likely encouraged. Let him know that in this game you will be expected to carry your weight in combat(and that he did not actually do so), that certain cultural norms of the med-evil times are not in this setting, and most importantly, if you are making the group uncomdfortable through your actions and they politely ask you to stop, then stop.

His character dying is probably the best thing to happen-again, benefit of the doubt. He is new to D&D and totally new to 3.5, he tried something and it failed, but he had fun. We all make mistakes when we start, we all fall the first time on the bike and scrape our knees. He has a fresh start, in both mechanics and concept.
His expectations were different, but he had fun and wants to come back. He has to build a new character right? Now is your chance to help him-let him write a cool backstory, and work together to curtail things that your group will find erm, as well as work up the cool parts that fit into your setting. At level 10 he can be a pretty big heroic type, so let him play all that up. Likewise, ask what he wants to play mechanically, and build that-he wants to be a heroic sword knight, and the group needs a cleric? What about a cleric of a chivalary knight deity who has a sword and shield? He wants to charge in and hit things with a sword? Build him the best most powerful version of that. Sure it might not be totally optimized, but he is new and it will be better than anything he can make.

Let this be a chance to teach him to be a better player, not punish him for making noob mistakes. We have all played that stupid sword and board build that rushes into combat and dies. We have all done erm things. We kept playing and got better, through time and people mentoring us.

Well, this. Also this.

[Krazzman]

I would advise that you talk to your party. As a first measure make it a group decision with some kick-criteria.

Bring him on course of what you consider a "kick offense". System mastery isn't needed to enjoy the game if everyone still has fun. Remember the only winning condition DnD/RP has is everyone having fun.

About the sexual advances... let's just say in the first few campaigns the newest member of our group pulled up some wonky stuff that might've been rather innocently meant but came off as child molesting. Maybe it was something similar where he didn't think he was that out of line/creepy?

@Name1:
Where do you draw the line then? 10 year olds? 8 year olds? Toddlers? What killed it for me was the "historical accuracy" as an argument. No matter what my reason is, if it makes the others uncomfortable I should stop. Even if it is the current norm in someplace where do you get that a fantasy world where giant lizards fly around a breath fire? As far as I am inclined the only thing Greyhawk, Faerun and Eberron have in common with the dark ages is the weaponry and armor and maybe political constructs.

[Name1]

@Name1:
Where do you draw the line then? 10 year olds? 8 year olds? Toddlers? What killed it for me was the "historical accuracy" as an argument. No matter what my reason is, if it makes the others uncomfortable I should stop. Even if it is the current norm in someplace where do you get that a fantasy world where giant lizards fly around a breath fire? As far as I am inclined the only thing Greyhawk, Faerun and Eberron have in common with the dark ages is the weaponry and armor and maybe political constructs.

Me? Pft, easy really: I don't. Ever. Sexual contact with anything below 15* and flirting with anything below 12* get's you an alignment hit, sure, but that's the most I'll be doing. Well, maybe IC legal consequences if caught, but yeah, all in all I try to be constructive instead of bitchy.

*Those numbers are for humans. 15 years is adulthood for humans in D&D, like it or not. 12 years is basically their teenage, so flirting with one is awkward, sure, but doesn't go too far beyond that.

[CaPtMalHammer]

I guess I should clarify, the issue is your correct not the issue with the fact he is weaker as long as he is having fun. The issue also is not whether or not he is historically accurate or not. The true issue is that the other players may be uncomfortable. If he wishes to play a character that gets killed great. if the group has issues with him hitting on an NPC of a young age then you need to speak with him about it. He needs to be willing to work with the group. the idea is that everyone in the group is having fun not just one person. If his non-opt character is having fun for him and not stopping others from having fun then their is no issue. If the the majority of the group is not having fun because of one player then that is where the issue is coming from. Each person has their own sensabilities and brings their own baggage and working with a group can be tough. most the time they can find common ground and work with each other to have FUN. Fun being the most important thing in D and D. or any game.

:)

[CasualViking]

If he pulls "historical accuracy", he's also going to hit with "just roleplaying my character", and "REALIZARMS!!!". But the story is, he was being a creep, you called him on it, he made a lame excuse and kept being a creep. If you reallyreallyreally want to give him another chance, ask your regular group what they think. And I think you should write something like this:

"Hey, So, those things happened with X. I'd like to know if think we should invite him back. Just yes or no; I will keep it between you and me, and you don't need to justify or explain your answer."

[dascarletm]

Ignoring all of my personal thoughts, no one has a right to play in your game. You can keep or kick this player at your discretion. It comes down to if you want to give him a chance, and if you think he's worth the effort. If you could "fix" everything you don't like about him, would you feel he's a net gain on the quality of your group?

I've thought along these lines for a few years now and my game may be smaller, but it is way more enjoyable.
This reminds me of when I played a "mad" wizard in a campaign with relatively new people. I did stuff that was totally cool with my usual gaming group, but made a couple of the players at the table uneasy. Vivisections specifically. They never said anything, but I realized it after the first incident. Afterwords, I "toned it down" and got a lot less descriptive with my character actions. It seemed to work out for everyone.
I eventually quit because of differences in playstyle.

[Aetis]

Alright, I have asked the other players, and they would rather not have him join our future games.

That settles the matter.

[Yael]

This reminds me of when I played a "mad" wizard in a campaign with relatively new people. I did stuff that was totally cool with my usual gaming group, but made a couple of the players at the table uneasy. Vivisections specifically. They never said anything, but I realized it after the first incident. Afterwords, I "toned it down" and got a lot less descriptive with my character actions. It seemed to work out for everyone.
I eventually quit because of differences in playstyle.

It's funny how you have to turn down your descriptions, the more toned up their expressions are :smallbiggrin: Especially when playing a Necromancer :smalltongue:

[dascarletm]

Alright, I have asked the other players, and they would rather not have him join our future games.

That settles the matter.
Glad you've come to a tidy conclusion (http://media-dominaria.cursecdn.com/avatars/127/475/636096170796907931.png).
@Yael
iknorite? :smalltongue:

[Pugwampy]

Why did you have a 12 yr old in the first place ?

I think both DM and Player made a few mistakes except that the player is a newbie .

[DMVerdandi]

Also playing devil's advocate here.

Why did you have a 12 year old as a maid? Honestly, there are two types of people anyway. Those who would kick the hornet's nest, and those who wouldn't. The player was just that guy. But that should be expected these days. Everybody and their momma knows about /b/, and low level deep-webberies, so the fact that you all are playing D&D in the first place would in MY opinion move me in that direction that at least 1 out of 4 of you is an internet troll/anon part time at least.

Next time, let everyone know what you expect out of the game and their behaviors. If you want it to be lighthearted, and free of adult themes, let everyone know before the game starts, that it's, well noble bright as a setting, and keep it moving.

All in all, he isn't wrong, and it's about as shocking as someone being like a slave-trader or something. those were the times. The only reason that you think someone at that age isn't eligible for marriage is because of the times, which are currently influenced by *drumroll* CHILD LABOR LAWS.

There was a time where everyone wasn't required to go to school, or even learn how to read, and as soon as they were able to fold bedsheets and mop a floor for this example, they could start working and earning their own living.
Marriage itself wasn't even that much of a convention, with it kind of being ceremonial and provincial. The REAL purpose for it was to increase your family's wealth and your standard of living with the dowry.

Again, devil's advocate, generally speaking, a 12 year old maid would see a knight (Who for all intended purposes would have been bathed, shaven, and in fine clothes, as apposed to dead leg greg...), coming down from on high and hitting on her as divine providence.

Modern day analogy would be like...Drake hitting on a twelve year old now. Obviously he's older, but he's handsome and rich as Crassus. It would be like her best day ever.


Modern culture keeps humans in a state of neoteny longer than is actually required. Keep that in mind.




If you guys are made uncomfortable by it, that's all of you guy's opinions and you are totally entitled to it, but to oust someone for behavior that they weren't exactly told would be taboo, and keeping in line with the present loli-infused otaku culture if you will, is kind of petty AF.

You could be like, "Yeah everyone isn't exactly into that, and I as DM would rather play a cleaner game if that is cool with you. Murder and pillage all you want too, but keep your hands off the younglings, yes?"

Rather than just kick the guy out. Everyone starts out kind of crappy and vulgar, before they learn that it's easier as a role player to be Neutral Good.
Give him time to work up to that point.

And don't be one of those people who makes things more awkward and "creepy" with your reactions. Talk it out rather than getting all judgmental off the cuff. Keep your values, sure, but don't expect everyone to be of like mind initially. especially in make believe land.

[Zanos]

Combat stuff can be fixed with experience, but:


Game starts, and party is meeting the eccentric lord and ruler of the large trading port they are in. The lord tells one of the maids to show them the guest rooms they will be staying in. Soon as they were sufficiently far away from the lord, the Knight immediately asks how old the maid is. She is 12yr old orphan who was lucky enough to be hired by the lord mayor's household. The Knight immediately starts hitting on her, much to surprise and disgust of the rest of the table. When other players tell him that they are not comfortable with this, instead of stopping he defends his action by arguing that Knights in medieval age married very young girls. I decide to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is just a hardcore immersion player who is a stickler for historical accuracies. I have no idea if medieval knights actually married 12 year old girls. I pull him aside and tell him that the campaign is not set in medieval times. He acts surprised and whines about the 3 page backstory he wrote for his character going to waste. Whatever. We return and he slightly tones down his advances to the poor NPC girl.

...After few more creepy advances on the poor maid...
When I DM, my D&D games are not outlets for people's pent up, creepy sexual fantasies. He can try to "justify" it all he wants, but he is RPing a pedophile. Shape up or ship out.

[Name1]

When I DM, my D&D games are not outlets for people's pent up, creepy sexual fantasies. He can try to "justify" it all he wants, but he is RPing a pedophile. Shape up or ship out.

Yes, doesn't he know that there is only one possible way to RP a character and that every possible deviation from that is an affront against the holy, true D20? D20 forbid he would want to kill something! My games are no outlets for violent impulses! They can "justify" it all they want, they are still playing killers! Oh the humanity!

...I think blue was the irony color. Wait a second.


When I DM, my D&D games are not outlets for people's pent up, creepy sexual fantasies. He can try to "justify" it all he wants, but he is RPing a pedophile. Shape up or ship out.

FIFY.

[Zanos]

Yes, doesn't he know that there is only one possible way to RP a character and that every possible deviation from that is an affront against the holy, true D20? D20 forbid he would want to kill something! My games are no outlets for violent impulses! They can "justify" it all they want, they are still playing killers! Oh the humanity!
Do you actually feel chained to RPing your character one specific way when I tell you that people shouldn't RP pedophiles? Here, look, I can do sarcasm too: Zanos won't let me play a pedo at his table! Doesn't he know anything about player agency? I can only play the one way he wants me to!

[Name1]

Do you actually feel chained to RPing your character one specific way when I tell you that people shouldn't RP pedophiles? Here, look, I can do sarcasm too: Zanos won't let me play a pedo at his table! Doesn't he know anything about player agency? I can only play the one way he wants me to!

...Wait, you were actually serious? Damn, that's... weird. I never took you for the "no evil-doers in my game"-kinda person. I mean, not even evil-doers, since pedophilia isn't even harmful to anyone as long as you don't act on it. That's kinda like kicking someone for eating pickles while you despise them...

[Zanos]

...Wait, you were actually serious? Damn, that's... weird. I never took you for the "no evil-doers in my game"-kinda person.
I'm not. I allow Evil in most of my campaigns, with the restriction and understanding that D&D is a group game, and I generally don't like and won't endorse PvP. Even still, I make restrictions against that kind of sexual depravity, and even when it's consensual sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation, I handwave and just fade to black. D&D is a game that revolves around combat, and is played with the understanding that violence features prominently. Neither I nor players have any desire to entertain people who think it's acceptable to play out their sexual fantasies in it.

I'd probably allow it in an strictlyEvil game with people I trust, but if some dude I met yesterday showed up to my game with Sir Pedobear, I'd tell him to change it or leave. It may surprise you that sexual crime against children is something I suspect most people are not comfortable with at their gaming table.

[Name1]

I'm not. I allow Evil in most of my campaigns, with the restriction and understanding that D&D is a group game, and I generally don't like and won't endorse PvP. Even still, I make restrictions against that kind of sexual depravity, and even when it's consensual sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation, I handwave and just fade to black. D&D is a game that revolves around combat, and is played with the understanding that violence features prominently. Neither I nor players have any desire to entertain people who think it's acceptable to play out their sexual fantasies in it.

I'd probably allow it in an strictlyEvil game with people I trust, but if some dude I met yesterday showed up to my game with Sir Pedobear, I'd tell him to change it or leave. It may surprise you that sexual crime against children is something I suspect most people are not comfortable with at their gaming table.

Well yes, but... Being a pedophile, in and of itself, isn't a sexual crime. I mean, from what I read he did flirt, but that was all. I mean, that's not an actual sexual activity, right? I think it does't even fall under the law for sexual consent, since it's not actually, well, sexual.

Which makes me wonder... Does Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor even have the age-buffer-thingy now that I think about it?

[Zanos]

Well yes, but... Being a pedophile, in and of itself, isn't a sexual crime. I mean, from what I read he did flirt, but that was all. I mean, that's not an actual sexual activity, right? I think it does't even fall under the law for sexual consent, since it's not actually, well, sexual.
Not really a concept I have any interest in exploring at my table. You may vary, but OP was pretty explicit that he and his players were all uncomfortable with it.

[Name1]

Not really a concept I have any interest in exploring at my table. You my vary, but OP was pretty explicit that he and his players were all uncomfortable with it.

I guess, but on the other hand, I didn't look like he understood that the rest felt uncomfortable. To me, the situation seemed like him basically getting shot at from what he percieved to be out of nowhere by the DM. Understanding that, he played his part until the end of the scene, as not to break character or immersion, and after the scene stopped with the behavior and never brought it up again.

Being a big fan of the whole "Fade to Black"-idea, I generally cut out when any sort of sexual interaction happens between a PC and an NPC (or monster or animal or whatever) and I have never encountered a problem of that nature before.

EDIT: Nvm, it was the players that voiced the concern... Huh. That does put him in a bad light. The only possible explaination I could see (aside from the stay IC aspect) would be for the DM to allow him to continue on ("give the benefit of the doubt").

[SethoMarkus]

...Wait, you were actually serious? Damn, that's... weird. I never took you for the "no evil-doers in my game"-kinda person. I mean, not even evil-doers, since pedophilia isn't even harmful to anyone as long as you don't act on it. That's kinda like kicking someone for eating pickles while you despise them...

The issue is not that it happened in the first place. The issue is not that it is a topic the is taboo for every game ever. The issue is that the group voiced that they were uncomfortable with some of his character's behaviors and rather that OOC apologise, he made excuses and defended those behaviors. He could have even made an excuse while apologizing, as long as the apology were genuine and ge changed his behavior. "Oh, sorry, I had the impression we were playing in a historic medieval setting. I'll knock it off with the advances."

You are free to roleplay whatever you want however you want, but if the rest of the group is uncomfortable with you and you refuse to change, they are free to inform you that you are no longer welcome at their table.

[Schattenbach]

Well yes, but... Being a pedophile, in and of itself, isn't a sexual crime. I mean, from what I read he did flirt, but that was all. I mean, that's not an actual sexual activity, right? I think it does't even fall under the law for sexual consent, since it's not actually, well, sexual.

Which makes me wonder... Does Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor even have the age-buffer-thingy now that I think about it?

If it's just flirting/courting (while regular etiquette is kept to reasonable degree ... I'm not talking about things like court etiquette here), then it isn't all that different from well ... things nobles and quasi nobles usually do during times they have to secure plenty of heirs ... anyway, there are plenty of cases were nobles (both in fiction and reality) were engaged at something, like, 10 or 12 years of age but the marriage was obviously put on a hold for quite some time.

[Name1]

If it's just flirting/courting (while regular etiquette is kept to reasonable degree ... I'm not talking about things like court etiquette here), then it isn't all that different from well ... things nobles and quasi nobles usually do during times they have to secure plenty of heirs ... anyway, there are plenty of cases were nobles (both in fiction and reality) were engaged at something, like, 10 or 12 years of age but the marriage was obviously put on a hold for quite some time.

...Wait, so you are saying flirting with someone isn't all that different from sleeping with someone? ... I read that wrong, didn't I? I'm not saying this in irony or anything, I'm just confused by the sentence.

[Schattenbach]

...Wait, so you are saying flirting with someone isn't all that different from sleeping with someone? ... I read that wrong, didn't I?

No I said that the behaviour (flirting/"courting") isn't all that different than the usual behaviour of nobles ... courting someone else (though when it appliesd to noble daughters it usually makes obviously more sense because quite a bit of things are to be kept in mind) to eventually get engaged ... and although they're engaged, the actual marriage and "physical relationship" is usually put on hold for a few years.

[AnachroNinja]

Worth noting just because I hate the inaccuracy, a 12 year old would not generally fall under the definition of pedophilia.

[Name1]

No I said that the behaviour (flirting/"courting") isn't all that different than the usual behaviour of nobles ... courting someone else (though when it appliesd to noble daughters it usually makes obviously more sense because quite a bit of things are to be kept in mind) to eventually get engaged ... and although they're engaged, the actual marriage and "physical relationship" is usually put on hold for a few years.

Ah ok. Does that count as a sexual crime already though? I mean, I'd say not, since the connection between marriage and sex is there, but...

I think we are getting off-topic with this anyway.


Worth noting just because I hate the inaccuracy, a 12 year old would not generally fall under the definition of pedophilia.

Are you sure? I always thought the cut-off point is 13 years in most countries.

Also... what race was the maid anyway? I believe a newborn succubus has full mental capacities and there are some short-lived races that might be fully legal at 12. I know Dromites start at 13, but I don't know if there is a race that starts at 12...

[SethoMarkus]

Also... what race was the maid anyway? I believe a newborn succubus has full mental capacities and there are some short-lived races that might be fully legal at 12. I know Dromites start at 13, but I don't know if there is a race that starts at 12...

Not that age/race are relevant to the actual core issue, but fora accuracy, Dromites actually have a starting age of 13+1dX, meaning the minimum age would be 14.

[Name1]

Not that age/race are relevant to the actual core issue, but fora accuracy, Dromites actually have a starting age of 13+1dX, meaning the minimum age would be 14.

The starting age to PLAY one. Adulthood still sets in at 13 from what I could tell. I mean... It's not like all Dromites pop into existence 14 years old (I think? Didn't read up on reproduction in D&D... and don't reall intend to).

[Quertus]

What are the issues here? Hmmm... Player creates underpowered character
Player doesn't listen to party's advice / orders in final battle
Player suicides his character
Player brags that he carried the party.
Player's character courts 12-year-old maid
Group is uncomfortable; Player doesn't notice
When Group confronts Player, Player defends as historically accurate.


Did I miss any points?

Where do I stand on these? Well, let's cross off a few real quick. I have no problem with people making under powered characters. This is a hobby that attracts a disproportionate amount of participants with below average social skills, so expecting high-end empathy is foolish at best. We only have one instance of the player ignoring being told what to do (and the player's solution was better, anyway - more on this later).

Where does that leave us?

Player creates underpowered character
Player doesn't listen to party's advice / orders in final battle
Player suicides his character
Player brags that he carried the party.
Player's character courts 12-year-old maid
Group is uncomfortable; Player doesn't notice
When Group confronts Player, Player defends as historically accurate.


When I worked as a chat room monitor a few years back, I learned that, even modern day, age of consent varies by nation, to as low as 9 years old - and that for countries that even have such laws. Add to that the part about historical accuracy / the fact that, barring human cloning, we undoubtedly all have "pedo" ancestors, and this single instance of the knight and the maid is simply him choosing his "princess" / his plot reward / his plot hook.

The fact that he suicided his character is actually a great bonus here. You can attempt to introduce a more group-appropriate "princess" to his next character / watch his next character for group-inappropriate qualities. If all his characters are pedo, then explain, very carefully, that this is not a topic that the group is comfortable with.

I say "very carefully" because it seems likely given his response that he didn't get it the first time. Explain that, just as some people have an unnatural fear of spiders, and it would be psychological torture to include spiders in a game with such people, your group has an unnatural fear of pedos, so please RP differently. That level of blatant. Just like in an internet debate, if he doesn't get it, start with the assumption that it's your fault for not explaining it clearly / in a manner he can understand. And, once you've given him this very explicit explanation, get him to explain it back to you in his own words. Then, if he still persists, you can talk about kicking him.

Where does that leave us?

Player creates underpowered character
Player doesn't listen to party's advice / orders in final battle
Player suicides his character +1 this :smallwink:
Player brags that he carried the party.
Player's character courts 12-year-old maid
Group is uncomfortable; Player doesn't notice
When Group confronts Player, Player defends as historically accurate.


This last one would actually be a far bigger issue for me. None of the reasons for this behavior are indicative of someone I want to play with.

EDIT: I forgot one point: DM runs an adventure which further nerfs an already underpowered character. I personally have no problem with this, but the crowd that says that you should custom tailor your adventure to your players / characters would probably cry foul at sending undead against a knight. :smalltongue: So, again, bonus points to the player for suiciding his inappropriate character.

EDIT II: sorry for continuing someone up-thread's pet peeve - 12-year-old makes it... ebonophilia?

[Kaje]

Ephebophilia.

[Zanos]

2013 psychiatric manual says the cutoff for pedophillia is 13.

[Calthropstu]

To be fair, he's not wrong. Traditionally, girls were married off very very young. It was not until 1910 that states int the US instilled a nation wide legal marriage age higher than 12. Up until that point many states had legal ages ranging between 7 and 12.

Even today, there are countries that have marriage ages and ages of consent younger than 10, and even in many of the countries that have legal ages of 16+, child marriages are still quite common (India is a prime example of such).

The traditional knight in medieval times didn't just hit on pubescent girls, they were legally allowed to rape them in many areas. Chivalry was reserved for noble ladies. Peasant girls were required to submit to knights. All knights were lords you see. Nobility were allowed all sorts of such privileges, and they were little better than the brigands they protected against in many cases. If we are talking the colonial era, Christopher Columbus reports in one of his logs that 8 and 9 year old girls were being shipped back to Portugal to be brides.

So personally, I don't see any problem with him playing that kind of character. Even in Golarion, there's an open slave trade which is described as an ancient slave market: where slaves of that age were sold for the express purpose of sex.

I would still drop him however. He doesn't mesh well with the rest of the group, which is more than enough. And that comment he made about carrying the group is kinda... stupid. It shows he's egotistical and out of touch with reality.

[denthor]

Ok my two cents

It makes the players uncomfortable. Takes up limited playing time.

Solution take the fun out of it. I'm 12 lord knight.

He hits on her.

She falls for it. DM. How long? She does your bidding roll d20 you rolled a what 1 she looks at you and says I have had much better repeat with all conquest in the future. He gets bored move on. On of the best scenes in a movie called Valmont She just gets out of tub goes to the bed wet lays on her back legs open and says to the affect ok. Valmont walks out of the room

[Elkad]

Worth noting just because I hate the inaccuracy, a 12 year old would not generally fall under the definition of pedophilia.

This. Pedophillia is pre-pubescent.


Ephebophilia.
Now that may be accurate. But it's highly dependent on the culture.


Anecdotally, my Father (who is probably as Neutral Good as humans come) was 18 when he met Mom. She was 12. 15 weeks before her 14th birthday my older brother was born (go ahead, do the math), followed by 5 more kids, and they were happily married for 61 years until Dad died. Mom still cries herself to sleep most nights.
Not Medieval times or some Fantasy book. Central California, 1952

[Quertus]

To be fair, he's not wrong. Traditionally, girls were married off very very young. It was not until 1910 that states int the US instilled a nation wide legal marriage age higher than 12. Up until that point many states had legal ages ranging between 7 and 12.

Even today, there are countries that have marriage ages and ages of consent younger than 10, and even in many of the countries that have legal ages of 16+, child marriages are still quite common (India is a prime example of such).

The traditional knight in medieval times didn't just hit on pubescent girls, they were legally allowed to rape them in many areas. Chivalry was reserved for noble ladies. Peasant girls were required to submit to knights. All knights were lords you see. Nobility were allowed all sorts of such privileges, and they were little better than the brigands they protected against in many cases. If we are talking the colonial era, Christopher Columbus reports in one of his logs that 8 and 9 year old girls were being shipped back to Portugal to be brides.

So personally, I don't see any problem with him playing that kind of character. Even in Golarion, there's an open slave trade which is described as an ancient slave market: where slaves of that age were sold for the express purpose of sex.

I would still drop him however. He doesn't mesh well with the rest of the group, which is more than enough. And that comment he made about carrying the group is kinda... stupid. It shows he's egotistical and out of touch with reality.

You've probably done a better job of saying what I was trying to say than I did.

The only significant difference is, I'd want to see him play a second character, to see if it's the Player or the Character who didn't mesh with the group, see if the two sides could learn to communicate better, etc.


This. Pedophillia is pre-pubescent.

Wait - would that make the age vary by individual? So, for some, it would be at 14, while for others, it wouldn't be at 9?


To be fair, he's not wrong. Traditionally, girls were married off very very young. It was not until 1910 that states int the US instilled a nation wide legal marriage age higher than 12. Up until that point many states had legal ages ranging between 7 and 12.


Anecdotally, my Father (who is probably as Neutral Good as humans come) was 18 when he met Mom. She was 12. 15 weeks before her 14th birthday my older brother was born (go ahead, do the math), followed by 5 more kids, and they were happily married for 61 years until Dad died. Mom still cries herself to sleep most nights.
Not Medieval times or some Fantasy book. Central California, 1952

You know, when I said, "we all have ancestors who...", I never expected someone would rely, "yup, that's my parents!". The two of you have helped me realize that this is a much more modern, much more common occurrence than I had realized.

[AnachroNinja]

To clarify, the DSM standard cut off age for pedophilia is 13. That does not mean that attraction to any minor under 13 is pedophilia. It means that attraction to a minor over 13 is NEVER pedophilia. At 13 and under, it is based on whether the minor is pre-pubescent or not. So if you are attracted to a full figured 11 year old (and yes in this age of horomone rich milk, that happens) you are not a pedophile, whereas if you are attracted to a 13 year old who has not started puberty, you are a pedophile.

Ephebophilia by contrast is the clinical attraction to those who have hit puberty up to early adulthood. 14-19 is around the general range. You only take net the criteria for that however if that is all you are attracted to. It's a subset of chronophilia and isn't so much a disease as a sexual preference. IE being attracted to older women. From a technical standpoint, if your attraction is to people who have hit puberty, you're normal.

[Calthropstu]

To clarify, the DSM standard cut off age for pedophilia is 13. That does not mean that attraction to any minor under 13 is pedophilia. It means that attraction to a minor over 13 is NEVER pedophilia. At 13 and under, it is based on whether the minor is pre-pubescent or not. So if you are attracted to a full figured 11 year old (and yes in this age of horomone rich milk, that happens) you are not a pedophile, whereas if you are attracted to a 13 year old who has not started puberty, you are a pedophile.

Ephebophilia by contrast is the clinical attraction to those who have hit puberty up to early adulthood. 14-19 is around the general range. You only take net the criteria for that however if that is all you are attracted to. It's a subset of chronophilia and isn't so much a disease as a sexual preference. IE being attracted to older women. From a technical standpoint, if your attraction is to people who have hit puberty, you're normal.

To be fair, I think there's a cut off point there too. The youngest mother in recorded history was 5 years old. Even though she was technically pubescent, I can't imagine that being classified as anything other than pedophilia.

[Barstro]

The problem is not that his character hits on young girls, or that he is weak and unoptimized and does not mind dying foolhardily, it is that the group is uncomfortable and not okay with it. In some groups, all of this might be a-ok, but your group is not okay with him being useless and doing things that make them uncomfortable. Full stop.

I disapprove of the twelve-year-old actions and would not want that in a game of mine. However, it is valid roleplaying. If your GAME'S mores say that such actions are wrong, then the lord of the manor should take umbrage and discipline the knight. After all, it was a roleplaying issue.

I agree that that the rest of the players should get some input as to the other person rejoining.

[AnachroNinja]

Well that's sort of the thing. Chronophilia involves being attracted to certain age groups. Older men, teenage girls, cougars, and what have you. Having an overwhelming preference for that age group. Pedophilia actually has nothing to do with age at all. It is strictly an attraction to undeveloped bodies. From a less strictly technical point of view, a pedophile can be attracted to a 30 year old. Most of us can think of someone we know who only dated rail thin girls that were short, thin, and had no hips or chest. That person is almost always someone who has strong tendencies towards pedophilia, they just found a socially acceptable outlet for it either intentionally or without ever realizing it.

More to the point, both pedophilia and chronophilia are conditions that are entirely divorced from morality. If you are attracted to a 5 year old girl who is fully developed physically, you are likely experiencing several other possible conditions, especially if you actually act upon that, but pedophilia is specifically an attraction to unseen undeveloped bodies, age is irrelevant. We just don't consider it to be a problem in society as long as you confine yourself to acting on it with people of sufficient age, so it's not considered a diagnosis at that point.

Think of it this way...

If you find a 15 year old girl with large breasts and hips to be physically attractive, there is nothing wrong with you psychologically.

If you take advantage of a 15 year old girls inexperience and naivety to sleep with her, that is morally wrong, but you still do not suffer from a psychological disorder(unless you are deliberately predatory on a consistent basis)

If you are attracted to a pre-pubescent 10 year old, then you have a psychological disorder, but there's nothing directly immoral about the attraction, it's not something you can help.

If you sleep with a pre-pubescent 10 year old, then you have a psychological disorder based on the attraction, and your morally wrong within our society for taking advantage of that person.

Essentially, age is important as regards morality, physical Devi development. Physical development is what determines if there is a psychological defect in who you are attracted to. Deliberately predatory behavior, or urges to target the innocent, or similar are entirely different from either.

[Yahzi]

I have no idea if medieval knights actually married 12 year old girls.
Juliette (of Romeo and Juliette) was 14. But that's a bit different than 12. As far as I know, there was a high-ranking French noble who actually did marry a 12 year old, and his reputation took a pretty serious hit. Kinda like Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin; it destroyed his career. So ya, your player's knight was in character to do that... and the other players were in character to be disgusted by it.

That said, booting a guy after 1 session is a lot better than booting him after 10. Pull the band-aid off quick! "Sorry mate, but it wasn't a good fit." And that's it. No explanation required. If he asks, just repeat - not a good fit, that's all there is too it.

[Mordaedil]

Holy **** people.

You are all playing the wrong game system, you should be playing FATAL instead. Roll for anus circumference.

[TheBrassDuke]

The whole "safe space" bull has to stop.

If you (the DM) didn't even clarify this "wasn't a medieval" setting until you found his actions repugnant, the fault lies with you. Yeah, the other players can be uncomfortable--hell, so can you, but kicking him out on that alone is a real jerk move. There is no safe space in D&D...murder is morally wrong. Um. It's olde times. This is normal for a character like his--which he has the right to. You never specified what sort of play-era you were in until he hit YOUR snag. Feels like a shame button on your end. And you just slammed it.

His cockiness about "carrying the party", however? That should be addressed. Because he obviously didn't.

[Barstro]

His cockiness about "carrying the party", however? That should be addressed. Because he obviously didn't.

Why would it need to be addressed?
Player had fun.
Other PCs didn't seem hampered by trying to save this bit of insanity.

Unless this PC is expecting greater treasure for "carrying the team", let him live in his delusional world. The ONLY thing I would do is actually enforce the rules about DR, etc. But even that seems like it wouldn't matter.

[TheBrassDuke]

Why would it need to be addressed?
Player had fun.
Other PCs didn't seem hampered by trying to save this bit of insanity.

Unless this PC is expecting greater treasure for "carrying the team", let him live in his delusional world. The ONLY thing I would do is actually enforce the rules about DR, etc. But even that seems like it wouldn't matter.

Let's see if I can make this clear to you.

He obviously wanted to be a "tank" of sorts and actually wanted to be pretty powerful, not suck to the point where everybody unanimously agreed he was pretty useless. That is something you bring up. Even he didn't get what he wanted out of that. But if you are going out of your way to tell him it's not a medieval setting and that you're uncomfortable, let him know you were uncomfortable having to carry him through the session.

It's not okay to go after one thing and not the other, especially with the range of arguments we've seen above thus far.

He should know he sucks as bad as his choice in ladies.

[Segev]

There is a clear OOC problem, but the only part that is unambiguous is the disagreement over play style and the arguing over whether something is acceptable. That said, people often feel attacked when they are told what they're doing is wrong, and get defensive and try to say "it's not wrong! It's totally okay! Here's why! Stop judging me!"

I don't entirely approve of that behavior, but it is fairly normal.

My recommendation is to talk to the whole group about comfort zones and themes for the game. Don't even get in to whether it's "historically accurate" or not; that's really not relevant to the issues at hand. "This is not something we want to get into in this game" is perfectly valid reason to ask somebody not to pursue something. He has every right to leave if he can't have fun under those rules. You have every right to ask him to leave if he persists in trying to force it on you and the table.

If problems like this keep coming up, it either means he is a bad fit for your group because he doesn't "get" where the boundaries are and isn't able to learn them, or that your group has a problem with him. It is frequently demonized when a group looks for excuses to get mad at somebody, and I understand why. But if they are, it's a symptom of something, and it isn't healthy for either that person or that group for them to keep trying to force themselves to endure the other's presence. (I am, for the record, speaking of voluntary, fun-time activities, here; please do not extrapolate this into less voluntary, more essential groupings.)


As to his mechanical inaptitude and his "carried the party" claims, as long as he's having fun and not harming the fun of the others, I don't see that as a problem. If he's harming others' fun with his attitude, talk to him about the braggadocio. "Even if it's true that you carried the party, please don't rub it in. That's being a bad sport and is trying to take away from their fun."

IF he instead just wants to talk about how awesome he felt doing his tanking job...what's the harm? You might even use it as a teaching opportunity. "That was pretty cool. You know, you might do even better/be able to do that more reliably if you [insert mechanical advice here]." You may also try showcasing some enemies with better-built versions of what he's trying to do, and then let him - if he asks - adopt their mechanics through retraining, rebuilding, or just level-up choices. It's oft said that one of the risks of putting powerful foes with cool items into a game is that the PCs will wind up taking the items or wanting to do what the foes did. That can be used as an advantage, too: show what the PCs could be doing, and they will demand you help them do it, rather than resisting when you make suggestions on "how to play their character."

[Grim Reader]

The whole "safe space" bull has to stop.

I don't believe it does.

The GM and players are perfectly within their rights to say, this is a place we come to have fun, and we do not want to be creeped out by someone's pedo/rape fantasies. Its not a public space or institution, and laying down the law about topics that make you uncomfortable is entirely valid.

[Barstro]

Let's see if I can make this clear to you.

He obviously wanted to be a "tank" of sorts and actually wanted to be pretty powerful, not suck to the point where everybody unanimously agreed he was pretty useless. That is something you bring up. Even he didn't get what he wanted out of that. But if you are going out of your way to tell him it's not a medieval setting and that you're uncomfortable, let him know you were uncomfortable having to carry him through the session.

It's not okay to go after one thing and not the other, especially with the range of arguments we've seen above thus far.

He should know he sucks as bad as his choice in ladies.

He wants to be a tank and actually thinks that he is (in a 1984 view of things, that means "he did get what he wanted out of that":). As long as his delusions are not harming the party, then I don't really see a problem. It was not unanimously agreed that he was pretty useless. HE thinks he was fine and is enjoying playing the game the way it is.

If he realized he was worthless but could not find a way to become useful, or if he was harming the party, then I would agree with you. Again, that's what I would do. The OP and the group may agree with your solution to the problem where I do not consider there to be an actual problem.

[Barstro]

The GM and players are perfectly within their rights to say, this is a place we come to have fun, and we do not want to be creeped out by someone's pedo/rape fantasies. Its not a public space or institution, and laying down the law about topics that make you uncomfortable is entirely valid.

To the left, if this player and his friends are playing a game where the knights go around hitting on juveniles, that is their right. If another single player came along and said "stop", I'd agree that he is incorrect for trying to change their game. Or, it could be a great roleplaying thing where someone with current mores goes back in time to try to influence things.

In either case, a game was in place. Someone trying to come along and do things against everyone else is simply sitting at the wrong table. That's not a judgement or attack on the new player, just a statement that he's in the wrong game.

[Quertus]

I don't believe it does.

The GM and players are perfectly within their rights to say, this is a place we come to have fun, and we do not want to be creeped out by someone's pedo/rape fantasies. Its not a public space or institution, and laying down the law about topics that make you uncomfortable is entirely valid.


To the left, if this player and his friends are playing a game where the knights go around hitting on juveniles, that is their right. If another single player came along and said "stop", I'd agree that he is incorrect for trying to change their game. Or, it could be a great roleplaying thing where someone with current mores goes back in time to try to influence things.

In either case, a game was in place. Someone trying to come along and do things against everyone else is simply sitting at the wrong table. That's not a judgement or attack on the new player, just a statement that he's in the wrong game.

Hmmm... This is an area where my ethics are a work in progress. I have always taken a "maximize your tolerance" stance, and, if you can't deal with it, GTFO.

But, at the same time, I hold the seemingly contradictory stance of trying to make things work. I look at many groups' "problem player", and say, "I know that guy - he's not that bad".

For making games work with people's comfort zones, I've always put the onus of making it work on the wusses with comfort zones. Yes, even when that wuss was me. But I've seen many people in the playground advocate a much kinder approach, removing spiders from the board or covering them with a sheet when it became obvious that they were terrifying one of the players.

I'm not sure, but I think that's the better approach.

Now, in this case, we don't have enough evidence to accuse the one player of having "pedo/rape fantasies". The DM presented a historically appropriate "princess", and the player jumped on (only figuratively) the hook. That's... a sign of (what most people call*) a good player.

If his next character ignores more group appropriate plot hooks / "princesses", and actively seeks out "underage" girls to woo, then, yes, there's a problem, he doesn't fit the group.

* personally, I'm old-school, and call "jumping on the DM's plot hooks" what it is: metagaming.

[Segev]

Hmmm... This is an area where my ethics are a work in progress. I have always taken a "maximize your tolerance" stance, and, if you can't deal with it, GTFO.

But, at the same time, I hold the seemingly contradictory stance of trying to make things work. I look at many groups' "problem player", and say, "I know that guy - he's not that bad".

For making games work with people's comfort zones, I've always put the onus of making it work on the wusses with comfort zones. Yes, even when that wuss was me. But I've seen many people in the playground advocate a much kinder approach, removing spiders from the board or covering them with a sheet when it became obvious that they were terrifying one of the players.

I'm not sure, but I think that's the better approach.

Maximizing your tolerance has its place. I will note that there are things which you should not tolerate. The full extent of that goes into moral/religious discussions beyond the scope of this forum, but I'm pretty sure we can name a few things (domestic abuse, for example) which we would all agree are not behaviors we should "learn to tolerate." But what most people mean is what you likely meant: don't let your comfort zones dictate others' behavior, and don't be a bigot or a jerk who insists "my way or the highway."

But at the same time, "the wussies" who find something too uncomfortable for them shouldn't be forced to leave everything they love just because somebody who finds them to be wusses shows up and wants to engage in (to the "wussies") shocking behavior. As an extreme example, the onus is not on the mothers with their kindergarten-aged children to leave the storytime at the library because some 20-somethings came in and started sharing stories of their sexual exploits in graphic terms at the table 10 feet away. Not only is the "wussy" expectation of some polite quiet perfectly reasonable, there is a time and place for everything.

More to the point of this thread, if a bunch of Christian youths get together with their Youth Leader to play some D&D, it's perfectly reasonable for them to ask that the atheist who comes in to join them not to graphically describe how he violates the corpses of the goblins they just killed. Similarly, if the campus gay rights/interests club (the one at the college I went to had a name, and I'm frustrated that I can't remember it to use more precisely in this example right now) has an informal D&D game that some Young Republican wants to attend, the onus isn't on the gay rights club members to "deal with it" when he plays a homosexuality-is-a-sin fire-and-brimstone cleric of an LG deity.

The right of association includes the right to tell people who are disrupting that association and making others miserable in it that they're not welcome. It's generally frowned upon without good reason, but "We don't want to play a game about raping puppies" is a valid reason to tell the one guy who does to cut it out or leave.

Tolerance goes both ways: you don't get to force your views/preferences on people any more than they get to force them on you. And for healthy social groups, it's best not to force inclusion of people who cannot or will not avoid figuratively slapping everyone else in the group in the face.

[Barstro]

...I'm pretty sure we can name a few things (domestic abuse, for example) which we would all agree are not behaviors we should "learn to tolerate." But what most people mean is what you likely meant: don't let your comfort zones dictate others' behavior, and don't be a bigot or a jerk who insists "my way or the highway."
For this specific example, I think I'd be ok with someone player a domestic abuser. Not because I condone (very much against), but for the great ability for odd interaction between such a character and the others. IIRC, Caramon Majere hit Tika once. Once.

The battlecry "this is what people did in this time period" would have been met with a most horrific attack by my character.


More to the point of this thread, if a bunch of Christian youths get together with their Youth Leader to play some D&D, it's perfectly reasonable for them to ask that the atheist who comes in to join them not to graphically describe how he violates the corpses of the goblins they just killed. Similarly, if the campus gay rights/interests club (the one at the college I went to had a name, and I'm frustrated that I can't remember it to use more precisely in this example right now) has an informal D&D game that some Young Republican wants to attend, the onus isn't on the gay rights club members to "deal with it" when he plays a homosexuality-is-a-sin fire-and-brimstone cleric of an LG deity.
I get your point, but I take a bit of offense at;
atheist = "violator of corpses"
Young Republican = "against sexuality equality"

I think the latter, again, is ripe for good roleplaying to teach that cleric the error of his narrow-mindedness.


The right of association includes the right to tell people who are disrupting that association and making others miserable in it that they're not welcome. It's generally frowned upon without good reason, but "We don't want to play a game about raping puppies" is a valid reason to tell the one guy who does to cut it out or leave.
A valid and vivid statement.

[Abink]

sounds like the guy was having fun and your crew is really uptight. guy does something that makes everyone uncomfortable? good it's testing you to think differently. change the girl into a cursed child who evaporates into dust on being released from a spell... idk think on your feet and plan for awkward situations. if you keep playing with a standard group you won't leave anything. sounds like you guys don't even have any fun... normally. d&d morals are not real life morals.

[Grim Reader]

I think, if you find yourself engaged in or making excuses for behavior that could qualify for this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=133489&pp=10), you are tryng to hard.

[icefractal]

I disagree with "handle it IC" for the 12yo issue. Whether it's a problem in-character is irrelevant - it's a problem for the actual people playing, and that supersedes anything IC. Do people have the right to think about what they want to? Sure. Do they have the right to make other people play through it with them? No. Hell no.

If an RPG is like making a stew, this player just rolled up to the table with some hákarl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A1karl). The other people smelled it, and asked him not to put it in the stew. And then he started talking about how hákarl is a real food and some people do enjoy it. Fine, but irrelevant - nobody else wanted it in the stew, it's going to make it gross for them, so trying to sneak it in there anyway (continuing to flirt with said NPC) is a **** move.

And also, ew.

[Segev]

I get your point, but I take a bit of offense at;
atheist = "violator of corpses"
Young Republican = "against sexuality equality"Fair enough. I suppose I could have just gone for "the guy who wants to bring a gay romance into it." I was trying to go for player archetypes I more commonly see. And, sadly, "the guy who wants to do horrific things" is more common than "the guy who wants to drag gay relationships into it." Partially, I think, because most games don't bring romance into it at all.

(Although, there's an interesting case to be made that it's possible to find the YR's position MORE offensive. After all, the corpses aren't being hurt by it, but people would argue that the YR is hurting living beings. --and though I bring this up as an aside, I REALLY don't want to go into actually judging people nor their views nor judging their judgments. It just was an interesting aside as to even judging how "awful" a given behavior might be to a given person.)


I think the latter, again, is ripe for good roleplaying to teach that cleric the error of his narrow-mindedness.Sure! And I'm sure the YR would view it as ripe for good roleplaying to teach the others that he's not narrow-minded, but that he just wants them to find happiness in healthier desires and relationships. (Again, not wanting to discuss whether he's right or wrong, just pointing out that again, the attitudes and beliefs that others have misconceptions go both ways.)

Sadly, no matter which side of a philosophy you're on, when the "lessons" are too ham-fisted, they come off as trite and teach nobody. One of the great successes of more left-leaning philosophy has been how subtly it's permeated the pop culture, to the point where a lot of the assumptions of that philosophy go unexamined as premises. One of the great failings of more right-leaning philosophy has been that the efforts to do similarly wind up being very preachy and obvious, thus turning off people who are not there for a lecture.



A valid and vivid statement.Thanks. :smallsmile:

[Barstro]

I think, because most games don't bring romance into it at all.
I thought we became gamers BECAUSE we failed at romance.

I'll be the first to say that I intentionally do not have romance in my games. Perhaps my heterosexuality makes me narrow-minded, but I don't need another guy in the group roleplaying romance with my character. I'll gladly play characters of either (it's a fantasy world, so maybe it's "any") sex in a relationship with opposite or same sex, but I think roleplaying the romance side is weird. Either you a weirdly roleplaying romance that at least one of you does not feel (a reason I never dated much), or you are roleplaying romance that you both feel (and I don't want to be at the table for that).

[Segev]

Personally, telling a romance story is not the same as actually being in a romance with the player, to me. It's little different than watching a harem anime and having a girl (or boy) for whom you're rooting. Or watching a romantic comedy and rooting for the couple.

I also, however, won't play females as a general rule if I'm playing IRL (or in any medium where my voice will be expressing the PC's words), because hearing my deep baritone destroys any believability that the character is a girl, for me. (I can pull off a slightly more convincing "youth" voice, which is enough to make that not jar me out of my immersion.) On IRC, though, I'll play either.

But aside from, perhaps, the "knight and damsel" storyline, very few D&D classic plots have a romance element to them at all.

[Quertus]

Maximizing your tolerance has its place. I will note that there are things which you should not tolerate. The full extent of that goes into moral/religious discussions beyond the scope of this forum, but I'm pretty sure we can name a few things (domestic abuse, for example) which we would all agree are not behaviors we should "learn to tolerate." But what most people mean is what you likely meant: don't let your comfort zones dictate others' behavior, and don't be a bigot or a jerk who insists "my way or the highway."

Hmmm... I was only referring to tolerance of content in game; tolerance of things IRL is... beyond the scope of my level of participation in this discussion.

To clarify, though, I am also thinking in terms of Kantian Persons. Including children (Kantian non-persons) in the gaming group changes the equation.

That having been said, you believe that none of us should accept domestic abuse in an RPG? Or was your comment limited in scope to IRL?


The battlecry "this is what people did in this time period" would have been met with a most horrific attack by my character.

Look at this from a different PoV. If I had a problem with the murder of sentient beings in my games, D&D would be a poor choice of system.

Unlike the group, the player is a "good roleplayer", who did the research, and built a character who thinks, not like a modern pedophobe, but like a knight of that era. For the group to expect different behavior is ignorance on their part. And, while ignorance usually does provoke a violent response, it shouldn't.

And having your character respond to an OOC comment with IC violence is tantamount to children's outbursts of violence precipitated by an inability to articulate their ideas / emotions. It really doesn't have any place in an RPG - not even to demonstrate the disconnect between what the group attempted to communicate and what the player came back with.


I disagree with "handle it IC" for the 12yo issue. Whether it's a problem in-character is irrelevant - it's a problem for the actual people playing, and that supersedes anything IC. Do people have the right to think about what they want to? Sure. Do they have the right to make other people play through it with them? No. Hell no.

If an RPG is like making a stew, this player just rolled up to the table with some hákarl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A1karl). The other people smelled it, and asked him not to put it in the stew. And then he started talking about how hákarl is a real food and some people do enjoy it. Fine, but irrelevant - nobody else wanted it in the stew, it's going to make it gross for them, so trying to sneak it in there anyway (continuing to flirt with said NPC) is a **** move.

And also, ew.

A more accurate parallel would be if the group of vegetarians said they were making sushi, and the player did his research, and brought fish. :smalltongue:

[Segev]

That having been said, you believe that none of us should accept domestic abuse in an RPG? Or was your comment limited in scope to IRL?Meant to be constrained to IRL, there, yes.

In all honesty, there is probably nothing that should never (under any circumstances) be tolerated as a story, which is what the doings of characters in these sorts of games are. Reviled, certainly. Perhaps we might argue that condoning it in a story should not be tolerated. But we're getting a bit into the weeds, here.

While this can in fact lead to erroneous conclusions at times :smallwink:, I will ask that for this thread, you take my comments as if you believed me to be a reasonable human being.


Look at this from a different PoV. If I had a problem with the murder of sentient beings in my games, D&D would be a poor choice of system.

Unlike the group, the player is a "good roleplayer", who did the research, and built a character who thinks, not like a modern pedophobe, but like a knight of that era. For the group to expect different behavior is ignorance on their part. And, while ignorance usually does provoke a violent response, it shouldn't.

And having your character respond to an OOC comment with IC violence is tantamount to children's outbursts of violence precipitated by an inability to articulate their ideas / emotions. It really doesn't have any place in an RPG - not even to demonstrate the disconnect between what the group attempted to communicate and what the player came back with.



A more accurate parallel would be if the group of vegetarians said they were making sushi, and the player did his research, and brought fish. :smalltongue:
Insofar as "the problem player was clearly in the wrong from the get-go" goes, I agree with the sentiment expressed here. I will say, however, that just because he "did his research" about the real-world timeframe broadly related to the setting doesn't mean that the others are out of line for saying, "we were expecting a fun D&D game about beating up monsters and doing heroic deeds, and we think hitting on 12-year-olds is squicky. Please don't do it at our game table."

The solution to this is OOC: talk to the player about it, don't accuse HIM of pedophilia for having a character do what he thinks is socially acceptable in the game's setting. If he really just wants to do a "knight romances the maid" storyline, either age up the maid so it's not unacceptable, or provide her with a big sister who would be more receptive to his attentions. (Or, if not "more receptive," at least not repulsed on the grounds that she's too young.)

Or don't, and explain that you don't want those kinds of romance stories in the game. That's fine, too.

[icefractal]

A more accurate parallel would be if the group of vegetarians said they were making sushi, and the player did his research, and brought fish. :smalltongue:
1) Vegetarian sushi does exist; some of it is quite good in fact. :smalltongue:
2) D&D != RL Medieval period. The societal structure is more like a mix of iron age/wild west/modern, the technology level is all over the place, and that's before we even speak about anything fantastical.
3) Even in the set of medieval things, "hitting on 12 year olds" is not what most people are looking for in their depictions. Just like when people want "medieval style food" at a RenFaire, they don't mean "prepared by someone who didn't wash their hands, and the meat is full of parasites". It's certainly not featured enough to be the "fish" in anyone's sushi, more like the "one specific kind of fish that not everyone likes" at best.

[AnachroNinja]

In the long run, without a full transcription of the conversation, it's pretty hard to make judgements. It's very possible the player was trying to act in character, misunderstood the age of the maid, didn't realize how bothered the other players were, or any one of a dozen other possible things could impact how things seemed to each individual.

I will point out, very few people are unaware that sex with a minor bothers most people in this country. It's a hard sell for me that he just came into the game to "play out his pedo/rape fantasies" under the assumption that everyone would be fine with it. It's overwhelmingly likely that there was some level of misunderstanding taking place.

In the long run, your decision is going to say more about you then it does about him. Are you the kind of person who knee-jerk kicks someone out of your social group because of one incident or misunderstanding? Is it worth it to find out if this guy has redeeming value and could be a constructive part of your gaming group? It's really just on you to decide.

[Jarmen4u]

A more accurate parallel would be if the group of vegetarians said they were making sushi, and the player did his research, and brought fish. :smalltongue:

I think a better analogy would be if, instead of fish, he brought filet of an endangered shark or other sea creature that would be equally looked down upon for eating in our day and age, just to retort with "well historically/traditionally, you could use this for sushi!" even though everyone else was uncomfortable because he has no problem eating an endangered creature.

[dascarletm]

In the long run, without a full transcription of the conversation, it's pretty hard to make judgements. It's very possible the player was trying to act in character, misunderstood the age of the maid, didn't realize how bothered the other players were, or any one of a dozen other possible things could impact how things seemed to each individual.

I will point out, very few people are unaware that sex with a minor bothers most people in this country. It's a hard sell for me that he just came into the game to "play out his pedo/rape fantasies" under the assumption that everyone would be fine with it. It's overwhelmingly likely that there was some level of misunderstanding taking place.

In the long run, your decision is going to say more about you then it does about him. Are you the kind of person who knee-jerk kicks someone out of your social group because of one incident or misunderstanding? Is it worth it to find out if this guy has redeeming value and could be a constructive part of your gaming group? It's really just on you to decide.

Pretty much this.

[PersonMan]

If you (the DM) didn't even clarify this "wasn't a medieval" setting until you found his actions repugnant, the fault lies with you.

I've got a question: How many groups do you know who actually play in a medieval setting? I mean one that's actually medieval, not vaguely pop-medieval-ish and only appearing vaguely like it because of window dressing?

Chances are, there aren't that many. Especially if one argues that the fantasy angle of DnD completely removes the possibility of playing in a sensible medieval setting because of the massive changes to society caused by the different world.

So "this is just like history in every way" is not a good default assumption to have. It's like getting angry at someone that they never told you about their houserule that only the goalie can grab the ball in [football / soccer] with their hands - it can't just be done by whoever's in the back. Sure, in theory it's the host's job to communicate the baseline rules and such, but if it's generally understood that 'soccer' means a specific game with specific rules, then someone coming in with a noticeably different idea of said rules doesn't really have grounds to claim the host is at fault for not clearing things up.


Yeah, the other players can be uncomfortable--hell, so can you, but kicking him out on that alone is a real jerk move.

I agree with you on this, but no one was arguing to do that anyways, so it's a moot point.

If someone's response to 'hey could you stop that' is 'no I'm justified to do it' then they probably won't gel with a group of people who don't share their preferences - which is reason enough to say 'hey this probably won't work out long term'.


There is no safe space in D&D...murder is morally wrong. Um. It's olde times.

You do know that most games of DnD don't involve the PCs committing murder?

And, as an aside, you're arguing the equivalent of "I came to a game of soccer and the other players were upset when I grabbed the ball with my hands, even though they're hitting it with their feet the whole time".

One is expected, the other is not. If you don't like violence, you probably won't play a game like DnD unless it's with a group that plays a specific type of game in which violence doesn't come up that often. It's expected. Flirting with 12 year olds is not.


His cockiness about "carrying the party", however? That should be addressed. Because he obviously didn't.

Were it not for your other posts, this line would've made me think this was a joke.

"Someone not respecting the feelings of others at the table?* Pfft, it's his right to do that, you're in the wrong! Wait, he does something I don't like that is likely at most a moderate annoyance? How dare he!"

* Keep in mind that the entire point of the activity is to have fun, which is a feeling, and making people feel otherwise is pretty much the way to fail at something as open-ended at a tabletop roleplaying game.


Hmmm... This is an area where my ethics are a work in progress. I have always taken a "maximize your tolerance" stance, and, if you can't deal with it, GTFO.

It may be your wording, but it seems like this is just a mirroring of how things are normally done?

"Your tolerance of [X] is much higher than mine, please tone [X] down as I can't enjoy it if there's too much. If you need that much [X] to have fun, this isn't the game for you."

vs

"Your tolerance of [X] is lower than mine, please become more tolerant of [X]. If you need less of [X] to have fun, this isn't the game for you."

(Assuming you need said subject matter to have fun, because otherwise you're just being a jerk. To build off of an old analogy, my right to stretch my arm important, but if I demand to exercise it and shove my fist into someone's face I'm not fighting for my rights, I'm just a jerk.)


Now, in this case, we don't have enough evidence to accuse the one player of having "pedo/rape fantasies". The DM presented a historically appropriate "princess", and the player jumped on (only figuratively) the hook. That's... a sign of (what most people call*) a good player.

Since when is a random underaged maid a "princess" and "hook"? Are you working under the assumption that, because the NPC is female, she's a romance plot hook? Because I can't see any other way to get to this result.

[Segev]

Since when is a random underaged maid a "princess" and "hook"? Are you working under the assumption that, because the NPC is female, she's a romance plot hook? Because I can't see any other way to get to this result.

"She's a female NPC interacting specifically with the party in the safe, reward-space of the castle. She is of the age I believe to be acceptable courting age in this setting. I am a knight. She could be my Dulcinea," is not an invalid nor malignant thought process. The fact that he was wrong about the age being setting-appropriate for courtship is his only real fault at that point. Arguing about it after others expressed...discomfort...is a bigger issue, but even that, I think, is understandable given that he essentially suddenly found himself being accused of pedophilia. "No, guys, it totally isn't. I was just RPing medieval morality!" is a knee-jerk defense that's quite natural to feeling attacked with such a label considered about as horrific as you can get in our modern culture. (It's right up there with "rapist," "Nazi," and is actually worse than "serial killer" because that last one can be used jokingly without people getting uncomfortable.)

Which is why I recommend talking to him after the fact. DO NOT tell him he's being a pedophile. Whether true or not, it won't help. Tell him that this setting doesn't treat 12-year-olds as "courtship-age." Give him the option of retracting the flirting or of aging up the maid to an appropriate age. Or just tell him that you'd rather not run a courtship plot in your game. But only do that if it's honestly true, because if you later throw one in or allow another player to start one, he'll rightfully feel like he's subjected to a double standard.

I doubt he's seriously trying to live out a "pedo fantasy" in the game. Maybe he is, but the odds are that he's trying to play out a "knightly romance" story, and mistakenly thought the maid an appropriate target. The rest is easily understood if you realize that being accused of pedophilia is going to engender a defensive reaction, and the first reaction most have is justification, not "oh crap sorry I was wrong I didn't mean that."

[PersonMan]

"She's a female NPC interacting specifically with the party in the safe, reward-space of the castle. She is of the age I believe to be acceptable courting age in this setting. I am a knight. She could be my Dulcinea," is not an invalid nor malignant thought process.

So, pretty much what I said, but with the added clause of "somewhere safe".

[Stuvius]

I am coming in way late to the party, so forgive me if this has already been said. Have we considered the fact that merely because something was acceptable in medieval history doesn't mean it was ok? I don't really care about his historical accuracy claims, a grown man making advances to a 12 year old child is quite simply,not ok. Beyond that, why would a player feel the need to RP this? Is this type of behavior necessary to fully develop his character for story and game play purposes? I would be inclined to say no.

No matter the attempt at justifying it, this type of behavior would not be something I would want to encourage in my game. I would certainly have an out of game discussion with him and explain my concerns. If he was unwilling to desist though? I would have to ask that he leave the game.

[TheBrassDuke]

How old is the player's knight, by the way?

[WarKitty]

I think the takeaway from this thread is that people have very different reactions to age of consent issues in a game. (It's worth noting, as some people have, that the age of consent varies a lot even within the developed world. This comes up a lot with japanese media, actually.) There are plenty of people, myself included, who wouldn't see an issue with a character hitting on an npc who might be underage but within a medieval time frame's eligible age. There are plenty of other people who don't want to deal with it at all in the game.

I'd say I agree with Segev here. Sure, the player should stop once he was told he made others uncomfortable. But it's not something that is inherently a thing that people should realize won't be ok in a game. And it's not all that unusual from a human psychology standpoint for the player to defend his actions - after all, plenty of us RP all sorts of things we wouldn't do in real life.

[Manyasone]

Strange, the more time i spend on this forum, the more it strikes me that their is a vast difference in the Old world vs the New world. Having visited the USA a couple of times, and last when I was in Boston actually visiting a gaming store...It lives in the USA. Where I live, not so much...matter of fact is that two of my main players I've known for 18 years, a third is my younger brother, so all his life, and a couple others going 6 years now. We don't have issues like this, or we have a gentlemen's agreement. Since a friend and myself have kids, even when we play evil no child molesting will ever happen, less some want to have a skull cracked nor any untowards behaviour...Point is, when you play with unknown party's, be prepared sometimes for some 'odd' behaviour. FOAF i believe it's called...I learned the hard way that FOAF's most of the time aren't worth the air they breathe...

[dascarletm]

Most friends of a friend aren't worth the air they breath? :smalleek:
Seems a bit harsh.

[Manyasone]

Most friends of a friend aren't worth the air they breath? :smalleek:
Seems a bit harsh.
I have cause, trust me

[denthor]

Here are two questions I would like answers to

Did you as a DM read his three page back story?

Could this all be pointless because he decides not to return?:smallsigh:

I have seen people so up once and never again or four months later for one session and never again.

[Zanos]

So, pretty much what I said, but with the added clause of "somewhere safe".
While I find the age of the target deplorable, and agree with you about the fact that D&D settings are more medieval inspired than actually medieval, I think it's silly to take issue with a player trying to start a romance plot with generic NPCs.

[Segev]

So, pretty much what I said, but with the added clause of "somewhere safe".

No. At least, not what I got from what you said.


Since when is a random underaged maid a "princess" and "hook"? Are you working under the assumption that, because the NPC is female, she's a romance plot hook? Because I can't see any other way to get to this result.

I have bolded the part I'm focused on, and I don't think the other parts add in everything I did.

Your outright statement is that you're assuming that he's going to assume that any female NPC is a romance plot hook. The implication is that that alone is sufficient, and further from the tone that it's absolutely unseemly that such an assumption might be made. One can further derive from this that there are female NPCs which should not be romance plot hooks, and that anybody who would think that one such female NPC is based solely on her being female is a horrid person worthy of derision.


Note how my statement, which you quoted, included far more conditions than "a safe place" and "she's female." It included caveats about the nature of the interaction, the nature of the PC's role in the game setting, and implied assumptions about the setting.


But let's step back from this a moment: what's WRONG with a player seeing an NPC and seeking to turn her into a romantic hook?

"She's female" may have been the only criterion the player or PC cared about before at least flirting. If he were playing a female knight and did the same thing, would that have been equally atrocious? What if he were playing a female knight and decided to hit on a page or squire, instead, on the basis that "he's male, so a potential romantic hook?"

Part of the reason people play RPGs is to be able to invent their own hooks. Remove the maid's age from the equation by adjusting it to whatever makes you comfortable. Is the fact that the Knight's player decided "female NPC is attractive to my character so he's going to flirt in chivalric courtship style" just a sign of how rotten a person he is?

Honestly, injecting "she's female, so she's obviously a romantic hook" as if it's somehow disgraceful is obnoxious.

I think, perhaps, the fairest way to put it is that "she's female, which is one criterion to make her a potential romantic hook for my straight male PC...and I [or rather, the player] want to pursue developing that hook."

[Aetis]

Wow, guys. I didn't expect all these posts after I said the matter was resolved.

The other players did not wish to play with him, so I told him so. He wasn't angry or whatever. It wasn't a big deal.

He wasn't trying to play out a pedophile's fantasy. I think he was half-joking around and then defended his actions out of habit. Then, he continued his (slightly toned down) advances on the maid because he was being immature and thought it was funny to watch other players cringe.

His backstory was more like 2 paragraphs. He was exaggerating. Also, I told him what the setting was not medieval ages BEFORE he made his character. That was him not listening to me.

For what it's worth, he was easily the least prepared player on the table in that session. Probably because he was a newbie, but I've seen newbies before, and he was far worse.

His knight was like in 40s if I remember correctly.

Yes, he's a newbie. Yes, he probably should have listened to me/other players' advises both during character creation and in-game. No, I'm not kicking him because he's a newbie. Other players didn't want him around so he wasn't a good fit. He was removed from the 5e game for similar reasons. It happens, and I'm sure he'll find a group he'll fit into eventually. Just not mine.

[Segev]

"Not a good fit" is a perfectly reasonable reason not to have a player in a group. Glad it worked without rancor!

[PersonMan]

While I find the age of the target deplorable, and agree with you about the fact that D&D settings are more medieval inspired than actually medieval, I think it's silly to take issue with a player trying to start a romance plot with generic NPCs.

I'm not.

What I'm referring to is:


The DM presented a historically appropriate "princess", and the player jumped on (only figuratively) the hook. That's... a sign of (what most people call*) a good player.

I thought it strange that a random maid NPC was suddenly a "princess" in this manner.


I think, perhaps, the fairest way to put it is that "she's female, which is one criterion to make her a potential romantic hook for my straight male PC...and I [or rather, the player] want to pursue developing that hook."

At another time, I'd write up a full response, but I'm sick and don't think I'm up to it.

So I'll try and keep it short, because I think there's a misunderstanding here. I'm not saying "oh hey you think all female NPCs are there for romance you bad dude you", I'm saying "why are you ascribing a specific role with specific connotations to a seemingly completely unfitting NPC who has a single noteworthy trait in common with said archetype, that being their gender".

As for the other stuff - personally, I don't think that being in a safe area is a noteworthy trait of a "princess" type NPC.

[Segev]

So I'll try and keep it short, because I think there's a misunderstanding here. I'm not saying "oh hey you think all female NPCs are there for romance you bad dude you", I'm saying "why are you ascribing a specific role with specific connotations to a seemingly completely unfitting NPC who has a single noteworthy trait in common with said archetype, that being their gender".

As for the other stuff - personally, I don't think that being in a safe area is a noteworthy trait of a "princess" type NPC.

Okay.

Then the additional traits you're missing are "in a castle" (which does bring "princess" connotations in, even when the character plainly is not) and the potential for a "Cinderella" story.

[WarKitty]

Would it be better if we said "it was an NPC of an appropriate gender given the sexuality of the PC"? I mean, I generally don't consider NPC's to be off limits for flirting in general - man or woman just depends on the orientation of the PC.

[Quertus]

"Someone not respecting the feelings of others at the table?* Pfft, it's his right to do that, you're in the wrong! Wait, he does something I don't like that is likely at most a moderate annoyance? How dare he!"

Player responds with non sequitur. Do you try to explain how their response did not match your concerns, realize that they may be getting defensive and change your tact, or simply put all the blame on the player?

I mean, the OP managed to leave out the little detail that the Player was obviously intentionally trolling the party (I mean, seriously, how does one manage to consider than detail unimportant, unless one assumes that the only reason to woo a 12yo is to troll the group?), so it's pretty safe to assume that they might not adequately express their ideas, like, say, that something was making them uncomfortable.

Player shows a serious disconnect from reality, in a self-aggrandizing way that indicates one of several personality traits that are incompatable with my group? Yeah, that's a problem.

The issue in either case is group compatibility. Are you somehow suggesting that a miscommunication is more indicative of an incompatibility than a personality trait? :smallconfused:


"Your tolerance of [X] is much higher than mine, please tone [X] down as I can't enjoy it if there's too much. If you need that much [X] to have fun, this isn't the game for you."

vs

"Your tolerance of [X] is lower than mine, please become more tolerant of [X]. If you need less of [X] to have fun, this isn't the game for you."

What's the most extreme version of this? Hmmm... I suspect we get different reactions from people if we replace X with "your race" instead of "spiders"

"Your tolerance of your (race's) existence is much higher than mine, please tone living down as I can't enjoy it if there's too much of you. If you need to live that much, this isn't the world for you."

vs

"Your tolerance of my race is lower than mine, please become more tolerant of my race. If you need less of my race to have fun, this isn't the world for you."

But we're moving too much into IRL territory for my liking.

Perhaps we should just table this one as, "it's complicated".


I think it's silly to take issue with a player trying to start a romance plot with generic NPCs.


I thought it strange that a random maid NPC was suddenly a "princess" in this manner.

why are you ascribing a specific role with specific connotations to a seemingly completely unfitting NPC who has a single noteworthy trait in common with said archetype, that being their gender".

As for the other stuff - personally, I don't think that being in a safe area is a noteworthy trait of a "princess" type NPC.


Okay.

Then the additional traits you're missing are "in a castle" (which does bring "princess" connotations in, even when the character plainly is not) and the potential for a "Cinderella" story.

Segev has been saying smarter things than I would have here, so I've kept quiet.

But if you have issues with the particular words, generalise it to, "the player is choosing to make an NPC important to him".

If you've ever played with players, well, who they choose to make important, and in what way, rarely has to "make sense". :smalltongue:

[jdizzlean]

If you do decide to let him continue playing w/ you, the option you have also is to play out as much rope as you need and then hang him with it. Of course if he goes to the trouble of a 3 page backstory, and then doesn't care that his characters die, there isn't much recourse you can actually do to him.

short of turning his next useless character into a permanent useless creature like a rat by a mad wizard, or some made up trap he trips, or similar, then he's stuck playing that until he quits on his own since you'll just "fudge" rolls in combat right....

in this case, I would solicit the group and go with what they say.