Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'hardcore vs hugbox?'.
Greetings, "My character killed a child, but I don't want to role play him losing an arm, nor him being armless, because that makes me uncomfortable." I want to discuss with you guys a specific kind of characters and how they can often "hide" from consequences that are borderline expected/natural for such characters by pointing to the offensive roleplay rules. Now, I'm in no way some torture/rape (even though rape is no longer legal at all) role playing enthusiast. This isn't my character and I haven't resorted to such things in the server (pull logs). That's beyond the point though, I just wanted to step lightly into this and not give off the wrong vibe. My issue is in principle. The point is that I can't be the only one who finds it weird/suspect to have characters like... Let's use prostitutes and the no longer existing rape rp permissions as a go-to example. Many of the prostitutes in the server will have no problem engaging in hour(ly) long, in-depth erotic role play, as long as it pays. Many of which will do and let themselves be subjected to anything, including the most gross of fetishes, as long as THE CUSTOMER PAYS. As soon as things aren't going their way however and they run into the 'wrong customer', they automatically do not consent to rape role play and not even rape FTB. I don't have an official statistic, so take my implications of 'many' with a grain of salt. I do think that however, based on from-a-distance personal observations that it is many indeed, if not most. It's sort of been 'the way to go', not just here, but at role playing playgrounds in general and over the years. There's other potential examples. Let's take torture. What if a guy has no problem torturing someone (given the ic victim's ooc consent), but a week later and when at the 'wrong end of the gun', they deny torture role play, because it makes them uncomfortable. Where am I going with all of this? Playing to win and generally not being keen on engaging in role playing scenarios where you lose has been a trait of many (role)players over the years of role playing, including here, and hiding behind offensive role play rules is sometimes just another example of this. I think deep down, we all know this, but turn a blind eye, given how sensitive the topic is. Literally, we all know this and most of us have probably witnessed it at some point. People who have no problem being the do-er, but as soon as they are the victim, the 'I'm not comfortable' card is pulled. That being said, do you guys think that there should be an additional note in the offensive role playing rules that exempts certain characters from hiding behind it? E.g. you can't deny rape if you role play a crackhead prostitute(yes I know rape is illegal now, its an example, and I mean as a FTB happening, not having to sit thru a hour of such rp). You can't deny torture if you role play a mobbing sociopath that would be quick to do it to other people themselves and etc. Note these are just examples to get the point across, so when replying, please do not address the example directly, but rather the context it tries to present. Now let's see how much heat this catches. This is in general discussions and not suggestions at the moment, because I feel it can get more discussion here initially. TLDR: Refusing offensive role play as a particular kind of character is just like a prostitute refusing rape role play (even as a ftb happening) /and/ should you be able to deny it, if you have done it? (Even just as FTB, too) NOTE: I support rape rp and paedophilia being banned entirely from the server, please do not get the wrong impression. I know how sensitive this topic can be. Why role play a hardened mobster, but refuse to have a finger chopped off? This shouldn't happen. EDIT: Fade to black being used implies parties agree to the outcome. And like I said, people can use said rules to NOT agree having to continue and role play a now maimed character. So, it's not just dodging the rp, its dodging ic consequences. IN CONCLUSION AND IN MY OPINION -- THERE SHOULD AT THE VERY LEAST BE A LINE IN THE OFFENSIVE ROLEPLAY RULE THAT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS CERTAIN CHARACTERS FROM 'HIDING BEHIND THE RULE' (E.G. HARDCORE CRIMINALS). IF THEY ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE EMOTING, THAT'S FINE, BUT AT THE VERY LEAST THEY SHOULD BE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO AGREE TO FTB AND TAKING THE CONSEQUENCE (E.G. MAIMED CHARACTER) FROM THERE ON AS OPPOSED TO JUST DODGING IT ENTIRELY. AGAIN, NOT ALL PEOPLE/CHARACTERS SHOULD BE FORCED TO ROLE PLAY MAIMED VICTIMS, BUT AT THE VERY LEAST THESE IN CIRCLES WHERE IT'S INCREDIBLY REALISTIC TO BECOME ONE (E.G. PROSTITUTE-RAPE ANALOGY; MANY SEX WORKERS ARE VICTIMS OF RAPE IRL). Edit 2: I understand some of the examples/analogies here are not ideal, if you care for more elaboration, please look to my replies around pages 3-4. Or this: "My character killed a child, but I don't want to engage in role play during which he loses an arm AND I also don't want to agree to FTB that results in my character being armless, because that makes me uncomfortable." ^ This shouldn't happen. And at the very least agreeing to FTB should be in rules, when its not. As for the prostitution point, rape rp is banned for a good reason, so I'm not argueing about it, but more-so I was trying to draw a comparison that pertains to actions-consequences dynamics. Making a wrong move in a harsh, underground and cruel criminal world is realistically probable to get you hurt, just like its realistically probable for prostitutes to be sexual victims. Paid sex and being raped are not the same. But realistically a lot of paid sex workers are victims of rape. Also I don't think all characters should be 'forced' to have to cope with role playing maimed for example if it gets to it and if it makes them uncomfortable. But those that chose a dangerous life walk IC, shouldn't be able to avoid the consequences thanks to OOC. Again, nobody is saying you must sit down thru a 3hr torture session, but consent the consequences if you decided to fuck with the mob per se. Or... Essentially, if you chose a certain life path, you should be prepared /and/ willing to face the consequences that often come with it. Or... You can't fuck with the mob, but then say no to torture. You want to get into a situation but only get the good and absolutely void the bad. Thats objectively badrp. Or... If my character chokes ur character's baby and you decide to cut my arm off as retaliation, I shouldn't be able to say no, even to FTB, because I'd feel uncomfortable rping a character without an arm, or one that had their arm cut off. An IC Actions = IC consequences dynamic is fundamental to quality role play. Consequences aren't always great or pleasant, but they are realistic and this is why role play is different and great. Edit 3: This is getting long but @SaintBatemanofWallStreet said it better than I ever could. "So after reading through this thread, the one thing I've gotten out of it is that 95% of the people who replied have actually missed the point of the thread because they're either virtue signal to OP that he shouldn't be doing this RP because it offends their delicate sensibilities or laughing at him and calling him a weirdo after virtue signaling. He's not saying that we should be able to kill children by the bushel. He's not saying that people should be given carte blanche for rape. And I don't even know how the pedo shit got brought up, but I don't think I even need to say how much he's not asking for that to be repealed either. I don't think he's even saying we should be hacking off limbs like it's Europe in the 1300's. What is being pointed out is there is a flaw in the rules that says if someone is uncomfortable RPing something, then it can't be allowed to be RP'd. Now in other communities that rule has meant it doesn't have to be roleplayed through. But for some reason in this one, it means can't happen. That's the problem. Everywhere else it is faded to black and explained what would've happened and the characters would then just have to figure out their progression from there, or do what most people do when something bad happens to them on this server - act like it didn't happen after a day or so. There have been characters - not just on this server, who have been some real brutal characters who have used people's willingness to let scenes play out how they may to their advantage, and when their character was meeting their end or getting a comeuppance for their transgressions, opted to say "I'm not comfortable with this RP. Can't happen." and are suddenly absolved of all their wrongdoings and skate on the consequences of it. That's the point. Shouldn't be allowed. When you put yourself on the hook for it, you should have to ride it out. Whether or not you choose to fade it to black every single time or when one of the parties is not comfortable with the RP in depth, the actions still exist. And once you're in that jackpot, what is being said is, that whatever you're opting to take part in, you shouldn't be able to opt out of when it's not working in your favor. Nobody is saying you can't fade to black. The discussion is that you shouldn't be able to say it can't happen. This has not really been defended all that well and far too many people have piped up and just said "Yeah shouldn't be allowed to RP that anyways." Yeah. Heard you. Not the question. Nobody asked whether your mall rat should be allowed to have a hand hacked off on a whim, or whether your hooker with a heart of gold, a meth addiction, perfect teeth and a sports car should be subjected to sexual assault at every turn. It's about the people who are choosing to take part in the "offensive" roleplay hiding behind the rule when they've taken part in it, and the tables have turned against them and they opt out to not take the L." Edit 4: basically this post Edit 5: