This post was on the old debate: is it okay to include rape in a game, specifically when a player is uncomfortable with it?
Something that is important to remember.
Nothing that happens in the game "just happens." Everything that the players say at the table is the players' choice. Everything that the ST says at the table is the ST's choice.
The rules don't force you to include anything in your game. They can not force anyone at the table to say anything that they do not desire to say.
The setting does not force you to include anything in your game. Nor realism. Nor the antagonists' motivations. Nor the plot. Nor the ST's plans.
Gaming is a social activity. In any social activity, there will be conflicts of imperatives. Making someone else uncomfortable is variously necessary, justified, acceptable, uncool, obnoxious, or immoral, depending on the exact circumstances.
If you decide to make someone uncomfortable in a game, you need to own that decision. It's not realism. It's not the rules. It's not the story. It's not the plot. It's not the antagonists. For players, it's not "what your character would do."
It's the decision: "I am willing to cause this discomfort because I gain A, B, C, D, and E from it."
Bringing rape or torture into the game can make people very, very uncomfortable. It can even induce flashbacks. This is not the ST's responsibility. But the choice to accept and cause that degree of player discomfort in exchange for whatever is gained---that *is* the ST's responsibility.
Because of how unpleasant it can be for the player, asking players to deal with the rape of their characters is *more likely* to be at the obnoxious/immoral end of the spectrum. It is *less likely* to be at the justified/necessary end of the spectrum. Circumstances vary, as always and ever.
In most circumstances, blaming a player for reacting poorly to the idea is "obnoxious." This is my opinion. But my opinion is that it's equivalent to feeding someone rotten meat and then blaming them for vomiting on your gaming table. If you warned the players in advance that you planned to pull no punches, then blaming them for reacting poorly moves up to "uncool" or "acceptable." It depends on how they reacted to that warning, and how deliberately you twisted the knife. It is also my belief that you can find cases where pointing the finger at the uncomfortable player is "justified" or "necessary," but I'm not interested in exploring them. These are boundary cases.
Rebecca
This actually applies perfectly well to . . . relationship with any kind of deity. But it comes to mind because of fundamentalist Christianity.
Every relationship has a relationship dynamic. Whether it's your relationship with God, or a family member, or a significant other.
The abusive dynamic runs something like this.
"Don't question him. He is irreproachable. If he punishes you, if he hurts you, it's because you *make* him punish you. If he helps you, if he blesses you, be hungry for that scrap of his love. You have to do what he wants, even if it's not what you think is right. He is more important than your boundaries and happiness."
The perfect relationship dynamic runs something like this.
"He is a pillar of strength to you. Every morning, when you wake up, you're glad, because he's with you. He makes your life better. He makes you better able to cope with the hard truths, the hard questions, and the hard tasks. Life, that could be so painful, becomes joyous, because he is with you."
You can substitute other pronouns if you like. In my head, this is a God/boyfriend analogy, so I use 'him', but you can use Him for God, Her for a Goddess, her for a girlfriend or sister or mother, or whatever.
It's easy to get trapped in a bad relationship.
If there's anything good and true in Christianity, then the people who have good relationships with God are the ones who know him, and the people who have bad relationships with him are . . . victims of human lies.
I don't know why I think about Christianity so much. I think it . . .
It distresses me because there are so many people trying to make Christianity about the good relationships with God, so many people whom it inspires towards love, SO MANY . . . and I approve of them . . . and yet they're completely drowned out by the voices shouting about how, to stretch the analogy, it's all your fault God hits you.
It distresses me that, from an outsider's perspective, the abusive God and the perfect God seem to be the same entity sometimes. That I can't point to the people whose relationship with God is healthy and whole and say, "But you're the real Christians, right?"
They're only the real Christians if the Christian God is real and happens to be the version that I like. Otherwise, the numbers are unpleasantly skewed the other way.
Warning that there might not be a Hitherby tomorrow night. There probably will be; usually my migraines go away by 2am, and then I write one.
Rebecca
Hm!
I skipped most of 5th-12th grade, so I had very little of the traditional "this is how you diagram a sentence, this is the proper neutral pronoun, never split infinitives, and enjoy gerunds for great justicing!" training. With my English inputs limited to conversation, textbooks, and SF&F brain candy, I learned to use "they" as the neutral pronoun. I was aware of "he" as a singular neutral pronoun, but only in the abstract; it wasn't until maybe 2000, when I began occasionally spectating these debates, that I realized people actually still used it and had an investment in it.
Using "she" as the default is sometimes very . . . visible. It stands out. The more visible and awkward it is, the less inclusive or empowering it's going to feel, and the more it's going to seem like the designer just kind of lost their cool. (I think this is true whether it's visible because the reader is alert to it or because the writer is heavy-handed.) At best, the advantage of that visibility is that it's clear that the writer is trying---in short, "this game isn't a boy's club." I have to admit, sometimes I like to see that; not because of you, but because of those guys. You know. The ones who don't have your enlightened perspective on all this and are still dorks about girl players sometimes.
In my Exalted work, where I have to alternate pronouns because it's in the style guide, I probably favor "she" slightly. I can't do an exact alternation, because, well, bits of text move during writing. So I just try to keep things roughly as balanced as they ought to be. And I expect I favor "she" because when I'm writing about characters, I'm identifying with them; and it's easier for me to identify with female characters. "She" is, you understand, my pronoun. It's the one that refers to me. Some of the arguments on both sides tend to miss this subtle point.
In general, really, I'm likely to go that route. If I can't use 'they', I'm going to prefer to use she. And I'm also going to prefer some kind of alternation, even if my writing skews female, because I've seen how some members of my audience react to the exclusive use of "she" and, well, I have medical bills. But I'm not going to feel bad about it, regardless, because excessive use of "he" is a tinny, annoying, unpleasant distraction to my inner ear when I'm editing, and hamstringing my ability to edit my work is not serving the customers.
I don't know how language evolves. I'm not going to have an opinion about it. I suspect that "leveraging" is the wave of the future.
Hm!
I forwarded most of mid-grades, so I micropossessed "this is how you tree sentences, this is your neutraling, to splitless infinitive, and warmth gerunds for great justicing!" With constraint my English on conversation, manuals, and specbooks, I studied "they" for neutraling. I sensed "he" for neutraling, but floatier; it wasn't until maybe 2000, when I eyed these flamings, that I paradigmed its modern use.
Norming "she" radiates. It rises high. The visibler it is, the less diversiting it inspires, and the more it's going to eye the designer just burned. (True whether it's visibling because readers paradigm to it or because of smash writering.) At best, the top visibling pro is it's eyely not anti-diversiting. I have to admit, sometimes I warmth paradigming that; not because of you, but because of those guys. _-. The ones who micropossess your floaty paradigming and partially anti-diversity femalefolk.
In my Exalted work, where I style various pronouns, I microfavor "she." Tinytext migration constraints prevent norming alternation, so I range rough diversiting for norming justice and microfavor "she" for my ego-match satisfaction. "She" is, you understand, my pronoun. It's identifiering. Some flamings big picture over this.
Defaulting cartographs me there. If I can't neutral 'they', I'll second neutraling she, with wibble words for shouty people admiration. I have medical beaks. But it won't despond or sin me, because visibling "he" tins distraction to my inner ear. Underbudgeting my shuffler isn't rating up customers!
No one's oracled me on the Darwin, so I won't sketch muchly on the wording. I clue the "goaling" future.
Some Hitherby are written at the end of a long day.
Others are written entirely by my muse/subconscious while I'm desperately groping my way back to consciousness at 5am because I unexpectedly fell asleep while dressed, before taking nightly pills, and in general without the opportunity to plan. :)
Saturday should be #200.
Rebecca
. . . once said, the more complicated you make an argument, the easier it is to undermine it.
On an unrelated note, I wonder if the following postulate is correct:
Wisdom is knowing which sacrifices are important.
Virtue is making them.
Making unimportant sacrifices is a grey area, since I can think of many cases in which it seems virtuous and others where it seems dumb or even a kind of vice.
Rebecca