KRB What do you think about this?

[Miriam Ics]

Since yesterday we have a long discussion at Thalmarkin, basically after Cat said she wouldn't rape, by any means.
There were other events but this was what started it.

For me, rape is a word that solely brings only bad feelings. It is maybe, the worse fear of most women and currently a problem that is beginning to be discussed around the world, due to some tragic events, such as the suicide of some women who could not bear the consequences (I really don't think we need to discuss details).

Of course this is a game and I should not bother with this, but I have been in many battles during all those years and every time we were allowed KRB, it showed the worst actions and role plays of players too. Yesterday it was not different. A simple order to KRB began a series of comments that could/should not have been made​​. Nothing too bad but I wonder how the girls/women there feel when we have order to KRB. No one said anything yet. Only one that I think is a girl started a referendum.

Text of the referendum:
We, the nobles of Thalmarkin, acknowledge it is both just and militarily necessary to kill and plunder foreign lands.

We will perform such severe actions only under proper coordination by recognized leadership.  Our brutally in doing so, will be unmatched.  To ensure the utmost of ruination upon our foes, we shall restrain ourselves and our men from the distraction of seizing carnal treasures.  Victory is not to be found in stolen carnal booty.

Our victims will be slain in great numbers, yet with their, and more importantly our, honor intact.

So I think I would like to know how other players feel about this and why do we have this option in a game where we have kids playing.

[Dishman]

Although I agree that rape is a touchy subject, it is appropriate for the game. If you order a band of men to kill civilians and perform wanton destruction where they can, it implies that they will commit all kinds of modern-day war crimes. We as players should abstain from being graphic, our characters as nobles shouldn't personally engage in such behavior (and we can enforce this IC with the vulgarity report option), but it is a viable option for the game setting.

The "Kill, Rape, Burn" should be a hot button topic between realms, though. Your men may kill a few guards who wouldn't stand down while pilfering tax gold (how I always saw a few villager deaths with less aggressive options), but to order your men (or for a general/marshal to order the armies) to slaughter the innocent should spark outrage and hatred. CHARACTER hatred, not player.

We play a game where we create villains and heroes. Sometimes villains do dark things.

[Anaris]

Tom, and to some extent the rest of those on the dev team, do not believe that it is our job to shield children from the realities of the world.

I would not, in any way, support graphic roleplays of rape or other gruesome scenes being posted publicly. None of us here condone rape, or believe that it is good to glorify it in any way.

However, as unfortunate and unpleasant as it is, in the milieu in which BattleMaster is set, rape of peasants in war was commonplace, and I don't believe it's appropriate to trivialize it by simply ignoring its existence, either.

There is very little that the particular option is better at than other looting methods. If someone orders it, then they should have a very good reason why they choose it rather than the other methods. If they don't, then raise holy hell about it.

I think that provoking heated, completely in-character discussions about the validity of such actions is totally acceptable, and something that I would hope to see options like this do within the game.

[Kwanstein]

You have a problem with raping, but not killing or burning. This is related to Hollywood style conditioning which glamorizes violence and abhors female sexuality. Essentially you have been conditioned to uphold a certain set of moral standards which, like all moral standards, can not be justified on a basis of reason. Given that there is a propensity for moderns to share these views, this is not a problem. The goal of a service provider, after all, is not to justify what it does on a moral basis, but rather to placate it's patrons.

Given that the need is solely to satisfy the fanbase, the fact that the fanbase at large has not indicated interest in this is enough to dismiss it.

[Foxglove]

I've spoken out strongly before on the forum against RPs that contain rape. Personally, I don't think its an appropriate subject for gameplay and I don't like to see it. But, equally, I'm not going to force my sense of morality on someone else playing in a fictional virtual world if they want to create a really evil villain.

Like Anaris said, in the sort of era of time that Battlemaster is set, rape was fairly common between rival nations/tribes (the Vikings being the obvious example, but also all sorts of other peoples). Characters (or realms) that choose to send their troops to rape should be a hot topic in-game/IC. They should also face lasting consequences of it personally or diplomatically (as characters, that is). Where there's a real problem is when it just happens and there's no IC response to it at all.

It's worth noting that our characters can do many other very grim acts in the game. Many of the looting options can be likened to acts of genocide but, again, that is the sort of era of time with which we're dealing and there are historical grounds for it (e.g. after the Norman conquest of England in 1066 AD, King William murdered 90% of the Saxon population of northern England in the worst act of genocide ever to be carried out on British soil).

Still, miriam, if you're saying that some of the comments that were made IG seemed to glorify rape, I think that's something that might need to be looked into, but it's impossible to say without knowing what the comments were.

[Norrel]

I've spoken out strongly before on the forum against RPs that contain rape. Personally, I don't think its an appropriate subject for gameplay and I don't like to see it. But, equally, I'm not going to force my sense of morality on someone else playing in a fictional virtual world if they want to create a really evil villain.

Why? I think the contrast between the brutality of medieval warfare and life and the chivalrous code is a large part of what makes the setting interesting.

[Marlboro]

You have a problem with raping, but not killing or burning. This is related to Hollywood style conditioning which glamorizes violence and abhors female sexuality. Essentially you have been conditioned to uphold a certain set of moral standards which, like all moral standards, can not be justified on a basis of reason. Given that there is a propensity for moderns to share these views, this is not a problem. The goal of a service provider, after all, is not to justify what it does on a moral basis, but rather to placate it's patrons.

Given that the need is solely to satisfy the fanbase, the fact that the fanbase at large has not indicated interest in this is enough to dismiss it.

Go back to Reddit. Rape has nothing to do with "female sexuality" and everything to do with disgusting physical and mental torture. We can be pro-soldiers killing our enemies and against them torturing our enemies.

[Foxglove]

Why? I think the contrast between the brutality of medieval warfare and life and the chivalrous code is a large part of what makes the setting interesting.

That's true enough. In fact, one of the reasons that chivalry was created was to put restraints on what a person could and couldn't do in terms of violence. One theory is that part of why the chivalric code came into being was to protect noblewomen from male violence.

Specifically in terms of the game, I don't think it's appropriate because having an option to rape is just an arbitary choice, and many modern players (women, in particular) will feel uneasy about it. Equally, saying character's soldiers have the option to rape because it happened in history will only carry the argument so far. For example, there's the 'Kill, rape, and burn' option. But there isn't an option that says 'Kill babies' or 'kill everyone with a different skin tone'. Both of those things happened in medieval times (and are still happening) but there are no options to do that in the game, presumably for moral reasons.

[Norrel]

That's true enough. In fact, one of the reasons that chivalry was created was to put restraints on what a person could and couldn't do in terms of violence. One theory is that part of why the chivalric code came into being was to protect noblewomen from male violence.

Specifically in terms of the game, I don't think it's appropriate because having an option to rape is just an arbitary choice, and many modern players (women, in particular) will feel uneasy about it. Equally, saying character's soldiers have the option to rape because it happened in history will only carry the argument so far. For example, there's the 'Kill, rape, and burn' option. But there isn't an option that says 'Kill babies' or 'kill everyone with a different skin tone'. Both of those things happened in medieval times (and are still happening) but there are no options to do that in the game, presumably for morale reasons.

Rape happened a lot more than racial genocide or infanticide, though. This was an era where rape was considered a spoil of war - even if knights wouldn't participate in it themselves, most would turn a blind eye to it. It boosted morale.

This was an era where actually attacking a castle was an almost suicidal proposition. The best thing to do was to roam around the countryside, committing as many atrocities as possible in order to force them out of the castle to attack you, either because you were destroying their food source or because they were legitimately disgusted. Rape was a large part of it.

I don't deny that it's a disgusting thing, but I think ignoring it does a disservice to exactly how barbaric and awful this era actually was.

Obviously some people don't want to read disgusting things, but you can just skim over a RP if you're getting hints that it's of a less-than-tasteful nature.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Rape happened a lot more than racial genocide or infanticide, though. This was an era where rape was considered a spoil of war - even if knights wouldn't participate in it themselves, most would turn a blind eye to it. It boosted morale.

This was an era where actually attacking a castle was an almost suicidal proposition. The best thing to do was to roam around the countryside, committing as many atrocities as possible in order to force them out of the castle to attack you, either because you were destroying their food source or because they were legitimately disgusted. Rape was a large part of it.

I don't deny that it's a disgusting thing, but I think ignoring it does a disservice to exactly how barbaric and awful this era actually was.

Obviously some people don't want to read disgusting things, but you can just skim over a RP if you're getting hints that it's of a less-than-tasteful nature.

I think you ignored the whole latter part of the argument that specifically said "because it happened in history" will only carry the argument so far. By including the option to do so, you're alienating part of the potential player base.

[Norrel]

I think you ignored the whole latter part of the argument that specifically said "because it happened in history" will only carry the argument so far. By including the option to do so, you're alienating part of the potential player base.

I think the brutalilty of the setting is an integral part of it. We risk alienating people whose families have suffered genocide by including genocidal actions, or alienating veterans with PTSD by including war, or maybe allowing our soldiers to hire prostitutes will alienate the former prostitutes among us. If seeing the words "x has raped, pillaged, and marauded" in a report brings you flashbacks, maybe it's time to get a therapist and stop blaming an online text-based strategy game.

I don't want to play a game that's sterilized and clean. For me, that's an integral part of the game. I think it gives it substance and makes the world more real. The devs obviously agree. Just skim over the distasteful RPs.

[Marlboro]

Hell, Norrel, I like you and I get where you're coming from, but by your logic I should be able to post sexually-explicit roleplays involving cattle and people should just "skim over" it without saying anything.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I think the brutalilty of the setting is an integral part of it. We risk alienating people whose families have suffered genocide by including genocidal actions, or alienating veterans with PTSD by including war, or maybe allowing our soldiers to hire prostitutes will alienate the former prostitutes among us. If seeing the words "x has raped, pillaged, and marauded" in a report brings you flashbacks, maybe it's time to get a therapist and stop blaming an online text-based strategy game.

I don't want to play a game that's sterilized and clean. For me, that's an integral part of the game. I think it gives it substance and makes the world more real. The devs obviously agree. Just skim over the distasteful RPs.

You mean how we just 'skimmed' over Glaumring's Swastika role plays?

[Norrel]

Hell, Norrel, I like you and I get where you're coming from, but by your logic I should be able to post sexually-explicit roleplays involving cattle and people should just "skim over" it without saying anything.

First of all, I would find that hilarious. But that's just me. I don't think anyone's going to get traumatized by reading that and yeah, just skim over it if it's disturbing. Obviously the guy writing it is a bit of a prick and you're well within your rights to call him out on it, just as he's within his rights to keep on truckin'.

You sign an invisible contract when you get on the internet, and that's that you might have to interact with people you don't want to. Ignore lists exist for those extremely rare few who do actually post disgusting crap like that.

Rape's more offensive than cattle !@#$ery, at least to me, anyways.

There's a difference between being sick and edgy for the sake of it and writing well. We shouldn't punish the latter because of the chance of the former occurring.

I also don't think that people should be explicit in their public RPs, and it's far more tasteful (and better writing) to just hint at it, or at least to not describe it vividly. Why does this mean we should restrict it, though? Some people are !@#$ty writers.

[Norrel]

You mean how we just 'skimmed' over Glaumring's Swastika role plays?

Swastikas are just Glaumring trying to be edgy. They don't build up the world, they don't develop the character, they're just him being a dickhead. If he wanted to build up a fascist regime and start a campaign of genocide, I'd be down with that. I might even join him. Swastikas are just immersion-breaking and exclusively inflammatory.

Rape and other atrocities build the world and they build characters. Cow !@#$ing and swastikas don't. Arguments to absurdity only work if the two things are mutually comparable.

Before you say anything else, please differentiate between why rape should be removed and genocide, whoring, and war should not be.