AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

The Great Equalizer wrote:

No one is saying that every type of torture and extreme violence should be allowed but rather that if everyone involved is ok with it then a greater ability to RP torture should be allowed than it currently is.

Edit: Also its not because either one is a terrible trauma that its banned but rather it because one is sexual content and the other is not.

I think rape has no place in this setting plain and simple (or any setting, obviously). Torture might though, seeing as how there's a goddess of torture, and if the victim responds to the trauma, it can create a new venue of RP. I've seen it done both tastefully and done as a waste of time, so it's always up to the person who's doing it, and the person being tortured. Part of the issue (and i wasn't just picking on your grammatical skills) is exactly that. People have a difficult time disassociating their character's rough troubles with their own. I get that certain events can impact you both OOC and IC (such as something not going your way) but I don't think that your character's pain and suffering should ever cross into your own.

Interestingly you could make a pretty easy case for rape and FR since it actually comes up fairly often, half-orcs entire existence is basically attributed to it, that said neither rape nor sexual RP on Amia are the discussion here so hopefully we can stick to the topic at hand and not engage in more hyperbole.

So for the record my stance is that some torture stuff should probably remain banned (genital mutilation, etc) but we should probably allow for more than is allowed currently and make the boundary of what is and what isn't acceptable very clearly spelled out.

But that's a distinction without a difference, MOD. I agree that one is sexually charged and the other is not. But... so what? The whole point of this thread is to question the existing rules. If we can question whether to allow graphic torture, we can question whether to allow violent rape, too, right? What is it that's qualitatively worse about rape than torture? What is the justification for leaving sexual brutality on the far side of the line, but moving non-sexual brutality to the ok side?

I feel Liz that the problem is that you are not bringing up those things as a legitimate argument to the topic at hand but rather a way to try to add shock value and argue the very extreme side of an argument while really nobody is trying to say that.

That is exactly my point that there will never be a concrete 'line in the sand', pardon my horrendous metaphors. Everyone is different so we will never be able to please everyone with what is allowed and what is not. I agree that rape is a part of the DnD world, as stated, simply because of the existence of half-orcs (in most cases). For me personally, anything pretty much goes. I don't have an issue with distancing myself from what is happening to my character. I do get wrapped up in the RP, and it does evoke emotions in me (as the toon) but when it is done, I come back into myself and none of that happened to -me- so it's okay.

I get that some people can't do that. That's why I think it should be left up to the individuals involved to say what is okay and what is not. Whether it involves 'sexual' torture or not is not the issue as it can all be lumped into the same category but at the same time is easily confused. Many people associate S&M as sexual torture. Okay, it can be but who is to say that's a bad thing?

We are, all of us, capable of withstanding so much if we allow ourselves to explore the darker parts of our psyche. Not only does such things bring you more in tune with the world in general and impart a deep intimacy between the two (or more) participants, but allows us to evaluate who we are and grow from that. Now I'm getting too deep for forum discussion but yeah..

it should be up to whoever is doing it/being done to.

I'm trying to argue the point as bloodlessly as I know how, in order to avoid just that, Equalizer. I think the question is valid: if you think we should allow torture but not rape, why?

The point I'm trying to make is that many people (i.e., myself) wouldn't feel much differently about watching a character with whom we self-identify get brutally tortured than we would about that character being raped. And I'm asking, why is the one worthy of our sensitivity, but not the other?

There is always a way to tell a story that has horrifying stuff tastefully, and then there's Amia. Sexual assault/brutality is one of those things that you just can't trust to be told in any respectable fashion that won't immediately offend someone.

I personally enjoy horror movies, like Kill Bill, Se7en, etc, where all kinds of fucked up shit happens, and the stories are quite horrifying, but involving. I guess they're rated R, but I thought Amia was too.

MyOwnDestiny wrote:

That is exactly my point that there will never be a concrete 'line in the sand', pardon my horrendous metaphors.

Is it even possible to have a concrete line in the sand? I mean really... the concrete gets covered by the sand, and then we are back to no line in the sand because we cant see the concrete... it is a viscious cycle...

Liz wrote:

I'm trying to argue the point as bloodlessly as I know how, in order to avoid just that, Equalizer. I think the question is valid: if you think we should allow torture but not rape, why?

The point I'm trying to make is that many people (i.e., myself) wouldn't feel much differently about watching a character with whom we self-identify get brutally tortured than we would about that character being raped. And I'm asking, why is the one worthy of our sensitivity, but not the other?

Exactly when did this go frm a discussion about allowing graphic forms of torturous RP to a discussion between the paralells of Rape and torture? It is like comparing a Dretch to a Balor. However, it is not unfeasable to see an evil character using rape as a form of torture, so I see where you are coming from... but Rape is a taboo thing, and avoided by most. But I think alot of people that play evil really well are depraved enough that they can handle the RP of torture... but not so far messed up as to get into graphic Rape. There are lines morality should not cross... and that is one of them....

So while many can see a person being restrained by rope, being forced to stand on their tip toes or choke themselves with the rope around their necks.... they cant imagine violating someone in such a way as to be that personal. I know it is a grey area on personal violations... but it is what it is.

Torture is part of it's own set of restrictions, whereas Rape would be classified under Cybering.

Personally I don't see why people can be offended or disgusted about torture. Read a horror book or something.

Liz wrote:

The point I'm trying to make is that many people (i.e., myself) wouldn't feel much differently about watching a character with whom we self-identify get brutally tortured than we would about that character being raped. And I'm asking, why is the one worthy of our sensitivity, but not the other?

That is the thing, nobody is asking that they be allowed to do that if you are unwilling but rather that asking that if they and another party are both ok with it than they should be allowed to do it, I really don't see how that is a problem really unless it is the fundamental idea that it is happening on the server that would be offending you.

I wouldn't say I'm offended by it. I'd say I disagree with it. I just don't feel like Amia has anything to gain by being that kind of place. I think we're better served by maintaining the broadest, tamest, most blandly inclusive policies possible than we would be by being drastically permissive. Being "Sinfar plus FR lore" isn't a useful place to position ourselves, since people who want Sinfar will just go to Sinfar anyways, and people who like more of a lore-coherent experience will interpret our laxity as ambivalence to the things they're looking for. There's just nothing useful in that middle ground.

Yes, the server should do away with all combat, and roleplaying too since I might dislike your RP, and for that matter get rid of the races and classes too, you know what the server itself too. No server but the one you imagine to your perfect liking in your own head! Its perfect!... I can engage in hyperbole as well.

Amia is not nor has it ever been all inclusive, we already exclude people who don't like FR or don't want to RP at all, people who want sexual RP, ect. Amia is not done well by by trying to make it a bland homogenous setting that tries to appeal to the most average "base" because if I wanted that I could go play WoW.

I'm not sure what you're responding to, there. I'm saying, Amia doesn't stand to gain anything by drastically changing its reputation. Adopting more permissive policies towards things that are commonly found to be turn-offs would cause us to be perceived differently: the people who would view those changes negatively would leave, and the people who would view them positively are already invested elsewhere. I don't see how that's an especially hyperbolic observation.

Liz wrote:

I don't see how that's an especially hyperbolic observation

You posited that the broadening this rule would turn us into 'Sinfar + lore.' As if that were the only step that separates the two servers.

It's not the only thing different between them and us, certainly, but dropping the torture rule would be a step in a Sinfar-ward direction. And we gain nothing by moving in that direction.

My point was Amia is not nor has it ever been as you seem to be trying to make it out to be, and really I don't think that those are "turn-offs" to mare than a select few. And further at least to myself and last time I checked amia never wanted to appeal to everyone.

Also I find it rather bothersome that you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with the type of RP you want or enjoy (or your own likes and dislikes) should have to sacrifice that because you or others -might- dislike that it could possibly be going on even if you don't have to deal with it.

Liz wrote:

It's not the only thing different between them and us, certainly, but dropping the torture rule would be a step in a Sinfar-ward direction. And we gain nothing by moving in that direction.

No, it isn't, "changing and clarifying" NOT dropping the torture rules is... changing and clarifying the torture rules nothing else. And quite frankly I find your repeated attempts to use such straw man style arguments to be very distasteful.

It's not a straw man argument. The thread is about whether to drop the blanket ban on graphic torture. Hence, "dropping the rule." I didn't mean to imply that dropping the rule meant we wouldn't replace it with some other rule, some sort of red light / green light consent sort of thing, or some variation on the forum waiver thing that's occurring now, or whatever else. I'm not trying to hoodwink anyone, here. Why are you so determined to interpret everything I say in the most confrontational way?

Liz wrote:

It's not a straw man argument. The thread is about whether to drop the blanket ban on graphic torture. Hence, "dropping the rule." I didn't mean to imply that dropping the rule meant we wouldn't replace it with some other rule, some sort of red light / green light consent sort of thing, or some variation on the forum waiver thing that's occurring now, or whatever else. I'm not trying to hoodwink anyone, here. Why are you so determined to interpret everything I say in the most confrontational way?

I am not trying to bash you liz... but honestly, some of the replies you have made, make it seem like people that want to have a different form of RP are wrong and only you and those who agree with you are right. You say you are not intending to do that, and I will believe you in that... but that is how you are making it seem sometimes.

Liz wrote:

Why are you so determined to interpret everything I say in the most confrontational way?

That is not my intention however you have been (purposefully or not) interpreting what I an a lot of people are saying in ways that they were not intended and often being hyperbolic in your statements. It is fine if you do not care for that type of RP and you have made that clear and I can respect that, but it feels constantly like you do not reciprocate that respect for other types of RP that you might not care for.

Then I'll clarify, Sithaelon: I'm not saying you're wrong to want that. I'm saying that I think there are other factors that outweigh your want for it. I think it's more important that Amia be recognized as extremely welcoming and friendly, than that Amia be a place where torture RP is accepted. I'm saying that I don't think it's unreasonable to ask our players to give up on the more extreme forms of RP in order to serve the larger goal of being as inclusive as possible. I don't know how to state my case more neutrally or respectfully than that.

I find it ironic that we're having a discussion saying that cutting someone's finger off is too graphic, but swinging a sword and decapitating them is business as usual. That's how fucked up our death system truly is.

You know, most people would in the long run, rather be tortured and potentially survive, than to just die outright. But then again, we're not arguing with any logic here, are we?

Liz wrote:

Then I'll clarify, Sithaelon: I'm not saying you're wrong to want that. I'm saying that I think there are other factors that outweigh your want for it. I think it's more important that Amia be recognized as extremely welcoming and friendly, than that Amia be a place where torture RP is accepted. I'm saying that I don't think it's unreasonable to ask our players to give up on the more extreme forms of RP in order to serve the larger goal of being as inclusive as possible. I don't know how to state my case more neutrally or respectfully than that.

Thank you, I can perfectly understand and respect that point of view. Now, I am still relatively new here... maybe only 5 months or so, and you know what drew me into Amia? the extensive and in depth RP. I seriously do not see how lightening the rule for torture will gain Amia a rep for being sinfar'ish. The torture RP with a point is one thing... Torture RP without purpose or reason is another, and that RP can still be viewed as inapropriate, and dealt with if it serves no purpose other than to fulfill someones twisted desire.

The way I feel about it is, the torture RP will earn more of an indepth RP rep, without bringing the negative, because there will be a "choice" to be involved in it or not.

Thank you Liz, I appreciate it as well.

Although I personally disagree personally, as I feel that amia does not need to ban things like allowing torture (when everyone involved is cool with it) to feel inclusive and welcoming, it is the players and DM's that make it a welcoming environment not the RP and in fact I think that having a welcoming OOC environment while also allowing for more RP avenues is more inclusive than shutting out certain RP altogether.

If I'm playing a character that wants to torture your character, that is an RP thing. Between players though if that was something that made you uncomfortable then I just wouldn't do it.

Basically what I mean to say is that its not saying Amia accepts torture but rather amia accepts different types of RPing, and you can choose whether or not you want to be a part of some of it and to what extent.

I have to completely agree with equalizer on that 100 %

Maybe it was a mistake to bring up Sinfar; maybe Sinfar is like the Godwin's Law of arguing on Amia.

But I'll describe my one Sinfar experience here, because I think it's relevant. Last year while Amia was crashed all July, I looked around at a bunch of different servers, just out of curiosity, and Sinfar was one of them.

I never made it out of the character creation room.

I discovered that sure, I could dress up my character in some sexy sexy clothes, which was different and fun. Some of it was a bit bondagey for my tastes, but... whatever. Then I discovered their body modifier, and learned that I could give my character a horse head, or fairy wings, or face tentacles, or a third boob, or not one but *two* huge erect penises. And I thought, "... this is not the place for me."

I decided that without ever so much as setting foot in the game world. And I don't think I was wrong in that decision, and I don't think I'd be alone in making that decision in that way.

I have no idea whether Sinfar is actually full of BDSM-crazed nymphomaniacs lying around just boffing each other silly on the street corners. I didn't care to look into it enough to find out. That's just human nature, I think. People don't distinguish between what's merely "tolerated" and what is actvely encouraged. They'll look at the most extreme thing they can see, and assume that it's the most defining thing.

People who look at an Amia that allows torture will see an Amia that encourages it. I don't think we benefit from being seen in that way.

I don't think anyone is going to torture you in the entry room or anything... Well maybe a DM or two but that is in a good way anyway. Its not saying we should be like "Amia we have D&D, ForgottenRealms, Torture!" and its certainly not likely that you'd hop in game for the first time and get captured and tortured suddenly.

One is an overt thing that you come across within a few minutes? The other is just a small part of roleplaying that you might not even ever come across depending on your RPing. If we start adding images of people being whipped and tortured to amia's home page and the entry ways? Yeah then you might have a point but the torture is and would not be a defining part of the servers identity and is something that you can easily opt out of being a part of if it bothers you.

Edit: Also personally I don't feel that is human nature, at least it isn't mine. Hell I love that Sinfar exists and lets people have a lot of choice to do what they want (even if they do seem to cater to a lot of sexual stuff) and frankly for a server that apparently has so many "turn-offs" it doesn't seem to hurt their player count any.

Amia isn't Sinfar, but Amia is also not (and in my opinion should not be) a place for everyone, we are a niche.

The Great Equalizer wrote:

I don't think anyone is going to torture you in the entry room or anything... Well maybe a DM or two but that is in a good way anyway.

I got an image of a group of dm's pulling an ooc leather session...

It wouldn't be a defining thing right away, definitely. But switching from disallowing torture completely to accepting it situationally is a big shift. I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments generally, but what you're advocating for torture is basically the same as our current policy towards PVP. Neither encouraged nor discouraged, but accepted situationally, contingent on the consent of all parties involved.

And there have been times on Amia when PVP was just an absolute freaking plague. Slavers on the Minmir Bridge, dragonkin punking the crowds in Amia Forest, cultists making chaos at Fort Wiltun, blah blah. And we've never advertised ourselves as a PVP server. We've always been an RP server, with PVP tolerated if it supports the RP. But that didn't stop the sort of people who were just looking for a cheap excuse to gank somebody. They saw that PVP was allowed, and that's all they needed to see, and it was go time.

If people see that graphic torture is allowed, then they'll do the same thing with that that has other times been done with PVP. They'll seize on it and blow it all out of proportion. And then yeah, we really will be the "D&D, Forgotten Realms, Torture!" server, much like we've been the "D&D, Forgotten Realms, PVP!" server in the past.

And for all this discussion, I'm still perfectly OK with the most gory torture you can think of.

Hm.

Not that I think it should be allowed -here-. Because yeah. Minds can come up with some twisted shit. But I think some gore is fine...and if you're sneaking, and you don't wanna see it? Uh....door's to your left. No one's holding a gun to your head and making you watch.

Liz... You do realize that torture currently ISN'T banned don't you? All that is being discussed here is how the rules surrounding what constitutes "graphic torture" and what does not should be defined and where exactly the line should be on it.

Also most of the server is good and neutral characters anyway, plus even back when there was no rules against torture at all it was never very wide spread or generally too graphic really.

Quoting again for reference.

Graphic torture is flat-out banned, at all times, with or without consent, no exceptions, no waivers.

Yes Graphic Torture = Banned, Torture = not banned. And the rules on torture currently allow you to describe the actions of torture just not to a "graphic" level of detail. As is described Here However that does not do a very good job of addressing exactly what is or isn't allowed, for instance if in depth whiping or beating is ok as it is not "gorey" but then what about cuts then, breaking bones? Also the tell channel is quite possibly the worst place to be telling people to do such RP in my opinion.

How far becomes too far and how should everything before that point be handled. That is what the point of this is.

In that case...

Liz wrote:

I think you're putting the emphasis on the wrong word in that phrase, "graphic torture." The rule is "no graphic torture" only because if it was just "no torture" then we wouldn't even be able to say, "ok, now there's torturing occurring, and it's the most sadistic sick twisted brutality you can imagine, and fade to black."

I think any description of a specific torture runs up against the rule. Otherwise the rule is completely meaningless, because it wouldn't prevent any description at all except retroactively, after the other party has already called foul. The purpose of the rule is to protect my fragile little bedwetter sensibilities pre-emptively, not reactively.

Though having said that, I definitely agree that it's just my own interpretation and opinion, and the rule could benefit from a little more clarity from the DM team about how we're to receive that word, "graphic."

Rules wrote:

By graphic torture, we mean descriptive and detailed text (emotes or talk) that includes violent scenes that leave little for imagination. This applies to equivalent things such as descriptive cannibalism, removal of body parts/organs or necrophilia. Non-descriptive torture, such as *Stabs his eye out* may happen on the Talk channel if all parties agree. Torture that's not consented to but must happen for the sake of the story, will be said to have happened in a "Fade to Black" manner. In case of disagreement, the offended party's and/or the DMs' view on the rate and acceptability of details counts.

I thought this was pretty good?

The thing is it is made fairly clear that "non descriptive" torture such as *Stabbing them in the leg* and all that is fine but things such as detailed gore or the like for example slowly dismembering a character in detail are completely out but at what point is it one or the other can I say *Twists the blade in the mans leg, glaring visciously at him as blood spill forth onto the floor*? or is that suddenly too much? Or can I go further as long as it stays really out of the realm of sinew and other "gorey" matter?

I don't think that's very clear at all, actually, Serbiris. It explicitly forbids description of the removal of organs, and then the only example of an acceptable description is the removal of an organ?

... Huh. I never noticed until you pointed it out.

The guideline is indeed somewhat fuzzy. The line about removal of organs should probably go. I reckon it means "descriptive removal of organs" because that's not always torture, much like "descriptive cannibalism" means regular cannibalism is still OK. *The man reaches his hand and pulls out the victim's eyes* is not graphic. This is graphic: *He forces her eyelids open with one hand while the long-nailed fingers of the other slowly, like the tentacles of some hungry fiend, crawl around the eyeball and bore into the soft tissue surrounding it. With a moist sound, the orb is torn out and left dangling by the nerves.*

I don't know if someone still has logs of Dave's RP on that Underdark slave. That's the kind of graphic that made the rule necessary.

I think the bottom line is: if we put this to a vote, asking not how many of our players prefer graphic torture over the current rule, but how many think it's a big deal that seriously affects their enjoyment of Amia, we'd probably see that the status quo is working just fine. Evidently, we're all (myself excluded, presently!) still here so it can't be such a big deal. So why risk it and hurt some people? It's about tolerance and understanding; sure we can demand mathematically equal rights and make others deal with it. But we know it's a big deal for some and less so for us (like Christmas celebrations at school, the adhan prayer call or circumcision of Jewish boys, if we want to bring religious sensitivity as an example), so why should we be so petty as to make someone feel bad just because we can?

MyOwnDestiny wrote:

I should not watch graphic films in the privacy of my bedroom just in case my neighbor is a peepingtom? Come on? Really?

I find this comparison to be insultingly disingenuous (and it would be worse if I had to explain what's wrong with it).

IronAngel wrote:

The guideline is indeed somewhat fuzzy. The line about removal of organs should probably go. I reckon it means "descriptive removal of organs" because that's not always torture, much like "descriptive cannibalism" means regular cannibalism is still OK. *The man reaches his hand and pulls out the victim's eyes* is not graphic. This is graphic: *He forces her eyelids open with one hand while the long-nailed fingers of the other slowly, like the tentacles of some hungry fiend, crawl around the eyeball and bore into the soft tissue surrounding it. With a moist sound, the orb is torn out and left dangling by the nerves.*

See, that is a problem I have with this idea of graphic. As an aspiring author, the second one seems fine and actually quite conducive to RP, while the first seems lazy. What is the point of the torture if it doesn't imply some meaningful sense of misdoing to one of the parties? "Okay, we kidnap you and take off your fingernails and pull out one eye." "Okay, I guess my character is... pissed about that, or whatever." Pathos is developed through action and diction. You abridge that, you abridge the story. The act should have as much or as little description to get the point across that something meaningful, and assumptively ill-spirited, is being done here. You should feel something.

Not saying that every act of torture must be as graphic to have quality behind it, but jeeze louise, between two consenting parties I can't describe or have the act described to me in anything but a 3rd Grade vocabulary and level of observation, because someone who isn't even involved might find it unsettling? Again, this constant idea that it is the graphic quality of torture that has no value is not true. It is the difference between watching Black Hawk Down in its entirety and hearing "a couple of dudes got shot and it was scary sometimes."

If it advances the story, if it is indeed RP and not a snuff-film, if everyone involved is in agreement that nothing has breached their sensitivities, then who gives a damn? Who is to say what is graphic other than the parties immediately involved in it? That was my whole point. Whether you realize it or not, individuals who abhor graphic torture, whatever that means to you, it already happens because there are people whose idea of graphic is much, much different than yours. And you never hear about it. And Amia keeps on spinning.

Dark Immolation wrote:

Whether you realize it or not, individuals who abhor graphic torture, whatever that means to you, it already happens because there are people whose idea of graphic is much, much different than yours. And you never hear about it. And Amia keeps on spinning.

This is true. Yossarin mentioned it, too. So do we really need to rephrase something that's worked so far?

Mind you, I don't actually feel strongly one way or another. I just want us to be consistent and honest about it.

serbiris wrote:

Dakotaen wrote:

So you're fine with limiting/moderating you RP on an OOC level just in case someone might be watching? That sounds even worse to me than a worst case scenario of what you're saying. Anyone I can't see, who doesn't make their presence known, isn't someone I can acknowledge in the situation. If said shadow dancer were to send me a tell and ask for torture not to happen 'cause they're watching, and are uncomfortable with it, then fine, I'll not do torture. It's not the limit that imposes on me that I find to be a shame, it's the limitations they put on themselves. Where they might've gathered some information, they now get to see "*fade to black for torture*," and how anti-climactic is that?

Think about this for a moment. Worst case scenario of moderating RP for OOC reasons: you break a little immersion and you have to power on through.
Worst case scenario of not moderating while someone is watching: you trigger a psychotic break (more baseline comparison: distress in a fellow human being outweighing annoyance from immersion loss). Seriously, this sort of stuff can really mess with people. You really don't know who's watching. Sure it sucks that you don't get to RP it smoothly but we'll deal.

Asking a spy to send you a tell notifying you of their presence is highly unreasonable. We deal with a lot of metagaming as it is and even players who are good about it get their behaviour nudged a little with that knowledge, quite often. It's hard. Yeah sure, you can argue that squeamish people at least have a recourse: send a tell risk being metagamed, subsequently wasting time and RP and being cross with the other players involve, or risk being exposed to something highly uncomfortable, but it's a pretty crappy choice and I don't think it's really worth it. But that's the entire issue here - it's all so wrapped up in subjectives. I can sit through about anything as long as I'm not put in a position where I have to make someone else uncomfortable, but that's just my personal feelings on this. No one can really determine if going one way or another will really be "better" for the server. Hence the opposition in this thread. Only good change would be some kinda compromise, as I alluded to earlier.

And frankly with all the spying I get done if someone ended a session with a quick old "*and johnny got tortured and we all went home*" I'd be a little relieved ;D (srs answer no it doesn't bother me, anticlimaxes are normal around here... *stealth burn on me?*)

My thoughts on this are just directly opposite to yours, I think. In my oppinion, as I've said earlier, no one should ever be moderating their RP just in case someone might be watching, as long as what you're doing is within the rules. If graphic torture was allowed with the consent of everyone present, a sneak would have the opportunity to A) Let it be known they're there and say if they're cool with it or not, B) Staying sneaky and watching what happens, or C) Leave. No one should ever, on an OOC level be moderating their RP "just in case." If you don't know they're there, don't act like they are.

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

This doesn't even need to be discussed any further. The subject is to clear cut in my opinion. We aren't an 18+ server.

"I'm right, you're wrong, stop debating please."

Liz wrote:

That's just human nature, I think. People don't distinguish between what's merely "tolerated" and what is actvely encouraged. They'll look at the most extreme thing they can see, and assume that it's the most defining thing.

People who look at an Amia that allows torture will see an Amia that encourages it. I don't think we benefit from being seen in that way.

I have no idea what kind of people you're talking about here, Liz, but I feel fairly confident that it's not the majority of people who, by a bit of line being changed in the rules suddenly imagine that Amia is a torture-encouraging server. It's not like it'll be in bold in the server description.

Liz wrote:

If people see that graphic torture is allowed, then they'll do the same thing with that that has other times been done with PVP. They'll seize on it and blow it all out of proportion. And then yeah, we really will be the "D&D, Forgotten Realms, Torture!" server, much like we've been the "D&D, Forgotten Realms, PVP!" server in the past.

Again you're just blowing it all out of proportion, it seems to me. Graphic torture was allowed back in the day, and I assure you that it wasn't happening on street corners, or to an extent that made did your comments here and level of honor. Not as far as I can recall, at least. Someone right me if I'm wrong here.

IronAngel wrote:

I think the bottom line is: if we put this to a vote, asking not how many of our players prefer graphic torture over the current rule, but how many think it's a big deal that seriously affects their enjoyment of Amia, we'd probably see that the status quo is working just fine. Evidently, we're all (myself excluded, presently!) still here so it can't be such a big deal.

Look at it the other way around, Iron. If you put that vote up, how many players would feel that allowing graphic torture would in any way, shape or form seriously affect their enjoyment of Amia? Aside from a select few in this thread, I doubt a lot of people would feel that, giving an option to the players who would like to have it, an option that doesn't force itself on anyone, would at all impede on their peaceful, non-violent RP.

Again, I just don't understand why a roleplaying server would want to limit something like this. Sexual content I get, even if it is an OOC thing, 'cause that would attract a crowd that is more or less exclusively interested in that sort of RP, and while the playercount would get a boost, it'd be a "behind-closed-doors" boost, I imagine, plus the odd nude PC standing around Cordor. That said, even sexual RP being consent based would never ruin anything for me, personally. I don't care what everyone is doing, as long as they're having fun without ruining everyone else's fun, and I really don't see how consent-based rules on graphic torture would ever do that. If it did, at some point ruin it for someone, it's the easiest thing in the world to dodge and report, just like it is with the PvP rules.

Also, for the whole, silly "age of consent" argument; the server is in Holland, right? Age of consent there (for sexual stuff, so it doesn't really matter anyways) is 16. As for maturity ratings, the top dog is 16 as well. They don't even have an R rating, as far as I can see (though admittedly, Wiki can be a bish). Reference.

Dakotaen wrote:

There were people who did torture exceptionally well (sYuzan for one, the old Sharran Cell, too, as well as a good few drow players), and being a victim of those guys was very, very entertaining.

I know it must make me sound like a creepy freak, but these kinds of RP, for example with Dakotaen, have been extremely entertaining. I don't mean it was entertaining because I'm a sick, twisted soul, no... I mean it's been entertaining on how it changed the characters, how creative one can be with racial weaknesses etc. instead of your average whips and cuts.

That being said, I understand why the rules are what they are now, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss the old way sometimes.

Anyone wrote:

Is it only me who thinks that doing such things, like describing torturing process in details (either ingame or not), is a sign of not-so-healthy mind?

I'm with this guy.

Whispers wrote:

Anyone wrote:

Is it only me who thinks that doing such things, like describing torturing process in details (either ingame or not), is a sign of not-so-healthy mind?

I'm with this guy.

Couldn't you apply this to any evil act? This is a roleplaying server. You're playing the role of someone who is evil. That doesn't make the player evil, and certainly doesn't suggest anything about their mental health. Consider your average sword-thrust to the stomach. That's a pretty gruesome wound. Some people RP that out, others just say *stab*.

Could even apply the same thing to people who roleplay drinking alcohol in a huge amount of detail. What kind of sick, depraved weirdos try to roleplay an alcoholic?

Gobbledygook wrote:

What kind of sick, depraved weirdos try to roleplay an alcoholic?

My Paladin is an alcoholic!

People should read this :>

Disclaimer: If you are Liz, or Liz-like, avoid it.

I have an admittedly twisted outlook, and I am a lot more open to things than others... but still not open enough compared to some. My idea of graphic is vastly different than others ideas.

A short while back, I tortured someone IG. I beat them full force from pillar to post. I slowly crushed bones in their hands, face, ribs; I ripped out patches of hair from tossing them across the room... I did the dagger under the fingernails and twisting thing. I chained them to the wall, and pinned their feet down to the floor with daggers, and tied a rope around their neck... and gave them the choice to either choke themself to death, or damage their ability to walk.... but it was more descriptive than that.

I stopped at this point because I felt I was coming to the line of what the current rule says about graphic... but neither myself, nor the victim considered any of it graphic... and the DM that watched was joking about it with me in tells...

So again I say, my idea of graphic differs from others, and I and others feel the current rule is a huge grey area when it comes to individual ideas of graphic. Where does one draw the line?

**Self edited for content

Graphic Torture

Who is online