D&D General D&D Assumptions Ain't What They Used To Be

I don't get it, what are you upset about this quote? That clearly reads:

"Yeah you could go peeping if you want, but the men in this woman's life will absolutely beat you to within an inch of your life in a dark alley somewhere if they got a hold of you; and people will forgive them for it."

The issue isn't that there wasn't any awareness back then; it's that it was expected to parents to teach their kids these things are wrong. I don't understand this whole idea of people expecting social media, the internet, games, and TV to teach their kids all of their life skills and morals. That's the parents job, not the rest of us. If you don't want your kid to be a Peeping Tom, then teach your kid not to be a Peeping Tom. Why should a table top game be doing what is a parents job?

Unless I'm completely missing something here? I just don't see why this is actually an issue.

payn said:

No, I mentioned this before, I like having evil PCs. I dont like low hanging fruit real scumbag type evil characters. While the slavery path is one an evil character will walk down, its not inevitable or necessary.

Click to expand...

That's what session 0 is for. Lay out what is and is not okay for evil PCs to do so that you don't come across that issue.

payn said:

Yeap, Ive mentioned this too. Nobody yet has asked me where the slavery is at. I dont make it a plot or game topic. I find it more challenging to come up with interesting stories of conflict that dont require topics like slavery. I dont begrudge folks that do, but that type of white hat play is too simplistic for me (also often times offensive). Clearly, our miles vary on this.

Click to expand...

And that's cool. We all have our likes and dislikes. While I don't mind that low hanging fruit type in games where people are playing evil, and over the last 40 years I can count on one hand with fingers left over the number of times the party was evil, I hate comedy/silly games. I won't run any of those, and I'll only play one if it's a one shot.

Reynard said:

It's pretty common for the most offended folks to be offended on behalf other other folks.

Click to expand...

Mod Note:
You realize, of course, that whether you like it or not, this looks like an attempt to pigeonhole and dismiss folks who disagree with you based on who they are, rather than whether they have a point or not.

Which is a pretty crummy way to treat people. How about we judge based on the merits of the complaint, rather than who the speaker is, please and thanks.

O-Castitatis-Lilium said:

I don't get it, what are you upset about this quote? That clearly reads:

"Yeah you could go peeping if you want, but the men in this woman's life will absolutely beat you to within an inch of your life in a dark alley somewhere if they got a hold of you; and people will forgive them for it."

The issue isn't that there wasn't any awareness back then; it's that it was expected to parents to teach their kids these things are wrong. I don't understand this whole idea of people expecting social media, the internet, games, and TV to teach their kids all of their life skills and morals. That's the parents job, not the rest of us. If you don't want your kid to be a Peeping Tom, then teach your kid not to be a Peeping Tom. Why should a table top game be doing what is a parents job?

Unless I'm completely missing something here? I just don't see why this is actually an issue.

Click to expand...

I've got a superhero game sitting beside me. Invisibility is a power in that game. However, never once is it even mentioned that peeping on women is something in the game. Not "you can do this but you will be punished", not "you can do this". Nothing. Silence.

Because the baseline assumption is that you are using your invisibility powers to fight crime, not to commit crimes. And the baseline assumption for villains with the power is that they will use it to steal things like priceless jewelry or sneak into corporate meetings to spy on valuable secrets or kidnap a superstar from a backstage to hold him ransom.

The thing being pointed out in the OP was that, the assumptions of the writer who felt the need to say that "if you get caught peeping, you will be beat up by angry men" include 1) That the PC will use their abilities to peep on women, 2) That the DM won't just shut them down with a "No. You are not doing that." 3) Subtle but there, the assumption that the woman cannot defend herself.

It is sort of like including in the equipment section of the PHB alongside rope, cloth gags, but noting that even if you gag the woman you kidnapped and put in your basement, she still has a 50% chance to signal for help and get you arrested. That detail being added tells me that you expect people to kidnap women and hold them in their basements, why are you assuming that of your player base?

Chaosmancer said:

I've got a superhero game sitting beside me. Invisibility is a power in that game. However, never once is it even mentioned that peeping on women is something in the game. Not "you can do this but you will be punished", not "you can do this". Nothing. Silence.

Because the baseline assumption is that you are using your invisibility powers to fight crime, not to commit crimes. And the baseline assumption for villains with the power is that they will use it to steal things like priceless jewelry or sneak into corporate meetings to spy on valuable secrets or kidnap a superstar from a backstage to hold him ransom.

Click to expand...

I'd say that's more a genre-based conceit than anything else. Supers games tend to fairly rigidly assume the PCs are morally-upright hero types, maybe allowing for a Batman-type who does heroic things in maybe less than heroic ways but flailing hopelessly were someone to try playing a Deadpool-like PC.

However, and despite the (IMO wasted) efforts of the TSR and WotC marketing teams over the decades, D&D has always been much more of an anything-goes wild-west affair when it comes to PC morals. To some the attraction of the game is that in the fiction you CAN do anything, even if it wouldn't pass muster in reality; with the only guardrails being what the rest of the table is willing to accept.

Anyway...
The old gray mare, she ain't what she used to be,
Ain't what she used to be, ain't what she used to be,
The old gray mare, she ain't what she used to be,
Many long years ago.

Lanefan said:

I'd say that's more a genre-based conceit than anything else. Supers games tend to fairly rigidly assume the PCs are morally-upright hero types, maybe allowing for a Batman-type who does heroic things in maybe less than heroic ways but flailing hopelessly were someone to try playing a Deadpool-like PC.

However, and despite the (IMO wasted) efforts of the TSR and WotC marketing teams over the decades, D&D has always been much more of an anything-goes wild-west affair when it comes to PC morals. To some the attraction of the game is that in the fiction you CAN do anything, even if it wouldn't pass muster in reality; with the only guardrails being what the rest of the table is willing to accept.

Click to expand...

And yet, in 5th and 4th edition, and likely 3rd though I won't guarantee it... there is no mention of the consequences of using invisibility to sexually harass women.

Chaosmancer said:

And yet, in 5th and 4th edition, and likely 3rd though I won't guarantee it... there is no mention of the consequences of using invisibility to sexually harass women.

Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge there's no mention of the consequences of putting invisibility to any other specific use either. Instead there's just some rules around how easy-hard you are to observe in general and how invisibility affects your chances of sneaking past (or, in combat, attacking and defending against) someone.

O-Castitatis-Lilium said:

/snip

The issue isn't that there wasn't any awareness back then; it's that it was expected to parents to teach their kids these things are wrong./snip

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's been shown many, many times that this expectation was completely unreasonable and failed.

There's a reason that Gen Z are FAR, FAR more aware of these sorts of issues that we ever were.

Lanefan said:

To the best of my knowledge there's no mention of the consequences of putting invisibility to any other specific use either. Instead there's just some rules around how easy-hard you are to observe in general and how invisibility affects your chances of sneaking past (or, in combat, attacking and defending against) someone.

Click to expand...

Exactly.