# Satyr - An excuse for rape, or an interesting creature?



## der_kluge (Aug 7, 2007)

Given the nature (no pun intended) of the Satyr - a creature of Greek legend associated with horniness, often depicted with an erect penis in painting and architecture, and often associated with sex and fertility - is this creature a "problem" in the D&D game?


I mean - look at the Satyr's special abilities - _charm person_, _sleep_, "satyrs can sneak up on travelers who are not carefully watching the surrounding wilderness".  Even the creature's very name forms the root of the word Satyriasis - the male version of *nymphomania*.


I once included a Satyr as a random encounter in a game years ago. The party included one female character, of which the Satyr found himself attracted to.  The group was asleep, and the lone watchman opted to just chat with the Satyr which it viewed as harmless. The Satyr used his pipes, and he failed his save, and no one woke up from their slumber.  

As reluctant as I was to do it, I told the female character that the Satyr "had his way with her" without embellishing the point.  I hated to do it, really, but to do anything less than that seemed at odds with this creature's nature.


How have you used the Satyr in your game?  Personally, I'd much rather see the Satyr replaced with the Faun - the Roman version, and the one represented in the movie Pan's Labyrinth.


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 7, 2007)

Interesting post, but i think the satyr is only one of a gazillion monsters in D&D that can rape victims if it so chooses.  I never really thought of it in that light actually, but i agree, if i were to introduce one into a campaign, i would make it scary like the faun from Pan's Labyrinth.  There is still no end to the charms they could lace onto unsuspecting women though, to make them seem more "appealing."


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (Aug 7, 2007)

But it seems that the satyr's main motivation is to 'have a good time,' so to speak.  So I bet the OP was sort of asking 'are you asking for trouble by even using them?'


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 7, 2007)

I refuse to accept that there are certain situations where you are forced to rape a PC.


----------



## Vorput (Aug 7, 2007)

Interesting point... Definetly a creature that needs to be used carefully if you play it as it's meant to be played.

In a world where 1 in 4 women have been affected by a sexual assault in some way or other, its definetly something you want to be careful doing.  I ran a campaign once where in order to portray the enemy army as evil (which they were, completely and toally)- they often used rape as a scare technique and as a 'reward' for their soldiers.

It caused quite a bit of tension at the table with one of my players, so I decided just to let it drop (after talking with her) and depicted them as evil in other ways.

In the right group though, it could work.  There's nothing wrong with a campiagn that glosses over some of the unfortunate things that happen in real life, but there's nothing wrong with a campaign that doesn't ignore them either.

Vorp


----------



## Theron (Aug 7, 2007)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> I refuse to accept that there are certain situations where you are forced to rape a PC.




Ditto.  Bad form, all the way around.


----------



## Vorput (Aug 7, 2007)

Theron said:
			
		

> Ditto.  Bad form, all the way around.




Agreed, but is it any different/worse than killing one of the characters? or having them tortured? or any of the numerous other things bad guys do?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 7, 2007)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> I refuse to accept that there are certain situations where you are forced to rape a PC.





Agreed.

The last satyr I used in a game sat on a tree limb and delivered a prophecy.

RC


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 7, 2007)

Vorput said:
			
		

> Agreed, but is it any different/worse than killing one of the characters? or having them tortured? or any of the numerous other things bad guys do?




Yes. Characters are frequently killed or tortured by bad guys in genre fiction. Rape is a much less frequent occurrance and far more taboo subject. Not without reason. 

[Edit: Removed creepy reference to LotR characters.]


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 7, 2007)

Half-everythings in gaming and people think it is all consensual.  

I do think this is a subject that you side bar in you game, you also tell the players going into the game that it is a part of the game.


----------



## ZombieButch (Aug 7, 2007)

Vorput said:
			
		

> Agreed, but is it any different/worse than killing one of the characters? or having them tortured? or any of the numerous other things bad guys do?




To you? Maybe not. To someone who's experienced being raped? Most definitely. I don't want to get into too many details here, but after a very heartfelt and tearful conversation with one of my players, there's a world of difference. 

If I'd been a player, honestly, the best response the OP could've hoped for would be for me to walk out on the spot and never come back.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 7, 2007)

Vorput said:
			
		

> Agreed, but is it any different/worse than killing one of the characters?



Yes. Massively different. 







			
				Vorput said:
			
		

> or having them tortured?



Rape's a form of torture. Would you describe a PC being tortured in detail?


----------



## Phlebas (Aug 7, 2007)

I've played with female gamers who very much use their sexuality and would be quite 'happy' to use that as a RP incident.

I've played with others who get very uncomfortable at any mention of Sex, and quite a few who are strictly neutral

Rule 1 - Know your players before introducing that kind of scene. Same thing probably goes for any capture scenarios

Rule 2 - DM doesn't have to play RAW - 
(the PC could wake up with a bunch of flowers and a poem rather than anything untoward if that makes the game flow better - a stalking admirer may turn out to be more of a problem than a one off attack.)

Vague thought - If it truly is based on the ancient greek myths, who says its into girls........


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 7, 2007)

Vorput said:
			
		

> In the right group though, it could work.  There's nothing wrong with a campiagn that glosses over some of the unfortunate things that happen in real life, but there's nothing wrong with a campaign that doesn't ignore them either.
> 
> Vorp




I once had fey'ri using demons to rape wood elves in an old FR campaign. I had found some artwork online that was rather graphic and used them as props.  It was part of the plot, the fey'ri were artificially raising a half-demon army to raid the surface world, and were exploiting the elves for new magically enhanced progeny. Now, my game group at the time had 2 girls, but i was fortunate enough that they weren't offended by that. 

No, they were offended by other, lesser Evils. Like if something bad happened to their character. God forbid, that should never happen in an rpg...


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> As reluctant as I was to do it, I told the female character that the Satyr "had his way with her" without embellishing the point.  I hated to do it, really, but to do anything less than that seemed at odds with this creature's nature.



Why did he only rape the female PC? My impression of the satyr is that it's the embodiment of omnisexuality. Will do anything to anyone. Then five minutes later, he'll want to do it again.


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Why did he only rape the female PC? My impression of the satyr is that it's the embodiment of omnisexuality. Will do anything to anyone. Then five minutes later, he'll want to do it again.




You could also go the route of some "heavy petting", and then the satyr gets chased off by something else (DM discretion). I would be extremely antsy about telling a female player she was just raped, especially without the means to retaliate.  Even in the example i gave above, it never happened to the PC's, they were just witness to it.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Aug 7, 2007)

palehorse said:
			
		

> To you? Maybe not. To someone who's experienced being raped? Most definitely. I don't want to get into too many details here, but after a very heartfelt and tearful conversation with one of my players, there's a world of difference.
> 
> If I'd been a player, honestly, the best response the OP could've hoped for would be for me to walk out on the spot and never come back.



 Exactly.

As a rape victim, the encounter that you described would have been enough to drive me away from your table without question.

Whether or not rape is a realistic type of torture is not at all the question when designing your campaign.  Yes it happens in the real world.  It's horrible.  It can ruin lives.  But, as the DM, it is your responsibility to take the time to understand your players so that you do not create "scab picking" situations that will cause a player to leave or cause a player unimaginable pain.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yes. Massively different.



No.  Massively the same.


			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Rape's a form of torture. Would you describe a PC being tortured in detail?



Which is exactly why it's the same.  Still, moot point.  He specifically said that he did not describe it in detail.

Rape is a profoundly evil thing.  It's supposed to be a visceral punch in the gut.  When it happens in fiction, that's exactly its purpose.  I can understand why some gamers would be uncomfortable with having it in their game.  

Then again, I'd probably be uncomfortable having those players in my game as well.  Not that I would focus on it or describe it in detail, but at the same time, I would never pretend that torture, rape, genocide, systematic murder and other equally unpleasant things don't exist in my campaign world.  If you can't handle the content of, say a typical GRRM or Black Company book, I don't want you in my campaign on an ongoing basis.  I ain't running the equivalent of the D&D cartoon here, or even something as relatively sanitized as Tolkien.

One shots are different; I shoot for all kinds of styles, tones and feels there, but for my ongoing campaigns, I almost always turn fairly dark and serious, and that means that the possibility of some pretty extreme unpleasantness (granted, taking place offscreen in almost all cases) are par for the course.  If I'm worrying that my players are suddenly going to storm off in a huff on me, I'm not going to enjoy running the game.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm an insensitive bastige that purposefully goes around trying to offend players either, but I don't want to have to worry about it.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The last satyr I used in a game sat on a tree limb and delivered a prophecy.



That's cool, I like it. 

The last one I used actually served as a kind of dalliance for one PC, more or less. So, a consensual kinda thing.

And I certainly agree that monsters, races, or whatever, don't need to be used in any particular way. Especially if that way has a high likelihood of being offensive to many players.


----------



## Rhun (Aug 7, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Yes. Characters are frequently killed or tortured by bad guys in genre fiction. Rape is a much less frequent occurrance and far more taboo subject. Not without reason.





Read any George RR Martin? Rape is pretty common in A Song of Fire and Ice.

It really all comes down to how your group can deal with adult subject matter. If someone in the group is incapable of dealing with it, then I agree that it should be glossed over or left out entirely. In a group that is at ease handling such subject matter, I don't see a problem.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 7, 2007)

Never mind


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 7, 2007)

I play D&D to have fun. I can't picture any circumstances where it would be fun to have a NPC or a monster rape a PC. So I wouldn't have this happen in my game; it simply wouldn't be appropriate.

Interestingly, I was in another game where a PC was knocked unconscious in a bar fight and tossed outside the bar, and the DM said that he was raped by sailors. The player left the game. I don't think anyone blamed him, and the DM later apologized for a poor DMing choice. Verisimillitude is less important than fun.


----------



## Theron (Aug 7, 2007)

Rhun said:
			
		

> Read any George RR Martin? Rape is pretty common in A Song of Fire and Ice.
> 
> It really all comes down to how your group can deal with adult subject matter. If someone in the group is incapable of dealing with it, then I agree that it should be glossed over or left out entirely. In a group that is at ease handling such subject matter, I don't see a problem.




There's a world of difference between things happening to a character in a novel and things happening to the personal character of a player in a RPG.

There's a world of difference between "adult subject matter" and rape.  Fact is, there's a world of difference between standard RPG-type violence and rape in a game, IMO.

For one thing, character death by combat or misadventure at least has the trappings of consent, since such things are to be expected as part of the risks of the game.  Rape is an entirely different matter, and if it isn't for a group, then that's not the sort of people I want to game with.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 7, 2007)

Although I say all that "on principle" I'd also be very reluctant to have rape happen---even offscreen---to a PC, unless I already *knew* that they'd be OK with it and there was some kind of interesting story potential we were working on together around the episode.  And by very reluctant, I mean, not any chance in hell.  I think offscreen rape of NPCs is fair game, though.  It's a pretty time-honored tactic to emphasize how evil they can be.


----------



## ZombieButch (Aug 7, 2007)

Theron said:
			
		

> There's a world of difference between "adult subject matter" and rape.  Fact is, there's a world of difference between standard RPG-type violence and rape in a game, IMO.




Not to mention the fact that involving your character in hacking and slashing is a reasonable expectation for a D&D game; having a satyr slip that character the D&D equivalent of a fist full of roofies and raping them is not. 

As far as what to do with a satyr? I'd probably give him a shoe fetish and have him steal all the players boots while they were asleep. They'd have to track him down, of course, because unless you wanto go all Die Hard on the Dragon of Doom Manor you're going to need them back, stained but otherwise unharmed.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 7, 2007)

No gamer has ever been killed and gamed afterwards.

Few gamers have been physically tortured in a non-rape way.

Many female gamers have been raped.  1 in 4, apparently.

Thus there is a difference.  I would say do not spring this on players.  In fact, if you are going to introduce this sort of subject, talk it over with the players OOC first and make sure they are cool with it.

Frankly, if you had done this and my girlfriend was the player in question whose character got raped, I would have beaten the crap out of you.  Oh, and quit your game.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 7, 2007)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> I refuse to accept that there are certain situations where you are forced to rape a PC.




This is one of those things that should go in a "game contract."  Some groups might be OK with it.  

In absence of a contact, I'd say it's off-limits.  Think of it this way, how would you feel if you found out after you made that ruling that the player had been a rape victim in the past?

I believe strongly that the rule should be "don't do it, if you haven't discussed it."


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 7, 2007)

Is this about satyrs, or what can or cannot happen in game?

If rape happens in game, there are plenty of other problematic races, humans obviously being at the top of the list (since they actually do it). And you could argue with the violence, the looting, the evil (beyond the violence and looting by the PCs), you could have rape. But you probably don't want to. 

Back to the satyrs...I don't know why we are picking on them...dancing or chasing nymphs may involve just that. And in greek myth--which has plenty of non or ambigous consent--its not really the satyrs you have to worry about. Lets take a directly relevant example:



> "Amymone, daughter of Danaus, was sent by her father to get water for performing sacred rites. While hunting for it, she grew weary and fell asleep. A Satyr tried to seduce her, but she implored the help of Neptunus [Poseidon]. When Neptunus had hurled his trident at the Satyr, it became fixed in a rock. Neptunus drove off the Satyr. When he asked the girl what she was doing in this lonely place she said she had been sent by her father to get water. Neptunus lay with her, and in return he did her a favour, bidding her draw out his trident from the rock. She drew it out and three streams of water flowed, which were called the Amymonian Spring from her name." -



 -Hyginus, Fabulae 169A

Its not the satyrs you have to worry about, its all those horny gods!


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 7, 2007)

You know, as interesting as this is - can we steer the conversation back towards the actual creature in question - the Satyr.

IMO, this creature's basis is -sex-. The origins of it are sexual. The mythos, legend, art, and architecture of this creature are sexual in nature, and often deviant at that.


Does this creature have a place in D&D?


I admit - the idea of a creature stealing shoes is interesting - but that creature is not a Satyr. Killmoulis maybe, but not a Satyr.


----------



## Vorput (Aug 7, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Frankly, if you had done this and my girlfriend was the player in question whose character got raped, I would have beaten the crap out of you.  Oh, and quit your game.




Least we're being... umm... adult about this.  ::rolls eyes::


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Does this creature have a place in D&D?




But it's fundamental to the question.  The answer heavily hinges on "does rape have a place in D&D."

IMO, the D&D Satyr isn't the creature you describe.  The Monster Manual states that they are "mischievous" and "for the most part leave travelers alone."  That doesn't sound like the rapist you, or mythology, are painting.  D&D creatures are not necessarily the same as their mythological counterpart.

IMO, rape has no part in the game (at least as a threat to PCs).  Thus *your satyrs* have no place in D&D.  The *D&D Satyr* does have a place in the game.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 7, 2007)

Meh, I do not see satyrs going for sleepers. They are chronic horndogs, but I view them wanting more than unconscious lump of warm flesh. He might _Sleep_ the group, carry her of to a secluded place and afetr the sleep wears off, try to seduce using charm, booze or _Charm_, giving up and heading off after his advances are firmly, but politely turned down.

Rude refusals or threats result in initiative roles since this is D&D.


----------



## ZombieButch (Aug 7, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Thus *your satyrs* have no place in D&D.  The *D&D Satyr* does have a place in the game.




I like the satyrs in Uresia: Grave of Heaven. The worst of their antics is the occasional panty raid.


----------



## FickleGM (Aug 7, 2007)

A lot of creatures from D&D do not match their mythological/folkloric counterparts.  Why should the Satyr be any different?

The Satyr, as described in the Monster Manual, belongs in D&D as much as any other creature in that book.


----------



## Vorput (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Does this creature have a place in D&D?




Yes.  As has been said, in a campaign where the _players are ok with it_.  As an example, My father was murdered in a cocaine-related shooting.  In a modern d20 campaign, the DM was going to set up the pretense that we were drug runners sneaking cocaine into the country.  I felt uncomfortable about it, so I talked to him beforehand, and he changed the plot so I wasn't offended/uncomfortable.

Maybe I'm terribly insensitive, but I see rape in the same light.  It's something that needs to be discussed beforehand.  Hopefully you're not playing with a group where a player would ummm 'beat the crap out of you' or 'storm out' if it came up.  However, its not something you want to throw into your campaign willy-nilly without having a fairly good idea of what effect it may have.

Also, no matter how much sense it would make- said Satyr shouldn't rape a character unless you now _for sure_ that it's not going to be a problem.  As other poster's reactions have indicated, it can be a very volitable subject.

Rape, torture, serial killings, cannibalism, demonic possession (which was something i coulnd't put in a campaign once because of someone's personal experience) are all things that CAN have a place in a D&D game- if the players/DM are ok with them.  There needs to be acceptance among the characters about what's going to occur though, else there will be problems as posts above have illustrated.


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (Aug 7, 2007)

A discussion of rape in game is useless without the unique perspective of Edena.  He needs to come here to address these points.


----------



## Vorput (Aug 7, 2007)

Keeper of Secrets said:
			
		

> A discussion of rape in game is useless without the unique perspective of Edena.  He needs to come here to address these points.




...Edena?


----------



## Rhun (Aug 7, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> IMO, rape has no part in the game (at least as a threat to PCs).  Thus *your satyrs* have no place in D&D.  The *D&D Satyr* does have a place in the game.





While perhaps the threat of rape wasn't aimed at PCs, 'rape' is an element of D&D...perhaps not 3.X D&D, but earlier editions to be sure. Read through the original ToEE...many of the paintings and frescoes are shown as depicting rape.

As far as the _Der Kluge Satyr_ goes, I would say that depends on an individual's game and the gaming group. Obviously many people feel it would not be appropriate in their games. I could use it in my current campaign though and it probably wouldn't even get a raised eyebrow.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 7, 2007)

Keeper of Secrets said:
			
		

> A discussion of rape in game is useless without the unique perspective of Edena.  He needs to come here to address these points.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 7, 2007)

Rhun said:
			
		

> Read any George RR Martin? Rape is pretty common in A Song of Fire and Ice.



which is regularly called out as unusual and many people dislike those books for just that sort of reason. One series no matter how rabid its fanboys, does not a change in the genre make.



> It really all comes down to how your group can deal with adult subject matter. If someone in the group is incapable of dealing with it, then I agree that it should be glossed over or left out entirely. In a group that is at ease handling such subject matter, I don't see a problem.



"can deal" "incapable of dealing" etc place a strong negative value judgment on not wanting to have rape in your roleplaying game, or even a natural reaction of being disgusted by it. As much as I wouldn't play with a DM who introduced rape or torture themes*, I wouldn't play with one who was condescending to me acting as though he was holding back because I couldn't handle it, or any other such tripe. 

*leaving out value judgements or social concerns, rape and torture are house rules, and I don't play with DMs who introduce house rules in mid session and haven't designed their games to reasonably accomodate those house rules.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 7, 2007)

You know, if we're talking about the Classical world, "rape" means to carry somebody away.

The DM gets to decide how the monster behaves (one of the perks, eh?).  Sure the Satyr would like to have sex with... well, everything.  But does it physically violate the character?  That's up to the DM.  Maybe it tosses her over its shoulder and tries to carry her to a secluded glen; when it gets there, it hopes to woo her and win her over with its charms (maybe it's a vain beast as well).  Satyrs are typically presented comically in the ancient world.  Maybe it thinks it can seduce her merely by displaying its exaggerated 'attribute'.

I can see a scene where the female PC wakes up in a lush, secluded glen with her host setting out copious amounts of wine and fruits.  He plays a flourish on his pipes, and then 'presents' himself in full exposure, with a look on his comically ugly face of "So whaddya think, baby?"  Then our heroine has to extract herself from the situation without violating the creature's undoubtedly inflated sense of the rules of hospitality.  Farcical, but still a little dark... and more tale-worthy, don't you think?


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 7, 2007)

Rhun said:
			
		

> As far as the _Der Kluge Satyr_ goes, I would say that depends on an individual's game and the gaming group. Obviously many people feel it would not be appropriate in their games. I could use it in my current campaign though and it probably wouldn't even get a raised eyebrow.




I did say above that it should be part of the "gaming contract" the group discusses before play.  I feel that if you haven't discussed it then it shouldn't be part of the game. 

I feel that should apply to anything the PCs witness directly or indirectly.  No raping the PCs cohort, mother, sister, torchbearer.  No having the PCs talk to a rape victim.  Saying the barbarian horde were raping and pillaging is probably OK.

When asked, my preference would be to leave it out of the game at any direct personal interaction.  It happens, but the players shouldn't have to deal with the consequences.  I might have a different answer with exactly the right group that I knew really well, but not a group of people I don't know very well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I admit - the idea of a creature stealing shoes is interesting - but that creature is not a Satyr. Killmoulis maybe, but not a Satyr.




I believe you are thinking of a cluricaune.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I admit - the idea of a creature stealing shoes is interesting - but that creature is not a Satyr. Killmoulis maybe, but not a Satyr.




As has been mentioned, D&D creatures are not the equivalent of their mythological counterparts. If they were, kobolds would be mischevious house gnomes and bodaks would come down the chimney and steal children away in the night.

The D&D satyr can have a basis in the mythological creature without being a rapist.


----------



## Rhun (Aug 7, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> which is regularly called out as unusual and many people dislike those books for just that sort of reason. One series no matter how rabid its fanboys, does not a change in the genre make.





I could also point out the writings of Katherine Kurtz, Richard Adams, and probably a few others if I took the time to think about it. While perhaps not "mainstream" fantasy like Lord of the Rings, they are all still part of the fantasy genre.


----------



## Delta (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> IMO, this creature's basis is -sex-. The origins of it are sexual. The mythos, legend, art, and architecture of this creature are sexual in nature, and often deviant at that... Does this creature have a place in D&D?




I think this is very much debatable; your interpretation is the first I've ever heard that Satyrs = Rapists. Here are some debating points:

(a) Most interpretations of Satyrs are not that they are fundamentally rapists. Here's an analysis of the classical use from Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyr ):


> The satyr play was a lighthearted follow-up attached to the end of each trilogy of tragedies in Athenian festivals honoring Dionysus. These plays would take a lighthearted approach to the heavier subject matter of the tragedies in the series, featuring heroes speaking in tragic iambic verse and taking their situation seriously as "straight men" to the flippant, irreverent and obscene remarks and antics of the satyrs.




So their classical usage was really "lighthearted" , with irreverent and obscene remarks. They're a horny sitcom character, really. There's all kinds of ways you can play that without making it about rape.

(b) Classical monsters have been significantly D&D-ized over the years. Even if classical satyrs _were_ rapists, that's not in their D&D description, so they may in fact be different. Just like classical Trolls didn't regenerate, and the Medusa wasn't a whole race of beings, and Hydras didn't have dinosaur-like bodies, etc., etc. Once a monster gets in D&D it gets stamped however it best works in D&D, as published in the MM. Asking if this monster doesn't work in D&D is almost inherently nonsensical. 

Summary: If the MM doesn't say they're rapists, then they're not rapists in D&D.

(c) My MM says "Satyrs, also known as fauns, are hedonistic creatures...". So remember when talking about D&D Satyrs you're also talking about Fauns (i.e., late-Roman era conception when the two myths merged). So if you have any problems with the Satyr myth, just lean towards favoring the Faun myth instead in your game. They're really the same creature for D&D.

Recommendation: Think about using horny Satyrs as comic relief, like a sitcom character, or a horny teenager comedy. There's lots of ways to do that and make it funny (one example: How much does the DM bend the rules to prevent the horny Satyr from actually getting any? Ha! Classic teen-about-to-get-it and a wandering cop monster barges in at the worst time, etc. etc.) If a target is _charmed_, be strict about the spell's language that "Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the _charmed_ person breaks the spell". A Satyr can try to persuade and seduce, but narratively the target has to agree for the act to complete.


Now, I'm actually sympathetic to the OP. I've actually made the same mistake in the past, even... as DM in college 15 years ago I also had a female PC (male player) raped by an evil villain. I also felt compelled that this is what evil power-mad warlords would do. But in retrospect it was a bad error, narratively it just felt totally out of place. Yes, I made the same error, and now I can see where I had my narrative priorities screwed up (i.e., momentarily putting real-world criminal behavior above fantasy heroic context).


----------



## kenobi65 (Aug 7, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> Recommendation: Think about using horny Satyrs as comic relief, like a sitcom character, or a horny teenager comedy.




It would explain why the satyr is trying to get that pie away from the orc. 

But, seriously, rape (like torture, or graphic violence) is a topic that I don't feel at all comfortable broaching in the games I run.  I have quite a few women in my groups, but even if I didn't, I still wouldn't find it appropriate.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> How have you used the Satyr in your game?




Never used one.


----------



## Gez (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> The Satyr used his pipes, and he failed his save, and no one woke up from their slumber.
> 
> As reluctant as I was to do it, I told the female character that the Satyr "had his way with her" without embellishing the point.  I hated to do it, really, but to do anything less than that seemed at odds with this creature's nature.




I disagree with that. The Satyr wouldn't be interested in a _sleeping_ mate. Where's the fun in that?


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 7, 2007)

I used a Satyr last year in our game without needing to rape any PCs.

A Satyr doesn't have to rape a PC to prove how sexual he is. My Satyr used his pipes on the male PCs to keep them out of his business so he could woo the 2 female PCs. One of the females also fell victim to his pipes and rather than rape her, he had her sit on a rock next to him while he gave her small kisses on the lips and smooched her neck. The other female PC stood there threatening him to leave her alone. Satyr's think they are irresistible & charming, so he tried to persuade the other female to join the make-out session on her own free will. Instead she attacked him and he ran away.

When they reached the nearest town, they learned this Satyr has a bounty on his head for raping dozens of women. They decided to go back and hunt him down.

I got the point across that he's a hornball without raping any PCs. They then learned he was a rapist and they realized what _could_ have happened to them. So that made them want to capture him even more. I'm not going to pretend rape doesn't exist in my world, but I would never actually rape a character. That's the worst thing to happen to a human being and I'd rather kill off a character than have an NPC rape them.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> IMO, this creature's basis is -sex-. The origins of it are sexual. The mythos, legend, art, and architecture of this creature are sexual in nature, and often deviant at that.
> 
> Does this creature have a place in D&D?




Yes. The problem you're describing is your problem; it is not a problem with the game.

The fact that the satyr is mythologically described as a creature that is, at best, very aggressive with its sexuality doesn't mean anything in terms of how the creature is used in the context of D&D. The same way D&D dragons don't go around eating virgins, D&D rakshasas can't be frightened off by yelling "uncle!" at them, and D&D vampires don't need to obsessively count grains of rice or poppy seeds, D&D satyrs don't need to be perpetually-horny, enspell-you-and-then-do-you fey. 

*You* find the idea of a creature that has an implied libido and that can use _sleep_ and _charm person_ to be uncomfortable (which must make it problematic to use ogre magi; as they're based on oni - or for that matter a sixteen year-old 1st-level sorcerer who knows those spells), which means that the problem isn't one inherent in D&D, as you seem to be indicating. Please don't ask if "D&D really needs" the things that you personally don't like.

If you don't like something, just don't use it.


----------



## Vorput (Aug 7, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> "can deal" "incapable of dealing" etc place a strong negative value judgment on not wanting to have rape in your roleplaying game, or even a natural reaction of being disgusted by it. As much as I wouldn't play with a DM who introduced rape or torture themes*, I wouldn't play with one who was condescending to me acting as though he was holding back because I couldn't handle it, or any other such tripe.




Have we become so de-sensitized to violence as a culture that rape is WORSE than murder?  Maybe it's just because death is an accepted part of D&D, but geeze- players can be killed left and right but heaven forbid rape gets mentioned?

I'm not AT ALL trying to say rape isn't bad.  It's awful, I've had experiences in my own life that... n/m, not worth getting into.  The point is, I know it's terrible, and degrading, and can ruin people's lives.  But so is death.  So is human sacrifice.  So is trapping someone's soul in a shambling mound of flesh and forcing it to carry out the creator's will.  Now the latter two people probably haven't experienced, but I'm sure plenty of people have experienced someone dying- and there aren't many people advocating a campaign without death in it.



> I could also point out the writings of Katherine Kurtz, Richard Adams, and probably a few others if I took the time to think about it. While perhaps not "mainstream" fantasy like Lord of the Rings, they are all still part of the fantasy genre.




More recently, Terry Goodkind's bestselling Sword of Truth novels make mention of it left and right as well.


----------



## Kapture (Aug 7, 2007)

I think the real problem here is that the OP allowed his imagination to be railroaded.

I find that with mythological creatures, people can be curiously literal. With all the vampire stories around, I keep having this conversation with my wife:

"I thought vampires couldn't do (such and such)."

"Which vampires are you talking about?"

Gorgons only ever sat on their island and turned people to stone. The Minotaur stayed very tamely in his labrinth.

But in the DMG, minotaurs are community based humanoids, and medusaes use bows. I replace Yuan-Ti with medusas, have made minotaurs plains dwellers, given dryads class levels, and made satyrs half vampiric with a blood transfusion. The satyrs are marksmen as well as charmers, and could use sleep, charm, and fear to drive invaders away from the woods they guard. Make the group go to sleep, shove them in a cart, and leave them at the edge of the forest.

Fauns usually make me think of the little half-cherubs from fantasia. They're lanky half fey in my game. Myths are meant to be reinvented.

(Edit)

Well, Hell. It looks like Alzrius just covered the same territory. Doh.


----------



## zen_hydra (Aug 7, 2007)

I feel that the gaming group's social contract (formal, or otherwise) should be where the appropriateness of "sensitive" topics is discussed and settled upon.  

I am perfectly comfortable playing a character that has been raped.  I feel that kind of event can add gravitas to a character.  I also understand (and respect) the feelings of others who do not feel the way I do.  Neither view is any more valid, or correct, than the other.  

However, political correctness is, without a doubt, out of control in Western society.  The Satyr of myth came from a time that was much more comfortable with the reality of daily violence, and death, and much less concerned with guilt and "feelings".  Is your campaign world a violent, brutish place like that of the ancient Greeks, or is it the happy, shiny, modern world with the serial numbers filed off?


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 7, 2007)

Vorput said:
			
		

> Have we become so de-sensitized to violence as a culture that rape is WORSE than murder?  Maybe it's just because death is an accepted part of D&D, but geeze- players can be killed left and right but heaven forbid rape gets mentioned?




Discussing this area as a generality is almost certainly crossing the line of acceptable ENWorld discussion.  I believe that, at least here in the U.S., this is the case.  The reasons why, or whether it is appropriate or not isn't appropriate for these forums, though.

For purposes of what happens at the gaming table.  It's a matter of player's likely response.  Rape victims are very sensitive to reliving their experience when confronted with things that remind them of it.  If a victim of violence has the same reaction then they probably shouldn't be playing in D&D, or find an outlet of roleplaying where violence isn't so central.  Rape isn't central to D&D.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 7, 2007)

Rhun said:
			
		

> I could also point out the writings of Katherine Kurtz, Richard Adams, and probably a few others if I took the time to think about it. While perhaps not "mainstream" fantasy like Lord of the Rings, they are all still part of the fantasy genre.



Terry Goodkind.  Glen Cook.  Stephen R. Donaldson.  Stephen Erikson.  China Mieville.  Michael Moorcock.

To name just a handful off the top of my head.  The presumption that GRRM is somehow unique in having rape be an element of his setting and of his plots is absurd.  In fact, in some of those, it's not even presented as necessarily evil: the protagonist of Moorcock's _Gloriana_ tried the entire book to achieve orgasm, but can't until the ending where she's raped.  _That's_ offensive.  Der_kluge's situation: not so much.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Aug 7, 2007)

Vorput said:
			
		

> Have we become so de-sensitized to violence as a culture that rape is WORSE than murder?  Maybe it's just because death is an accepted part of D&D, but geeze- players can be killed left and right but heaven forbid rape gets mentioned?




Many people consider rape to be more invasive than death. Death is permanent (at least in real life), while rape is something someone has to endure and then live with for years afterwards.


----------



## ivocaliban (Aug 7, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I can see a scene where the female PC wakes up in a lush, secluded glen with her host setting out copious amounts of wine and fruits.  He plays a flourish on his pipes, and then 'presents' himself in full exposure, with a look on his comically ugly face of "So whaddya think, baby?"  Then our heroine has to extract herself from the situation without violating the creature's undoubtedly inflated sense of the rules of hospitality.  Farcical, but still a little dark... and more tale-worthy, don't you think?




This is more like it. Unless you are playing in a starkly real game with players that are comfortable with _and_ want to engage in the darker side of human nature, I think having a character violated in his or her sleep is uncalled for. Rape is not about sex, generally speaking, it is about power and control. Satyrs are about freedom, lust, and wild abandon...not control and force. So, I don't think the question from the OP is a problem with the satyr, at all, I think it's a problem with the DM. 

Yes, I think satyrs are and should be portrayed as lusty creatures, but I don't think intercourse (particularly forced intercourse) itself is necessarily their _raison d'etre_. There is a game to be played with satyrs and they want others to play it. Sure, they might bend the rules in their favor, but I think for satyrs the challenge is half the fun. Violating someone who is a asleep isn't very "satyr-like" in my opinion. Satyrs like a challenge. They might like their sex rough and spontaneous, but they're as much about the journey as they are the goal.

Even the fairly risque _Book of Erotic Fantasy_ steers clear of rape stating "[it] does not condone non-consensual sex in any manner." It also contains the following warning: "This sort of behavior is almost always relegated to the actions of evil NPCs, and you, the DM, should be extremely wary about allowing it into your game." Notice it doesn't warn us about satyrs, but about the DM. Again, I think that's who bears the responsibility here. There are a multitude of ways to use satyrs effectively without making them into rapists.


----------



## JustKim (Aug 7, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> No.  Massively the same.



You are wrong.
A character's death is unfortunate, but it can be dramatic. It can be moving. It can enhance the game. Rape is simply crude and I will not sit around for, much less derive any enjoyment from, depictions of a character being raped. It is something completely different.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 7, 2007)

JustKim said:
			
		

> You are wrong.



No I'm not.


			
				JustKim said:
			
		

> A character's death is unfortunate, but it can be dramatic. It can be moving. It can enhance the game. Rape is simply crude and I will not sit around for, much less derive any enjoyment from, depictions of a character being raped. It is something completely different.



Thanks, but maybe you thought I was wrong because you attributed a position to me that has nothing to do with what I've said in this thread to date?  Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.

1) I didn't compare rape to death, I compared it to torture.  2) I've been pretty clear that I wouldn't ever have rape (or torture, for that matter) show up "on screen" in my game, and 3) I've been pretty clear that except in extremely unusual circumstances, I wouldn't have rape of a PC be a situation that ever happens in one of my games.

That said, *you* are wrong.  With the right people and in the right situation, rape can be just as dramatic and moving and enhancing to the game as death.  Otherwise, it wouldn't ever happen in fiction either, and as it turns out, it does happen frequently in friction precisely because of the dramatic potential.  It's not---however---something that I'd be comfortable doing.  But I'm equally uncomfortable claiming that it's *never* appropriate to anyone ever.


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Aug 7, 2007)

Speaking as a male sexual assault victim, I can tell you it's a scary experience.  One that I'd like to forget ever happened.  It did happen, and living with that is a large part of my life.  However, if someone was using rape as a way to describe how debased and evil the baddies were, I wouldn't bat an eyelash.  Raping PCs is a bit more extreme, even if the Satyr is 'just playing his character'.

I use the example of Reavers in Joss Whedon's Firefly/Serenity.  They're evil, carnal, insane space pirates that go around killing, raping, and making flesh-suits.  I've used medieval versions of Reavers in game a few times to good effect.  They aren't real.

Back to the topic at hand, Satyrs are stupid monsters.  Not stupid in the low Intelligence way, stupid in the 'man, what a lame and played out monster' way.  I wouldn't use one in game just because I like my fey to be a bit less musical and a lot more evil-little-creatures-that-steal-babies-and-replace-them-with-replicants.

-TRRW


----------



## Vorput (Aug 7, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> Many people consider rape to be more invasive than death. Death is permanent (at least in real life), while rape is something someone has to endure and then live with for years afterwards.




I agree... but speaking as someone who had a family member suffer a sexual assault (that thankfully was stopped early on)- I thank God every day that's she's still alive.  I'm not condoning the assault, but the alternative would have been much worse :/

Maybe rape is somehow more real to people than death is?  ::sighs:: I don't know...  I'm not sure we're anywhere near the OPs original post.


----------



## JustKim (Aug 7, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> 1) I didn't compare rape to death, I compared it to torture.



No, you didn't. Here is the line of quotations:


			
				Vorput said:
			
		

> Agreed, but is it any different/worse than killing one of the characters?





			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yes. Massively different.





			
				Hobo said:
			
		

> No. Massively the same.



If you were unaware of what you were quoting, I apologize. My reading comprehension is just fine, however.


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 7, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Meh, I do not see satyrs going for sleepers. They are chronic horndogs, but I view them wanting more than unconscious lump of warm flesh. He might _Sleep_ the group, carry her of to a secluded place and afetr the sleep wears off, try to seduce using charm, booze or _Charm_, giving up and heading off after his advances are firmly, but politely turned down.
> 
> Rude refusals or threats result in initiative roles since this is D&D.





My apologies - the more I think about the incident, the more I remember about it.  As I said, it's been a number of years - at least 5, probably 6.

The female PC in question did get to save vs. charm. She failed. In fact, I'm pretty sure I gave her more than one, because I really wanted her to save, but she failed them all.


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I believe you are thinking of a cluricaune.




Probably not - since I've never even heard of that, until just now.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 7, 2007)

Uh, you left off the second clause of Vorputs quote.  As well as any other part of the quote that puts it in correct context.  No, I didn't compare it to death, yes, I did compare it to torture, and no, your reading comprehension is not just fine.

For that matter, I'm also not really thrilled with your ability to ignore the meat of my post and simply nitpick a trivial statement.  Or don't you have any comment on the fact that if there's no dramatic potential in rape, then all the books, movies, and other media that use it as a major plot point are all abject failures?


----------



## Huw (Aug 7, 2007)

I used satyrs once in a very successful and fun encounter. They were after booze, however.

The players have defeated their enemies' forest camp, and among the treasures are several bottles of fine brandy. Eight satyrs (far more than the characters could handle in a fight) turn up, with an unerring nose for the drink. The party know that at the slightest excuse, the satyrs will consume the 2,000 gp worth of treasure. What followed was a whole load of bluffing, dancing and singing as the party convinced the satyrs that they'd love to share the drinks some time soon, whilst looking for a way out.

Can't remember how they eventually got away. I believe it involved a treasure hunt game (sacrificing one bottle) with the party beating a hasty retreat in the other direction.


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 7, 2007)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> I used a Satyr last year in our game without needing to rape any PCs.
> 
> A Satyr doesn't have to rape a PC to prove how sexual he is. My Satyr used his pipes on the male PCs to keep them out of his business so he could woo the 2 female PCs. One of the females also fell victim to his pipes and rather than rape her, he had her sit on a rock next to him while he gave her small kisses on the lips and smooched her neck. The other female PC stood there threatening him to leave her alone. Satyr's think they are irresistible & charming, so he tried to persuade the other female to join the make-out session on her own free will. Instead she attacked him and he ran away.
> 
> ...




My scenario was not unlike this - except in mine, everyone kept failing ALL their saves.  As I mentioned just above - I remember now that I actually *did* give the female a save. More than one actually - to the point that the "rules lawyer" in the group joked that she was "going to continue to get saves until she finally made one!", and it was at that point that I finally let the encounter run its course.

What would you have done if all the male PCs were incapacitated and the two female PCs both failed their charm saves?  By your own account - that Satyr was a rapist. Would you have *not* done the act despite the creature's nature?


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> The female PC in question did get to save vs. charm. She failed. In fact, I'm pretty sure I gave her more than one, because I really wanted her to save, but she failed them all.



Charm,. at least in my opinion, does not overided a *No, I never would*. Charm can overide things like "*Not here*", "*not now*", "*I don't want others to know*", "*I don't know you*", "*I would if not for a social obligation*".


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 7, 2007)

Kapture said:
			
		

> Well, Hell. It looks like Alzrius just covered the same territory. Doh.





The thing is is that these creatures *can* be exactly what they are in mythology. That's the basis for the creature.  Ok, so dragons don't go around capturing virgins, but they certainly could. The Satyr - as written - is really not that far off from the mythological counterpart. When adlibing the creature, it seems very natural (to me) to play them in the way they were originally intended.


For that matter - let's not talk about Satyr - let's reverse the coin and talk about the Succubus. This is a creature's whose sole purpose is to rape men and steal their levels. Now, most men haven't been raped. So, most people don't have a problem with this creature.  Am I "having a failure of imagination" when I rape a female PC with a cambion demon, or rape a male PC with a Succubus?  Isn't the result the same?


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> My scenario was not unlike this - except in mine, everyone kept failing ALL their saves.  As I mentioned just above - I remember now that I actually *did* give the female a save. More than one actually - to the point that the "rules lawyer" in the group joked that she was "going to continue to get saves until she finally made one!", and it was at that point that I finally let the encounter run its course.



Well, as has been pointed out, running it's course does not have to equal rape.  There are other alternatives that could just as easily have been in keeping with the satyr's nature.

I'm kinda in line with the group here who suggest that the satyr is a pretty lousy monster.  If the result of the encounter going badly is PC rape, then this thread demonstrates that that's problematic for a large number of gamers.  If it ends in the satyr kidnapping a PC and trying to woo her in his secluded glen---personally I think that's kinda silly and lame.  So I guess I'm saying I probably wouldn't ever use the satyr as is.  I could maybe use the stats with some other flavor and name, but not as is.

Then again, I like the vibe of some fey that are mercurial, whimsical, fickle and scary as hell.  IMO, none of the standard D&D fey fit that bill very well.


----------



## Mark (Aug 7, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> IMO, rape has no part in the game (at least as a threat to PCs).





That's how I feel regarding games I DM.  At most I might vaguely allude to it as having been a part of some off-screen, past tense NPC situation.  Even that might need some out of game prefacing with the players.


----------



## Vorput (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> For that matter - let's not talk about Satyr - let's reverse the coin and talk about the Succubus. This is a creature's whose sole purpose is to rape men and steal their levels. Now, most men haven't been raped. So, most people don't have a problem with this creature.  Am I "having a failure of imagination" when I rape a female PC with a cambion demon, or rape a male PC with a Succubus?  Isn't the result the same?




That's a very worthwhile point.


----------



## JustKim (Aug 7, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> For that matter, I'm also not really thrilled with your ability to ignore the meat of my post and simply nitpick a trivial statement.



I have not felt the need to address anything else you've said, primarily because this is not something I'm interested in arguing about. One of the things you said struck me, and I responded to it. I did not fail to notice that your other posts don't condone rape in-game, but I find people often say seemingly conflicting things when empassioned on the internet. This is certainly one of those cases.

I was not trying to put words in your mouth, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop questioning my ability to read.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> For that matter - let's not talk about Satyr - let's reverse the coin and talk about the Succubus. This is a creature's whose sole purpose is to rape men and steal their levels. Now, most men haven't been raped. So, most people don't have a problem with this creature.  Am I "having a failure of imagination" when I rape a female PC with a cambion demon, or rape a male PC with a Succubus?  Isn't the result the same?



Oooh, now you're getting into meaty discussion-land!  

That said, I think you've overplayed the succubus.  According the rules, the succubus doesn't have to rape a victim, it just has to kiss him.  Or her.  So again, we're getting into DM interpretation of what the critter should do, not something that's explicitly stated by the rules; same problem as with the satyr.

And in that kind of discussion the result will always be the same.  If you introduce rape of a PC into the game, that's _your_ problem.  The fact that the mythological basis for the creature being used was often depicting raping innocent victims is beside the point---the rules have specifically backed off from that into something less confrontational (from a player perspective, not a character one.)


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 7, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Well, as has been pointed out, running it's course does not have to equal rape.  There are other alternatives that could just as easily have been in keeping with the satyr's nature.
> 
> I'm kinda in line with the group here who suggest that the satyr is a pretty lousy monster.  If the result of the encounter going badly is PC rape, then this thread demonstrates that that's problematic for a large number of gamers.  If it ends in the satyr kidnapping a PC and trying to woo her in his secluded glen---personally I think that's kinda silly and lame.  So I guess I'm saying I probably wouldn't ever use the satyr as is.  I could maybe use the stats with some other flavor and name, but not as is.
> 
> Then again, I like the vibe of some fey that are mercurial, whimsical, fickle and scary as hell.  IMO, none of the standard D&D fey fit that bill very well.




And some well-mannered, creative folks have given me some great ideas on how I could use the Satyr (as a very interesting encounter) in the future.  You know who you are.  I thank you for being on-topic and helpful.


----------



## gizmo33 (Aug 7, 2007)

I'd like to have some idea as a DM what any given monster's motivation would be in an encounter (in case it's rolled on a wandering monster table).  A satyr's involvement in sexual issues doesn't mandate IMO that it be involved in anything violent or weird (by my standards).  I think this thread, in a round-about way, starts to address the concerns of the OP by suggesting some motivations and encounters that involve satyrs that are more appropriate to most people's DnD game.


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (Aug 7, 2007)

Hmm.  The succubus does actually make for a much more interesting discussion.  While people be offended if the succubus gets a little nasty with one of the males  - while he sleeps?

Will the same group be as easy going when the satyr does the same thing with a female?


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> For that matter - let's not talk about Satyr - let's reverse the coin and talk about the Succubus. This is a creature's whose sole purpose is to rape men and steal their levels. Now, most men haven't been raped. So, most people don't have a problem with this creature.  Am I "having a failure of imagination" when I rape a female PC with a cambion demon, or rape a male PC with a Succubus?  Isn't the result the same?



Succubi don't usally rape men in D&D. They devour life force, possibly damning their vicims to undeath as wights. That is _worse_ than rape.


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 7, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Succubi don't usally rape men in D&D. They devour life force, possibly damning their vicims to undeath as wights. That is _worse_ than rape.





Wait - I thought murder was worse than rape.  Damnit, I've lost my slide-rule!!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 7, 2007)

The difference between rape, torture, and murder is that while it is extremely unlikely that your players have been tortured, and obviously haven't been murdered, there's a pretty good chance that a female player has been raped, or that any player's girlfriend, sister, mother, wife, or daughter has been.  It hits too close to home.  People are fairly desensitized to violence, because it's usually not a personal experience for them.  It happens on TV, or to some people somewhere.  Rape is personal, it's experienced as personal, and it affects individuals.

The other thing to remember is that there's a difference between rape happening to an NPC, perhaps someone for whom the PCs are attempting to seek revenge, or as part of a backstory, and rape happening to a PC.  The distinction between a player and character is fuzzy.  We almost always use the first person when describing our characters.  Things that happen to our characters happen to us, vicariously.  This is why we roleplay.  We want to be larger-than-life, and these games allow it.  Fantasy roleplaying implies a certain level of immersion.  When something like rape happens, it happens vicariously just as much as when heroism happens.  If you're sensitive to the issue, and many people are, it is liable to push some buttons that really shouldn't be pushed, especially in front of an audience.  You sort of have to wonder why a DM would include something like that in a fantasy scenario.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> For that matter - let's not talk about Satyr - let's reverse the coin and talk about the Succubus. This is a creature's whose sole purpose is to rape men and steal their levels. Now, most men haven't been raped. So, most people don't have a problem with this creature.  Am I "having a failure of imagination" when I rape a female PC with a cambion demon, or rape a male PC with a Succubus?  Isn't the result the same?



 It is the same thing, but as with the Satyr, nothing makes you have to rape anyone with the Succcubus.  It is an "act of passion" or a kiss that causes the level drain.  That leaves a lot of room for interpretation by the DM, and a good DM should know his or her group and play according to what would be entertaining for them.  If your group enjoys the dark, shocking aspects of evil creatures then go for it.  If they don't then use the demons as creatures that desire the life energy of the PCs over the carnal aspects.

Edit: The way the Succubus is worded in the SRD, it has to lure a mortal into an act of passion.  That does not mean rape at all to me, it means tricking them into succumbing willingly.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Wait - I thought murder was worse than rape.  Damnit, I've lost my slide-rule!!



Murder generally has the the person's body feeding worms while their soul goes off to where it belongs. I'll leave the debate between that and rape to others. 

Previous editions of D&D and most other instances of life force feeding say that life force being consumed IS the soul. When you start messing with that, yes that is evil beyond what we know in this mundane world.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> For that matter - let's not talk about Satyr - let's reverse the coin and talk about the Succubus. This is a creature's whose sole purpose is to rape men and steal their levels.




Actually, the theme of the succubus is seduction, not rape. At least from a mythological standpoint.


----------



## kenmarable (Aug 7, 2007)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> I refuse to accept that there are certain situations where you are forced to rape a PC.



Same here.

Honestly, I never knew that about the origins of the satyrs and wouldn't think of that right even looking at their abilities.

You gotta remember that a DM is *never* forced to do something. They control everything in the world. Satyrs don't *have* to be played that way. Or something could prevent it from doing that, or any of a number of explanations of why it wouldn't happen. 

DMs are never forced to do anything.


----------



## Vorput (Aug 7, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The difference between rape, torture, and murder is that while it is extremely unlikely that your players have been tortured, and obviously haven't been murdered, there's a pretty good chance that a female player has been raped, or that any player's girlfriend, sister, mother, wife, or daughter has been.  It hits too close to home.  People are fairly desensitized to violence, because it's usually not a personal experience for them.  It happens on TV, or to some people somewhere.  Rape is personal, it's experienced as personal, and it affects individuals.




True... but there's also a good chance one of them has suffered a mugging (yet we still use bandits doing ambushes), someone dying from cancer (yet D&D still uses diseases), something they know being assaulted (yet attacking happens all the time), someone they know being murdered (yet NPCs, and sometimes PCs, die every session), etc.

Not sure why rape should be on a different plateau.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 7, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> I think this is very much debatable; your interpretation is the first I've ever heard that Satyrs = Rapists. Here are some debating points:



Actually, if I recall correctly, it was usually the centaurs that were the rapists.  It's the horse in them; it makes them all bestial and uncivilized.


----------



## zen_hydra (Aug 7, 2007)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> I'm not going to pretend rape doesn't exist in my world, but I would never actually rape a character. That's the worst thing to happen to a human being and I'd rather kill off a character than have an NPC rape them.




Subjectivity aside, if you believe rape is the worst thing that can happen to a person you are 100% wrong.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 7, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Edit: The way the Succubus is worded in the SRD, it has to lure a mortal into an act of passion.  That does not mean rape at all to me, it means tricking them into succumbing willingly.



That last---at least---is patently untrue.  The SRD clearly states that if a succubus can't lure a mortal into an act of passion, she can make a grapple check to drain the level anyway.


----------



## gizmo33 (Aug 7, 2007)

zen_hydra said:
			
		

> Subjectivity aside, if you believe rape is the worst thing that can happen to a person you are 100% wrong.




Subjectivity aside, all of my opinions are always 100% correct.  For example - the best use of this thread is to talk about encounters that involve satyrs that DMs will want to run.  Whether or not crushing your enemies is better than the wind in your hair is best left to the sages.


----------



## danzig138 (Aug 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yes. Massively different. Rape's a form of torture. Would you describe a PC being tortured in detail?



Maybe I missed something. . . when did anyone say they described a rape in detail? 

As for me, you'd have to define "detail." If your character gets tortured IMG, I'm not going to just let it go as "You get tortured." I will give some basics on the type of torture used. 



			
				Oryan77 said:
			
		

> That's the worst thing to happen to a human being



No, it isn't. When you are raped, you have a chance at recovering from that and leading a good life in the end. 

When you die, you don't get a chance to live a normal life. It's done. So as far as I'm concerned, the idea that rape is the worst thing that can happen to a human being is a stupid idea, and demonstrates a naive outlook. Actually, I find the idea a touch offensive, since it seems to me to be a backhanded way of saying the victim is weak. And while I'm sure some are, _I_ haven't met a rape victim yet who was weak, or thought that being raped was worse than being killed. 

As far as rape in a game, it has, and will happen in games I run, depending on the game. But you absolutely should let your players know before they ever set pencil to paper what kinds of things can or may happen in your game. That way, they can opt-out if they are interested in games with certain possible aspects. Whenever I get a new player, I tell him right from the beginning that anything bad that happens in life can happen in the game, and not just to NPCs. If he's not down with that, cool. I completely understand, and if I know of any games that might be more to his tastes, I'll recommend them.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 7, 2007)

zen_hydra said:
			
		

> Subjectivity aside, if you believe rape is the worst thing that can happen to a person you are 100% wrong.



Perhaps.  But if you ask a number of rape victims if that is true, I think most will disagree with you.  At the very least most will say they can't imagine anything worse.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 7, 2007)

Keeper of Secrets said:
			
		

> Hmm.  The succubus does actually make for a much more interesting discussion.  While people be offended if the succubus gets a little nasty with one of the males  - while he sleeps?
> 
> Will the same group be as easy going when the satyr does the same thing with a female?



This is actually a different take on succubi than I would usually come up with. I always consider them as tempters, using sex as a bait, rather than actually trying to take sex from men as a goal of its own. I mean sure, they *like* sex, but it's the tool, not the end. Taking advantage of the man in his sleep is more in a "succubus and incubus as the same demon who harvests sperm from human men and impregnates women with it as part of demonic breeding program" vein, which isn't a conception of them I've used in my games.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 7, 2007)

Keeper of Secrets said:
			
		

> Hmm.  The succubus does actually make for a much more interesting discussion.  While people be offended if the succubus gets a little nasty with one of the males  - while he sleeps?
> 
> Will the same group be as easy going when the satyr does the same thing with a female?





I would say that, yes, if the PC has no chance to do anything about it, then the players will be upset.  OTOH, I do agree that there is a double-standard where certain types sexual violence are concerned, based upon gender.  Personally, I think that the generally best way to use such ideas is to have things like this occur to NPCs, offstage.

Mind you, this isn't to say that a group of PCs camping in a goblin's lair might not be coup de-graced one by one if the goblins can manage it....and some players might view this as a violation of player/DM trust as well.

YMMV.

RC


----------



## kolikeos (Aug 7, 2007)

Theron said:
			
		

> Ditto.  Bad form, all the way around.



QFT


----------



## an_idol_mind (Aug 7, 2007)

Vorput said:
			
		

> True... but there's also a good chance one of them has suffered a mugging (yet we still use bandits doing ambushes), someone dying from cancer (yet D&D still uses diseases), something they know being assaulted (yet attacking happens all the time), someone they know being murdered (yet NPCs, and sometimes PCs, die every session), etc.
> 
> Not sure why rape should be on a different plateau.




Rape is much more traumatizing than being mugged, hit, or afflicted with a disease.

That said, I wouldn't run a scenario where someone got a disease and died if the player's mother was suffering through cancer, for instance. Part of a fantasy role-playing game is escapism, and I think it's usually a good idea to back off of certain issues when the time is right.


----------



## krissbeth (Aug 7, 2007)

I would almost definitely leave a campaign if rape became an acceptable PC element.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 7, 2007)

Vorput said:
			
		

> Not sure why rape should be on a different plateau.



The why is irrelevant. Rape has a good chance of squicking people out. Violence doesn't. As a DM that's all you need to know to improve your game.


----------



## gizmo33 (Aug 7, 2007)

Seriously - debating whether or not falling off a cliff is worse than having a big rock land on you seems pointless and weird.  How about instead of trying to rank the various injustices of the world on a point scale, the thread be more about how to use satyrs in a way that bypass the particular issues that the OP had?  Types of encounters that avoid sexual violence - since that was the OPs objection.  The rest of it, IMO, is just nonsense - and yes it is all subjective and saying otherwise doesn't change that.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 7, 2007)

JustKim said:
			
		

> I did not fail to notice that your other posts don't condone rape in-game, but I find people often say seemingly conflicting things when empassioned on the internet. This is certainly one of those cases.
> 
> I was not trying to put words in your mouth, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop questioning my ability to read.



No, it's not one of those cases.  Just because you selectively quoted portions of what both Doug McCrae and Vosput said (which I was responding to) doesn't mean that I contradicted myself, it simply means that you ignored the relevent portions of both quotes that gave clear context about what I was saying.  In any case, if you are not trying to put words into my mouth, I won't make a big deal about having words put into my mouth anymore.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 7, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> That said, I wouldn't run a scenario where someone got a disease and died if the player's mother was suffering through cancer, for instance. Part of a fantasy role-playing game is escapism, and I think it's usually a good idea to back off of certain issues when the time is right.




Which adds another issue to look at from a gaming perspective.  Assuming you are gaming with friends, it's reasonably likely you will know that they have dealt with violence or torture (from a first or second person standpoint).  It's reasonably unlikely you will know if they have dealt with rape.  Rape victims are typically reluctant to talk about it, and people close to them are reluctant to share with people not close to the victims.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The why is irrelevant. Rape has a good chance of squicking people out. Violence doesn't. As a DM that's all you need to know to improve your game.




QFT.


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 7, 2007)

Just to steer this freight train back onto some semblance of a track - the topic here specifically regards the Satyr (or other types of sexual creatures).

Given the nature of these creatures - do the have an appropriate place in the game?  Satyrs, and even Succubi or Erinyes, or Cambion demons all are very "sexual' in nature - at least at how I see them.

I'd like to see more ideas from people on how to creatively use these creatures that don't necessarily involve acts of a sexual nature.


And for Christ's sake - let's stop trying to figure out whether rape or murder or torture is worth than the other.  Down that way lies insanity.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 7, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> That last---at least---is patently untrue.  The SRD clearly states that if a succubus can't lure a mortal into an act of passion, she can make a grapple check to drain the level anyway.



 True, but it doesn't say make a grapple check and force an "act of passion" on them.  I would have the Succubus grapple the victim and use her kiss to drain the level.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> What would you have done if all the male PCs were incapacitated and the two female PCs both failed their charm saves?  By your own account - that Satyr was a rapist. Would you have *not* done the act despite the creature's nature?



The monster description says they like to cast sleep & rob them or cast charm and seduce them. It doesn't say they like to cast sleep and rape them (although you could play it like that if you wanted to I guess).

Satyrs like to seduce _or_ steal from people. So I kept that in mind. I had actually planned to rob the PCs but it didn't work out that way when I ran the scenario.

The way I look at it, it would be very hard to successfully rape someone when there's 3 other enemies around. I would think the Satyr wants to receive the affection in return, so I don't imagine Satyrs wanting to just rape a sleeping woman, they like to romance them...so he tried seducing the women. Charming them just makes them easier to seduce/rape. 

In my scenario, he wouldn't just have sex with a charmed PC right in front of other charmed PCs...but he would love to make out with her (which he did) and try to lure her away. If everyone was charmed and he managed to lure her away, I would have had some travelers intervene and chase the Satyr away. In your case, I would have had a wandering creature raid the camp and had the Satyr run for his life...but he would steal an item or two before fleeing. That would still be playing the Satyr correctly (as a thief).

I would be trying to think of every way possible *not* to rape her rather than why he should be able to rape her. Even if it meant him talking the PC into leaving camp with him (so he can have sex with her in private) and then a wandering monster attacks the Satyr & the PC while they are alone...killing the Satyr in the process.

A player isn't going to complain about a random event happening (random monster) that saves them from being raped. I'd think it was a little strange if a player said, "That was lame, the Satyr should have raped my PC".


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 7, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Seriously - debating whether or not falling off a cliff is worse than having a big rock land on you seems pointless and weird.  How about instead of trying to rank the various injustices of the world on a point scale, the thread be more about how to use satyrs in a way that bypass the particular issues that the OP had?  Types of encounters that avoid sexual violence - since that was the OPs objection.  The rest of it, IMO, is just nonsense - and yes it is all subjective and saying otherwise doesn't change that.





Good lord, it's like we share the same mind.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Given the nature of these creatures - do the have an appropriate place in the game?  Satyrs, and even Succubi or Erinyes, or Cambion demons all are very "sexual' in nature - at least at how I see them.
> 
> I'd like to see more ideas from people on how to creatively use these creatures that don't necessarily involve acts of a sexual nature.



The easiest is using the promise of sexual favors, _charm_, seduction, etc. but then simply trying to kill them instead.  Maybe it's a little darker (maybe, but I'm not trying to rate how "dark" various bad things happening to PC's is) but especially for a demon, that's not an inappropriate thing if it is.  I've always kinda seen special abilities in D&D as a prelude to making it easier for the monster to kill you, not have sex with you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 7, 2007)

Well, Dr. Awkward is right about Centaurs in Greek Mythology.  Yet Chiron was notable for his ability to heal.  Similarly, I used one satyr as an oracle.  You can use any element of Greek Mythology with satyrs, and it will seem right.

Create an Enkidu-like Satyr, rampaging through the countryside, and give him the gift of the Nemedian Lion (DR 20/Bludgeoning) and have the PCs track him.  Encounter seems right.  Have the satyrs play the part of mythological harpies, befouling a king's food as a punishment from the gods.  Hey, it could work.  There are tons of Greek stories that you could use, swapping satyrs in for other characters, that would work just as well.

Go further afield, and have a satyr play Cyrano de Bergerac to a PC Roxane or Christian de Neuvillette.  

Or just say, "Satyrs represent wild nature, abandon, revel, delight, and panic."  Then imagine what satyrs are like who represent a huricane, or a storm.  Throw in the proper setting elements, use some templates, and Hey Presto! you have a cool satyr encounter that has little to do with sex.  Satyrs that are as liable to tear you to pieces as to waggle their nether parts at you could make a good encounter.

Seriously, imagine this scene:  There is a storm brewing.  The PCs are in the forest, hunting something nasty.  Of course, they are going to just hunker down and wait out the storm, then continue the hunt when it has passed.  But the satyrs pipe to panic them, and in their fear they flee willy-nilly into the woods, facing hazards of wilderness and storm, and having all sorts of fun encounters while the storm rages.  And then, with the storm passed, they discover that what they once were hunting is now hunting them, and they are no longer together......

Or just say, "Satyrs represent the what comes of the grape, for good or ill" and play them like drunks, some very forward (but not necessarily very capable at the moment), others bringing comfort, and still others leading PCs to do things that inhibition would normally prevent them from doing (which may or may not be sexual, but could be great fun for the PCs if they can tweak the Duke's nose and get away with it by blaming the satyrs).

You could play up the devilish look of satyrs, and make them great tempters of mortals.

Like most monsters, satyrs can be used in many ways, and still retain their primary "satyr" qualities.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 7, 2007)

zen_hydra said:
			
		

> Subjectivity aside, if you believe rape is the worst thing that can happen to a person you are 100% wrong.



No, I'm pretty positive that *I* believe a rape is the worst thing to happen to a person. Do you know something about my beliefs that I don't?  


			
				danzig138 said:
			
		

> No, it isn't. When you are raped, you have a chance at recovering from that and leading a good life in the end.



I honestly don't care what anyone says when comparing rape to anything else and I won't argue pointless comparisons. I believe it's the worst thing to happen to a person and I'm neither a woman nor have I ever been raped. It's just something that strikes a nerve in me and pisses me off more than other atrocities. Telling me I'm wrong is just ignorant and disrespectful to rape victims. I don't really see the point of the debate.  :\


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> How have you used the Satyr in your game?  Personally, I'd much rather see the Satyr replaced with the Faun - the Roman version, and the one represented in the movie Pan's Labyrinth.



How is the faun different? I've never heard this before, but I certainly agree that a creature who is involved in rape in about half the times it's mentioned in myth is kind of an odd choice for a core monster.


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> How is the faun different? I've never heard this before, but I certainly agree that a creature who is involved in rape in about half the times it's mentioned in myth is kind of an odd choice for a core monster.





Well, finally - someone agrees with me.  *whew*

Faun - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faun
edit: I should point out that the Satyr page has some images that might be considered NWS.
Satyr - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyr


Despite the fact that the Romans merged the Faun and Satyr legends, I think Satyr tends to imply more sexuality than the Faun does.  I'd rather see Satyr be more like that which was in Pan's Labyrinth - an enigmatic intelligent fey, rather than a drunken hypersexual deviant.

I think IMC, I'll probably replace Satyr with Faun, but leave them mechanically the same.  Odd as it sounds, I think it works a little better for me.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 7, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Many female gamers have been raped.  1 in 4, apparently.



That figure is _very_ controversial. Let's just leave it at "way too many" and not toss that number around like it's a solid fact.


----------



## Vorput (Aug 7, 2007)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> Do you know something about my beliefs that I don't?




Yes.

You also believe you owe me 20 bucks...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 7, 2007)

That Wikipedia faun article is kind of lacking on details about the fauns as a species.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 7, 2007)

Vorput said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> You also believe you owe me 20 bucks...



Wait, so you're saying I don't really owe it to you? Whew, I had it in the envelope with a stamp and everything.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 7, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> As has been mentioned, D&D creatures are not the equivalent of their mythological counterparts. If they were, kobolds would be mischevious house gnomes and bodaks would come down the chimney and steal children away in the night.
> 
> The D&D satyr can have a basis in the mythological creature without being a rapist.



I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The question, though, is if there's a counterpart that's almost identical without the whole _rape thing_ as part of its myth and legend, why not use that instead?

Why even flirt with the issue at all, unless that's the explicit intention? (Insert obligatory Book of Erotic Fantasy reference here.)


----------



## zen_hydra (Aug 7, 2007)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> No, I'm pretty positive that *I* believe a rape is the worst thing to happen to a person. Do you know something about my beliefs that I don't?   I honestly don't care what anyone says when comparing rape to anything else and I won't argue pointless comparisons. I believe it's the worst thing to happen to a person and I'm neither a woman nor have I ever been raped. It's just something that strikes a nerve in me and pisses me off more than other atrocities. Telling me I'm wrong is just ignorant and disrespectful to rape victims. I don't really see the point of the debate.  :\





I would love an explaination about how my telling you, someone who admittedly has never been raped, that you are wrong is, in any way, disrespectful to rape victims.


----------



## Phlebas (Aug 7, 2007)

Just chatted to my GF about how she would deal with her PC being raped. Although she understands how some people might get a little freaked, she would regard it as a massive roleplaying hook, something to motivate / change / inspire the character development. (Mainly in terms of vengeance)

The fact that the OP didn't go into detail was probably the best way to handle it. No need really.

Given the amount of murder, robbery and mayhem that goes on in most games, providing a certain amount of tact is used theres no reason for a blanket ban on a satyr "having his way with her"

(As an aside - I've never used anything like this when i've been DM'ing but I would consider it as part of a plot - but only with the PC's consent)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 7, 2007)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> I used a Satyr last year in our game without needing to rape any PCs.
> 
> A Satyr doesn't have to rape a PC to prove how sexual he is. My Satyr used his pipes on the male PCs to keep them out of his business so he could woo the 2 female PCs. One of the females also fell victim to his pipes and rather than rape her, he had her sit on a rock next to him while he gave her small kisses on the lips and smooched her neck. The other female PC stood there threatening him to leave her alone. Satyr's think they are irresistible & charming, so he tried to persuade the other female to join the make-out session on her own free will. Instead she attacked him and he ran away.
> 
> ...



Pretty good usage of the critter. I like it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 7, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Terry Goodkind.  Glen Cook.  Stephen R. Donaldson.  Stephen Erikson.  China Mieville.  Michael Moorcock.
> 
> To name just a handful off the top of my head.  The presumption that GRRM is somehow unique in having rape be an element of his setting and of his plots is absurd.  In fact, in some of those, it's not even presented as necessarily evil: the protagonist of Moorcock's _Gloriana_ tried the entire book to achieve orgasm, but can't until the ending where she's raped.  _That's_ offensive.  Der_kluge's situation: not so much.



Thomas Covenant getting away with rape and being hailed as a hero by people who _knew_ he was a rapist was offensive enough to make me stop reading Donaldson.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 7, 2007)

Huw said:
			
		

> I used satyrs once in a very successful and fun encounter. They were after booze, however.
> 
> The players have defeated their enemies' forest camp, and among the treasures are several bottles of fine brandy. Eight satyrs (far more than the characters could handle in a fight) turn up, with an unerring nose for the drink. The party know that at the slightest excuse, the satyrs will consume the 2,000 gp worth of treasure. What followed was a whole load of bluffing, dancing and singing as the party convinced the satyrs that they'd love to share the drinks some time soon, whilst looking for a way out.
> 
> Can't remember how they eventually got away. I believe it involved a treasure hunt game (sacrificing one bottle) with the party beating a hasty retreat in the other direction.



I also dig this. In fact, if I ever use satyrs, I'll probably be yoinking this.


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (Aug 7, 2007)

Someone brought up all those examples of half creatures.  Half demons, cambions, etc.  I wonder if the other participant was willing?  Though, I suppose the distrinction is rape that occurs and rape that occurs to a PC.  I can see a PC getting pretty ticked about that.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 7, 2007)

zen_hydra said:
			
		

> Subjectivity aside, if you believe rape is the worst thing that can happen to a person you are 100% wrong.



Is this thread destined to descend into some sort of atrocity spiral?

I can probably make some folks' heads explode with that kind of stuff, but I'm not sure it adds anything to the discussion and it absolutely violates ENWorld's posting policies.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Thomas Covenant getting away with rape and being hailed as a hero by people who _knew_ he was a rapist was offensive enough to make me stop reading Donaldson.



Same here.


----------



## Numion (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> IMO, this creature's basis is -sex-. The origins of it are sexual. The mythos, legend, art, and architecture of this creature are sexual in nature, and often deviant at that.
> 
> Does this creature have a place in D&D?




Sex can have a place in some tables. However, rape isn't about sex.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 7, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Just to steer this freight train back onto some semblance of a track - the topic here specifically regards the Satyr (or other types of sexual creatures).
> 
> Given the nature of these creatures - do the have an appropriate place in the game?  Satyrs, and even Succubi or Erinyes, or Cambion demons all are very "sexual' in nature - at least at how I see them.
> 
> I'd like to see more ideas from people on how to creatively use these creatures that don't necessarily involve acts of a sexual nature.




Definitely a role offscreen with NPCs I would think for sexual fiends. Have them connected to people they have corrupted or gotten close to through sex and use them as plot elements. For example, "The count's consort is really a succubus in disguise! I guess that explains why he accused the priests of St. Cuthbert of being secret devil worshippers and had us raid their temple. Do you think they were actually innocent?"


----------



## Delta (Aug 7, 2007)

If you expand the discussion to other creature types, you might ask "What's going on with a charmed high-Charisma captive of a 1E Dryad?" From 1E MM:



> If seriously threatened, or if near a male with a 16 or greater charisma, the dryad will use her powerful charm person spell which may be cast up to three times per day, once per melee round, with a minus 3 on the victim's saving throw. If a person is taken away by a dryad, there is a 50% chance they will never return, and if they do return it will be from 1-4 years later.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 7, 2007)

It's a controversial and interesting discussion that has slid over the Grandma Line, so I'm going to close this thread with no particular malice. Thanks to everyone who expressed their opinions without denigrating someone else's opinions - it's appreciated.

As always, feel free to email me with questions, concerns or complaints.


----------

