This is about a pretty messed subject but I feel like I need some advice on what to do here.

One of my pcs attempted to **** an npc at gunpoint. He was stopped by the other players and we've been giving him a hard time for it ever since but I'm wondering if I should do more. I mean he says since the npc was a slave girl she doesn't matter to anyone.

I'm thinking it's about time I kill off his character for this but then I remember it's not real and maybe he'd consider that unfair? I dunno, I never expected to encounter something like this while gming.

How old are they?

Sometimes you need to prune a branch if it's poisoning the entire plant.

Sometimes you need to prune a branch if it's poisoning the entire plant.

That is so Kung Fu.....

I mean, I guess there's a lot of behind-the-scenes questions we could ask to get to the heart of the issue:

How old are they? What is the usual theme of the game? What motivated the character to do this? What motivated the player to do this? As someone in the mental health field, I'd also be tempted to, you know, pry into the players backstory and stuff, but...

What it boils down to is: there was a reason your player tried to do this. Perhaps they thought it fit the narrative - if it didn't, you need to explain that it makes people uncomfortable and is inappropriate. If it's something they thought their character would do, maybe you need to talk about the character and different ways they can express that aspect/characterize the individual. Maybe the person is just really into S&M - yes, actual **** isn't S&M, but it comes up in media related to it as a thing - and you need to have a talk about how this isn't the right forum to explore that aspect of their sexuality. I don't know. Figure out why they did it.

And maybe kill their character.

How well do you know the player? Definitely talk about it with your table, and the player alone. Make sure you set some boundaries if that makes YOU uncomfortable.

Also consider where your game is being held? In a private residence? At a school? A game shop? A restaurant? Each one would have different rules for discussion topics, language, etc.

I needed to do the same in a D&D game I ran, where the players were all kids, and some were making plans to pimp out other PC's for money. I had to shut it down hard, we were playing in a public setting at a State University. We did not need a passerby getting concerned about what we were doing.

For me I would ask the player if they wanted that character to behave like that knowing it would result in that character becoming a NPC since the only villains in this game are under the gm's control not the player?

This might sound harsh but unless you're playing a game where its understood this could happen having it occur even though they should know better a warning should be enough unless they don't pay heed and try again THEN have the character handed over and they get to create a new character since it would be clear by then they don't want to run their old character any more!

Has this sort of thing actually happened to anyone else here?

First I would like to say that as a GM I would feel very uncomfortable with the situation that Metsys509 had. I never had such situation, but unless I would know the player well, I would start thinking about his psyche. But then I would like to ask all of you, how many times did you have a second thought when your PCs murdered someone innocent or defenseless? He was an imperial, they had to do it cause otherwise he would betray them and the rebellion. Remember JK2 or Fallout2? How many of you finished it playing an evil character. Childkiller perk in F2? Or remember KOTOR2, telling those bad guys on Nar Shaddaa to jump into chasm, was cool, wasn't it? I have realized that as a GM I accepted that my PCs can murder someone, ok they murder the bad guys or someone who works for a bad guy, but killing a freight captain that works for the nemesis so he wont tell his boss about conversation is still a murder. How many of you had a torture situation? Did you accept it? I must frankly say I did....but they were torturing a bad guy, then it is ok to do it, right? Or not? There is so many moral questions, but I think that the moral bar for killing, murdering, torturing is set much lower in the RPG world. Then for the sexuality the bar is set as high as in the real world, at least for me. I would really had to run a super-sick-dark campaign to allow something like this, but since I do not like such themes, I will never allow it. I agree with Edgookin, set the boundaries that makes YOU comfortable.

Well first of all discern the motive behind the action; sometimes actions are lost in translation of just wanting to express their characters as morally off, which seems pretty Jaine from firefly esk that he was so morally bankrupt that he was unpredictable, in a red neck kinda way.

Now with that small thing out of the way it's worth noting that actions that the entire table isn't confortable should be dealt with out of game with a chat to the player directly. No one else just a quick chat to tell him that that particular activity doesn't fit the nature of the campaign and that the indecent R is not what you want to encourage at your table. If he cannot accept this he must leave your table for the good of the group.

On a separate note, dealing with this using the game is NEVER the right way of doing it. We are people and people should talk, resolving it through the game by "rocks fall the PC'S die" is NOT the way to go and besides which the GM above all else has a role to present a world to the players, you are not god and it is not your right to hand out punishments to players based on players that offend your concept of right or wrong. Players do something wrong? Talk to them about it. Characters doing something outside your plans? Make up a difficulty and roll it as players planning is a sign that they are becoming a part of your world. If you try and use the game world as a punishment system you will likely lose the players eventually; complications should enrich the narrative, never be a "alright this isn't going how I planned, rocks fall you die."

Before the shift to edge, the inapproiate R got tossed around a fair bit and to be honest my GM never dealt with it, mostly against other players that played chicks (we were all guys). I found it about as amusing as a Ceaser salad then and it tastes just as bad now. That being said they grew out of it by the time of edge, with the occassional "remember that time- Those were the days" to which I will often glare and comment. "no, they weren't."

Alright so I've had a talk with the guy. He considers what he did perfectly reasonable because the npc is a slave girl to a Hutt and doesn't have the same kind of rights as a free person. That being said I think we reached an understanding where trying anything like this again would be considered against the rules of the table. For anyone curious he's an adult not a kid but in all these years I've never actually bothered asking him his age.

I won't kill his character off randomly for this but since the npc was returned to her master at the end of the session (she was kidnapped and the Hutt payed the group to go and save her) she will definitely inform the Hutt of what he tried to do and ramifications will happen at some point in the future.

It's good that he seems to understand the table rules going forward.

I'd still prefer a more solid reasoning than, "Eh...she was available, and was property."

There is, after all, some precedent for protagonists (in other franchises) trying such things. I'm thinking, specifically of Spike attempting to force himself on Buffy at the end of season 6. The thing of it is, though, that those actions were designed to lead to consequences and further character progression for Spike....

(JUST in case it applies to anyone here)

There's plenty of potential for character progression there...the PC realizing that he'd hit rock bottom...a turning point that the other PC's pulled him back from. So where does he go from here? My only remaining problem is that it doesn't sound like that's what he was trying to do with it.

It's good that he seems to understand the table rules going forward.

I'd still prefer a more solid reasoning than, "Eh...she was available, and was property."

There is, after all, some precedent for protagonists (in other franchises) trying such things. I'm thinking, specifically of Spike attempting to force himself on Buffy at the end of season 6. The thing of it is, though, that those actions were designed to lead to consequences and further character progression for Spike....

(JUST in case it applies to anyone here)

After a misdirect that Spike was going to go villain again, he, instead, went through tortuous tests and rituals to have his soul restored, in an attempt to prove himself worthy of Buffy. This not only fed into season 7, with Spike first being driven mad by the First Evil, then returning to the Scoobies, it also led to a different dynamic in Angel season 5, as there were now two "vampires with a soul," leading to possible alternate interpretations of several prophecies that, by default, previously could have only referred to Angel. And, as has been pointed out, Angel got his soul back as part of a curse, while Spike actively and willingly sought to have his soul returned.

There's plenty of potential for character progression there...the PC realizing that he'd hit rock bottom...a turning point that the other PC's pulled him back from. So where does he go from here? My only remaining problem is that it doesn't sound like that's what he was trying to do with it.

Hi s character seems to view all life except his own as pretty worthless tbh. One of the other pcs had their character burnt to death and this was after they had been working together for a long time. He just shrugged it off like it was nothing but when his own character lost his leg in the same fight he wanted everyone to carry him around and protect him until he got a prosthetic.

I mean the other guy who also didn't get burnt to death and survived the tough battle developed a drinking problem and ended up getting married and having a kid so it's like he hit rock bottom and was able to crawl out of it.

Maybe I should try to find ways to bring the guy who tried to **** the slave girl out of rock bottom but I just don't think he's going to bother trying to redeem this character at all.

Perhaps the Hutt should demand the other players hand over the scoundrel. Or else.

Sorry but this is just weird. I don't personally think a conversation is needed with a grown adult about why. My table is pretty open to locker room humor but when I mention these types of things everyone gives a collective wtf.

Sometimes you need to prune a branch if it's poisoning the entire plant.

That is so Kung Fu.....

This is about a pretty messed subject but I feel like I need some advice on what to do here.

One of my pcs attempted to **** an npc at gunpoint. He was stopped by the other players and we've been giving him a hard time for it ever since but I'm wondering if I should do more. I mean he says since the npc was a slave girl she doesn't matter to anyone.

I'm thinking it's about time I kill off his character for this but then I remember it's not real and maybe he'd consider that unfair? I dunno, I never expected to encounter something like this while gming.

Well, the player's right, the NPC was a slave - but it sure sounds like you and the other players did not like what he tried to do, from a Player standpoint as well as a Character standpoint. This is perfectly okay, and honestly happens all the time so it's not something to fret too much over.

My advice would be twofold:

1. Talk to your group, out of character, and set some limits for how you all want to play.

2. Recurring problems with a single player might indicate an ongoing issue that requires the player be removed. You are ALL there to have fun, and if someone can't respect that, they shouldn't be there.

It's definitely okay to have dark elements in your stories, but it's important that everyone at the table is comfortable dealing with the subject matter. I have found that playing with slightly uncomfortable themes has helped me grow as a person, so there is definitely merit to thinking and acting like someone else for a short period of time.

Maybe I should try to find ways to bring the guy who tried to **** the slave girl out of rock bottom but I just don't think he's going to bother trying to redeem this character at all.

This is admirable, but given what little I've read about how this player acts and my decades of gaming experience, I presume you're going to have a difficult time here solving this in the game because the player himself sounds like kind of a jerk. If you know this person well and can attest to them not being a jerk then I would applaud their ability to portray that aspect of a character. A character like that garners enemies and it's not a stretch to have the character cool his jets in carbon freeze in the palace of the slave owner for a couple months.

Based on how this player is described, it doesn't seem like his CHARACTER doesn't care about others... It seems like HE doesn't. Maybe he just isn't into role playing and can't think of characters like people. Maybe he has some Antisocial Personality Disorder type stuff going on in his life. Either way, it seems like you'll have trouble teasing character development out of this one...

Obviously, you shouldn't just kill his character. I was (mostly) joking when I seconded that advice. I really like the idea of the Hutt getting some kind of revenge! Here's a thought - the thinking that "she's a slave and doesn't have rights", again, is prevalent in certain genres (again, S&M media in particular), but most popular media with slavery, and especially Star Wars, tries hard to remember that slaves are still PEOPLE. And it seems partially like the player didn't necessarily feel like his CHARACTER thought that was a reasonable action... Seems a bit like HE did.

Again, if you've all day around and decided on grimdark Star Ward, where slavery is the status quo and no one thinks to question it, where slaves are overtly used as sex objects by most people, etc, then there's nothing wrong with that. I really want to reiterate that: if it makes the whole table happy or whatever to go that direction, then do it! But it doesn't sound like that's the case; it really seems that you're playing the Star Wars we know, where everyone but the slave owners of the Galaxy understand that slaves are people and try to treat them with some dignity. In order to illustrate that point to the character (and maybe the player), you might see what happens if HE becomes a slave...

I have to agree that it sounds like a player issue rather than a character issue. For that reason, I flinch a little when I see the GM suggesting randomly killing off the character. This doesn't fix the problem at all since if the player is going to remain in the game, his next PC is likely to be just as problematic and now you have a new jackhole of a character to deal with. OTOH, removing the problem player and running the offending character as an NPC is least disruptive in-game.

Question: have you played with this guy before and if so was he doing the same kind of things? if so i would say its a player issue and there have already been many suggestiosn on what to do then. Now if it is not and this is purely how he is choosing to play his character then I would say give him obligation wanted by the hut in question and to really drive the point home you could rule, since he is so selfish and uncareing, he is clearly a dark sider and run the rules of that from f&d aka extra drakside token every session

If the PC wants to go that direction, then I’m not sure I’d have a problem with the Hutt demanding that this … thing … that tried to violate the property of the Hutt be turned over to him.

Once the offending PC is also a slave to the Hutt, and maybe gets that same treatment that he tried to give to the girl (maybe used as the object in Hutt xenoporn), perhaps he might reconsider that kind of activity in the future.

Or not.

I can tell you that if that had happened at my table and I was another player, then his PC would have most likely died at the hands of mine. And I might have personally body-slammed the guy to the ground and taught him what an Ippon in Judo is like. I wouldn’t have choked him to death, but I probably would have been very happy to teach him what a chokehold is like. I probably wouldn’t have broken any bones or ripped any tendons, but I would have been happy to teach him what a joint lock is about.

And if I had been the GM, I might very well have also permanently banished that player from my game.

But maybe that’s just me.

brad,

I hope I'm reading you wrong, but it sounded like you're proposing using violence on a real person (the player) that didn't actually do any harm to another real person (the slave girl was a fictional character, not a person). I really hope I read that wrong.

I hope I'm reading you wrong, but it sounded like you're proposing using violence on a real person (the player) that didn't actually do any harm to another real person (the slave girl was a fictional character, not a person). I really hope I read that wrong.

Having been sexually abused myself when I was much younger, yes — I would be sorely tempted to visit personal bodily harm upon another person who chose to do that in a game I was playing in.

I might not give in to said temptation. Maybe.

If I had a player that did that I'd probably have a nasty enemy appear unexpectedly or some other serious event occur and then I'd have a serious talk with the player in question. I'd have to find out what the player thought his actions would accomplish and/or add to the narrative. I'd then explain that sexual violence will not be tolerated at my table and then I'd decide if the player needed to be ejected from the group, depending on what he told me.

I have a zero tolerance policy on this sort of thing, and depending on what the player told me, may need to reasses my friendship or acquaintance with. Physical violence in the real world cannot result from actions taken in a fictional world but that doesn't mean I wouldn't consider telling said player to pack up his **** and get out.

If I had a player that did that I'd probably have a nasty enemy appear unexpectedly or some other serious event occur and then I'd have a serious talk with the player in question. I'd have to find out what the player thought his actions would accomplish and/or add to the narrative. I'd then explain that sexual violence will not be tolerated at my table and then I'd decide if the player needed to be ejected from the group, depending on what he told me.

I have a zero tolerance policy on this sort of thing, and depending on what the player told me, may need to reasses my friendship or acquaintance with. Physical violence in the real world cannot result from actions taken in a fictional world but that doesn't mean I wouldn't consider telling said player to pack up his **** and get out.

You have the conversation with the player as the second thing and don't establish your table rules until after that? That is why you fail. [insert Yoda head emoji here.]