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.]

Wow, you joking? Wouldn't think I'd need to have a rule about sexual assault ahead of time and would be just as surprised about a player doing so as the topic starter was. I wouldn't interrupt the game and ruin the night for everyone else because of one reprehensible human being. I'd redirect the scene by introducing new elements and address the situation when appropriate. I certainly wouldn't let him continue along that path.

How about a simple, "No, that's not going to happen. I don't run games with scenes of sexual violence. So, with that in mind, what action do you actually take?"

Simple, direct, and timely out of character intervention for an out of character issue is always best.

All to their own. I do agree with you that it's completely unacceptable, but I also believe that people's actions have consequences, and that goes for characters too. If the player isn't, in reality, a reprehensible person and I wasn't kicking them out of the game I'd still have their character have to deal with the fallout of their attempted action. I'm giving the op my advice on how I'd deal with it, as you did. I'd handle it a bit differently than you, get over it.

Have your big bad guy chop him in two with a lightsaber, then "save" him by replacing his lower half with the groin and legs of a protocol droid.

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.]

Wow, you joking? Wouldn't think I'd need to have a rule about sexual assault ahead of time and would be just as surprised about a player doing so as the topic starter was. I wouldn't interrupt the game and ruin the night for everyone else because of one reprehensible human being. I'd redirect the scene by introducing new elements and address the situation when appropriate. I certainly wouldn't let him continue along that path.

These kinds of table runs should definitely be covered in session zero.

Saying before the game starts that PvP, torture, slavery, murder hobos and sexual violence will not be tolerated can save a lot of hassle.

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.]

Wow, you joking? Wouldn't think I'd need to have a rule about sexual assault ahead of time and would be just as surprised about a player doing so as the topic starter was. I wouldn't interrupt the game and ruin the night for everyone else because of one reprehensible human being. I'd redirect the scene by introducing new elements and address the situation when appropriate. I certainly wouldn't let him continue along that path.

These kinds of table runs should definitely be covered in session zero.

Saying before the game starts that PvP, torture, slavery, murder hobos and sexual violence will not be tolerated can save a lot of hassle.

You can't strip every moral decision away from the players, but you can address issues as they become problematic. Torture, for instance, is something that while distasteful, can serve a purpose in certain campaigns (ie an imperial campaign).

I personally don't want my game to be an outlet for someone's sexual gratification and draw a much harder line at that than the other subjects you mention as it serves no purpose for the PCs in an RPG. I may have a truly reprehensible NPC, ala Jabba, that has no issues with it, but that npc is designed to hated by the pcs and dealt with during the course of the game.

Ground rules, such as the ones you laid out, are probably more important if you're playing with random internet people than with close friends and family. Just my thoughts, feel free to disagree.

The rules I gave were just examples, which would of course vary from campaign to campaign and person to person. If I was playing an imperial themed game then slavery would be ok.

I will disagree on rules being better left unspoken. IME, doing that is insulting as it presumes that "every good person" must be in agreement on these things and that anyone that doesn't isn't just disagreeing--they are now "bad people."

If GM and other players are ok with a **** happening, then there may still be dire consequences. Slave may be just a slave, but she is still property of the owner. And how would Hutt react when it hears someone damaged (or even destroyed) its property?

Personally, in that situation, I might have told player that he can do what he wants, but he gets a large obligation (bounty) from it (I'd have also made sure that action comes back to haunt him the most dire way (1)), and it will come to bite his ass at most inconvenient time. Or I might have a deep conversation with player about is this kind of campaign he wants to be in. Much depends on what is the goal of campaign and what kind of social contract is in game. If player wants to play a a-hole character who spirals down to rock bottom and then redeems himself, then I'd maybe allow it. If it's just that player doesn't value NPCs and/or other players at all, I'd tell him this is not a group for him. Very much depends on situation. As I mostly play with my old friends, this kind of situations don't come as surprise.

(1) Few potential ideas how to punish the PC(s) instead of killing the PC. a) Later PCs are send to save a slave, by her father, rich and powerful lord, as he finds out that the PC had raped his daughter earlier, he will use all his might to bring him/them down. (e.g. 100000 c bounty (and pardon to his associates, if they hand the criminal to "justice")) b) STD (harmless to npc race, bad to PC race), which is slowly (or fastly) eats away the genitalia of PC. c) Pc himself is capture to slave and beaten to submission (then go to the darkest places from here). Hmm... I might be a bit harsh sometimes.

Generally I tend to calibrate general NPC moralities to kind of same level as PCs keep theirs. If PCs are goodish (as alignment) then NPCs will be at least somewhat honorable. If PCs are dark lord of sith bad, then worst NPCs will be even worse. (Of course story needs always override this)

Our current campaign leans a bit to the dark side (or at least selfish neutral side of things), so PCs will probably occasionally do some nasty things, but **** is still an action which beyond the social contract. And I know my players would never actually do it, unless they want their character to take a deep dive to dark side.

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.

It sounds like that a is player problem, not PC problem. Especially the part where he doesn't care about others, but demands that others care about him. Or it is amazing roleplaying. But the important question is does that always (or mostly) apply to his characters? I think that if yes, then it's player problem, if not, then character problem.

I will disagree on rules being better left unspoken. IME, doing that is insulting as it presumes that "every good person" must be in agreement on these things and that anyone that doesn't isn't just disagreeing--they are now "bad people."

I agree. Most people don't complain about western laws prohibiting e.g. murder, ****, robbery etc. Or take it personally those are written to law. I haven't actually used written campaign rules, but we usually talk about those things, so we have a common understanding what is ok and what is not. In one of our previous games (PF) we didn't have that kind of rules, except superficial we are the good guys, and then it almost lead to player vs player conflict because of our lawful good paladin was stricter than rest of our group. Thankfully, the conflict mostly stayed in character, but it still left one player fairly angry. And we have played together more than 20 years.

IMO explicit rules are mostly good. No one should take those as direct insult to their person. After all, in darker games those rules may be totally different (allowing things which normally are forbidden).

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 assume the **** is sexual abuse. And I would say he is actually right. A slave girl in the galaxy far, far away does not matter to anyone, killing her, abused her, rapping her matters not to many people. BUT that is assuming you are the owner.

Touching the slave from a hutt is a death sentence. That is literally worse than just stealing from him. The PC should be a dead man. He touched the goods he was supposed to bring back. And as GM I would have zero quarrels about that, either the rest of the group distance themselves from that one guy or that are all dead, if they would have let the PC have his way they would be all dead already. Same if they would have stolen from that Hutt.

Another note: One of Jabba's Girls was in love with Dengar, the relationship was mutual, Dengar and her even got mindlink cybernetic implants and all. So "doesn't matter to anyone" can be quite wrong even if you are the slave owner and end-up with the death pc easily too. Rapists are not popular in any universe, so there are ways to make a point what negative and significant consequences can arise out of a reputation as rapist even when indeed no one cares about the specific victims.Which is not the case this time as it was a precious little toy to a powerful Hutt. Prepare a simple demand to hand out the scumbag, the group can decide if they want to risk their necks for a rapist against the Hutts.

Still if that is just action of his character than there is no real underlying problem. If his is instead the players agenda then killing the PC off will achieve little to nothing. That kind of attitude is widespread and the reason why the star wars galaxy has a lower rate of sex slaves than even european brothels. Outside of talking to the guy who messed up this attitude is … there is little you can do to change his mind. In-game consequences still apply, but I personally would question as well if I want to deal with that player ever again.

.

People can do whatever they like but I don't buy this 'darker themed' crap. Darth Vader cut down children. The emperor blew up planets. They didn't have to commit sodomy to prove anything to the audience. There is zero need for sexual assault to be incorporated into any game to prove 'dark' credentials. There's nothing to "explore" it's an evil act of violence committed by sick f***ks and a tool of genocidal monsters, and that's all it is. Some might lack the awareness or the maturity to realize it so that doesn't mean they're automatically branded with a scarlet letter, but it sure doesn't make them a sensitive mature adult either.

This conversation again stresses the importance of Session Zero and setting some ground rules. Some things are just not going to be okay at the table and assuming everyone has the same sensitivities and proclivities is not going to solve the problem. Telling people they've violated unspoken rules isn't really going to work either and there's no "One True Set" of rules for the gaming table. We cannot assume that everyone is the same.

This sort of thing isn't entirely unheard of in Star Wars but any instance of it is off-screen and only alluded to. As others have said it'd definitely be a good idea to discuss this with the player. Mental health might be an issue here, and if it's made other players uncomfortable then it certainly needs to be talked about with them.

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.

Killing his character is the wrong response. The correct response is "Thanks for playing. Please don't bother showing up next week, and good luck with your future gaming groups."

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?

Go and look at the tone of the movies. Yes. the main characters kill people all the time. Planets get blown up, genocide gets committed, and bad things happen all the time. Hell, Jabba probably didn't have the purest of intention of the lovely ladies chained to his throne. Look at the original source material - the original Flash Gordon comics have a distinct hardness to them.

However, there's a world of difference between family fare like Flash Gordon and New Hope and grindhouse exploitation flicks like The Hills Have Eyes or The Last House on the Left. They're not even close.

If the players all agree going in that the game is going to be a hard R or X rated, if everyone is on the same page from the get-go, then fine. It's not a game I'd want to play in, but if your group has no issue, go for it. But this needs to be established early, and not suddenly out of the blue like this guy did.

This conversation again stresses the importance of Session Zero and setting some ground rules. Some things are just not going to be okay at the table and assuming everyone has the same sensitivities and proclivities is not going to solve the problem. Telling people they've violated unspoken rules isn't really going to work either and there's no "One True Set" of rules for the gaming table. We cannot assume that everyone is the same.

If someone wants to satisfy their sexual desires there are websites that serve that purpose much better than my gaming table.

This conversation again stresses the importance of Session Zero and setting some ground rules. Some things are just not going to be okay at the table and assuming everyone has the same sensitivities and proclivities is not going to solve the problem. Telling people they've violated unspoken rules isn't really going to work either and there's no "One True Set" of rules for the gaming table. We cannot assume that everyone is the same.

Sexual violence being a no no is something that shouldn't need a rule, it's common decency. I wouldn't play with a person who thought it was cool, so it's a non issue for my group and always will be. It needs not be spoken because we'd all be saying "wtf" if someone said they planned to **** an npc. It's pointless and serves no purpose in a Star Wars RPG anyhow. It's dispicable, even in a fictional shared narrative world. There are some things our culture looks down upon when it comes to entertainment more than others, and sexual violence is on the tippy top of that range, as it should be. A player deciding to **** an npc reflects very negatively on that person and I wouldn't have it in my game and for no other reason because I'm not going to sit there and participate in it and imagine it. Wouldn't need a rule banning people from reading narrative porn at the gaming table either, but again it's not going to happen as long as you don't play with creeps that don't share your values. Maybe I'm fortunate in that my friends are all good human beings with a solid moral center, but I wouldn't associate with anyone who didn't.

If someone wants to satisfy their sexual desires there are websites that serve that purpose much better than my gaming table.

So your views are the only right ones for everybody and you will only associate with people that share them unquestioningly because if they don't it "reflects very negatively on that person" and their views can't even be imagined?

OK, sure, crusade away against people that imagine differently than you. And there must be more of them than you imagine, because there are a lot of fictional rapists .

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.

"Walk away from this table. Right now. You're not welcome here."

That would be the entirety of my response. If you're generous, make it absolutely clear he has this ONE warning, and if he ever tries anything like that again, he's gone for good.

All these responses of in-game solutions are completely missing the point. This is a PLAYER problem, not a CHARACTER problem. At my table there would be no need for an in-game solution, because the character wouldn't do what the player is saying. The game would come to a screeching halt while the player was reprimanded, and if he responded the same way yours did, he would be thrown out of my house.

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.

"Walk away from this table. Right now. You're not welcome here."

That would be the entirety of my response. If you're generous, make it absolutely clear he has this ONE warning, and if he ever tries anything like that again, he's gone for good.

All these responses of in-game solutions are completely missing the point. This is a PLAYER problem, not a CHARACTER problem. At my table there would be no need for an in-game solution, because the character wouldn't do what the player is saying. The game would come to a screeching halt while the player was reprimanded, and if he responded the same way yours did, he would be thrown out of my house.

I pretty much agree with this, but I'd give the guy a shot to explain himself. Everyone deserves that. His explanation was garbage though. Being a kid, however, I'd have to use it as a teaching moment and explain to him that sexual violence is never okay or justified. I'd redirect and talk to him after stuff got resolved because I assume that he's someone that you generally value as a human being and don't want to remove from your life completely. If he was a 40 year old I'd be more inclined to excise him than a teenager, because while a young person can learn from this and become a better human being an older person already has a pretty established worldview and isn't going to change, and lecturing them will just lead to an even uglier scene.

This conversation again stresses the importance of Session Zero and setting some ground rules. Some things are just not going to be okay at the table and assuming everyone has the same sensitivities and proclivities is not going to solve the problem. Telling people they've violated unspoken rules isn't really going to work either and there's no "One True Set" of rules for the gaming table. We cannot assume that everyone is the same.

Sexual violence being a no no is something that shouldn't need a rule, it's common decency. I wouldn't play with a person who thought it was cool, so it's a non issue for my group and always will be. It needs not be spoken because we'd all be saying "wtf" if someone said they planned to **** an npc. It's pointless and serves no purpose in a Star Wars RPG anyhow. It's dispicable, even in a fictional shared narrative world. There are some things our culture looks down upon when it comes to entertainment more than others, and sexual violence is on the tippy top of that range, as it should be. A player deciding to **** an npc reflects very negatively on that person and I wouldn't have it in my game and for no other reason because I'm not going to sit there and participate in it and imagine it. Wouldn't need a rule banning people from reading narrative porn at the gaming table either, but again it's not going to happen as long as you don't play with creeps that don't share your values. Maybe I'm fortunate in that my friends are all good human beings with a solid moral center, but I wouldn't associate with anyone who didn't.

If someone wants to satisfy their sexual desires there are websites that serve that purpose much better than my gaming table.

So your views are the only right ones for everybody and you will only associate with people that share them unquestioningly because if they don't it "reflects very negatively on that person" and their views can't even be imagined?

OK, sure, crusade away against people that imagine differently than you. And there must be more of them than you imagine, because there are a lot of fictional rapists .

No, I think you are missing the point. I have zero issue with fictional rapists: I have issue with rapists as protagonists and wouldn't put up with them in my game.

Everyone's entitled to their views and opinions. And yes, I wouldn't associate with people who think sexual violence is fun. No way, no how. No thanks. And yes, people who think **** is cool and fun are reprehensible human beings.

So your views are the only right ones for everybody and you will only associate with people that share them unquestioningly because if they don't it "reflects very negatively on that person" and their views can't even be imagined?

OK, sure, crusade away against people that imagine differently than you. And there must be more of them than you imagine, because there are a lot of fictional rapists .

Ok, first off, there's a difference between having a difference of opinion on a trivial subject, in which case kicking someone out of your group is probably an overreaction, versus a difference of opinion on a sensitive topic. A player wanting to roleplay this story is absolutely something that would prevent me from wanting to play with them again, or likely even socialize with them. That's not a crusade, that's a personal choice.

Secondly, surely you must recognize the difference between writing a narrative for a novel or film that includes a rapist (usually in antagonistic role), and the personalized and collaborative narrative of an RPG. I'm of the opinion that rapists are already overused and sensationalized in fiction, and sexual violence isn't something you should introduce to an escapist narrative unless it's clear to everyone that they're buying into something that will deal with that subject. Enough people have direct and indirect experiences with it that you are at high risk of, at least, destroying someone's enjoyment of their entertainment, and at worst reexposing them to trauma.

And in an RP, it's not happening to, or being done by, "a" character, that you may have some attachment to, like Game of Thrones, but to "my" character, or by "your" character, which makes the experience even more personal.

And lastly, someone roleplaying sexual violence, in a situation where others haven't explicitly consented, for fun, is absolutely something I intend to be intolerant of. I agree that I hope this is a learning experience for a young person who gets to develop more mature attitudes to sexual violence, but I think you're out of line for criticizing someone for not being tolerant of that attitude. Race and sexuality are things to be tolerant of; racism and sexism (for example) are not. Even in a tolerant society, not everything gets tolerated equally.

I'm perfectly okay with this, it's a game. Sure the Hutt would get medieval on some ass as is justifiable.

I agree that this is a player issue, not a character issue. I also think the various responses here demonstrate that there in not necessarily a right or wrong way to deal with it. I had a similar issue with a player several years ago. During one of our games, the player took a description of torture (which shouldn't have occurred at all) to a level the other players (and I as GM) deemed inappropriate. This came as a surprise because the player didn't normally behave this way. After the game ended, I talked to him about it and he was rather belligerent about how he thought the action was fine and how we were making a mountain out of a molehill. That almost got him expelled from our games on principle. After talking to him again a few weeks later, he told me he had been dealing with some fairly serious family problems. After apologizing, he was able to return to our table.

I think this shows a set of 'ground rules' in session 0 as it were, would have prevented this (at least in my situation anyway) from occurring. Not everyone is the same. Not every table or game is the same. Letting the players know from the beginning what is and is not acceptable would have stopped these situations from occurring (at least in my opinion). YMMV.

This conversation again stresses the importance of Session Zero and setting some ground rules. Some things are just not going to be okay at the table and assuming everyone has the same sensitivities and proclivities is not going to solve the problem. Telling people they've violated unspoken rules isn't really going to work either and there's no "One True Set" of rules for the gaming table. We cannot assume that everyone is the same.

Sexual violence being a no no is something that shouldn't need a rule, it's common decency. I wouldn't play with a person who thought it was cool, so it's a non issue for my group and always will be. It needs not be spoken because we'd all be saying "wtf" if someone said they planned to **** an npc. It's pointless and serves no purpose in a Star Wars RPG anyhow. It's dispicable, even in a fictional shared narrative world. There are some things our culture looks down upon when it comes to entertainment more than others, and sexual violence is on the tippy top of that range, as it should be. A player deciding to **** an npc reflects very negatively on that person and I wouldn't have it in my game and for no other reason because I'm not going to sit there and participate in it and imagine it. Wouldn't need a rule banning people from reading narrative porn at the gaming table either, but again it's not going to happen as long as you don't play with creeps that don't share your values. Maybe I'm fortunate in that my friends are all good human beings with a solid moral center, but I wouldn't associate with anyone who didn't.

If someone wants to satisfy their sexual desires there are websites that serve that purpose much better than my gaming table.

So your views are the only right ones for everybody and you will only associate with people that share them unquestioningly because if they don't it "reflects very negatively on that person" and their views can't even be imagined?

OK, sure, crusade away against people that imagine differently than you. And there must be more of them than you imagine, because there are a lot of fictional rapists .

No, I think you are missing the point. I have zero issue with fictional rapists: I have issue with rapists as protagonists and wouldn't put up with them in my game.

Everyone's entitled to their views and opinions. And yes, I wouldn't associate with people who think sexual violence is fun. No way, no how. No thanks. And yes, people who think **** is cool and fun are reprehensible human beings.

So you're declaring them your Basket of Deplorables?

This conversation again stresses the importance of Session Zero and setting some ground rules. Some things are just not going to be okay at the table and assuming everyone has the same sensitivities and proclivities is not going to solve the problem. Telling people they've violated unspoken rules isn't really going to work either and there's no "One True Set" of rules for the gaming table. We cannot assume that everyone is the same.

Sexual violence being a no no is something that shouldn't need a rule, it's common decency. I wouldn't play with a person who thought it was cool, so it's a non issue for my group and always will be. It needs not be spoken because we'd all be saying "wtf" if someone said they planned to **** an npc. It's pointless and serves no purpose in a Star Wars RPG anyhow. It's dispicable, even in a fictional shared narrative world. There are some things our culture looks down upon when it comes to entertainment more than others, and sexual violence is on the tippy top of that range, as it should be. A player deciding to **** an npc reflects very negatively on that person and I wouldn't have it in my game and for no other reason because I'm not going to sit there and participate in it and imagine it. Wouldn't need a rule banning people from reading narrative porn at the gaming table either, but again it's not going to happen as long as you don't play with creeps that don't share your values. Maybe I'm fortunate in that my friends are all good human beings with a solid moral center, but I wouldn't associate with anyone who didn't.

If someone wants to satisfy their sexual desires there are websites that serve that purpose much better than my gaming table.

So your views are the only right ones for everybody and you will only associate with people that share them unquestioningly because if they don't it "reflects very negatively on that person" and their views can't even be imagined?

OK, sure, crusade away against people that imagine differently than you. And there must be more of them than you imagine, because there are a lot of fictional rapists .

No, I think you are missing the point. I have zero issue with fictional rapists: I have issue with rapists as protagonists and wouldn't put up with them in my game.

Everyone's entitled to their views and opinions. And yes, I wouldn't associate with people who think sexual violence is fun. No way, no how. No thanks. And yes, people who think **** is cool and fun are reprehensible human beings.

So you're declaring them your Basket of Deplorables?

I'm done with this conversation. Can't believe it's even a debate. Enjoy.