Restructure or Status Quo

[Endelyon]

Get rid of the PG13 rule ((WOOO!)).

As taken from the PG rules page itself:

Beyond that, though, this server, the forums, and any interactions within them should be the equivalent of PG-13/Teen at most. No violations of this rule, not even within the privacy of an inn room or guild hall. This includes, but is not limited to, excessive vulgarity, gratuitous violence/torture.

And as mentioned above: Slavery.

These four underlined subjects by themselves ruin Underdark RP when they are banned. Because Underdark lore revolves around a lot of these subjects.

Note the qualifiers "excessive" and "gratuitous." These types of RP aren't prohibited, they're banned only in excess or in graphic detail. The slavery thing came along later, I can't remember off the top of my head what the arguments for it were at the time. What we used to advise people in the past was just to use the terms "servant" instead of slave, but the goalposts have shifted some and I get the feeling that would be frowned upon now (if not outright disallowed) if the master/servant relationship was implied to not be consensual because it's a subject that makes people uncomfortable.

The last one's tricky because I agree it's definitely part of drow society and I don't have a good answer for it.

As far as the first two, we realistically just aren't going to move towards allowing more graphic RP (be it of a violent or sexual nature) because that's not what players want despite you asserting it is. Every time one of those PG-13/ERP threads gets opened I get a bunch of people sending me messages thanking me for keeping the status quo, as I suspect I will after denouncing it here once more. Not that there is zero other sentiment besides yourself in that camp. If I had to estimate I'd say it's like, 75% of people don't want it, 25% of people do. Not everyone, but a clear majority have indicated that they want us to continue to disallow these forms of RP.

Underdark RP has thrived at multiple points in our server history despite these limitations being in place (with only the slavery one being more recent) since I can remember. I don't think the rules are the problem currently any more than they were back then. Not that I'm telling you a problem doesn't exist, either, I just don't think opening up the server to a more explicit rating is the solution to fixing it.

[DM SummerBreeze]

On the slavery thing, i'll be blunt:

It was banned because people used it as an excuse to turn certain areas of the server into an ERP fest and some of that RP made other players wildly uncomfortable (Me among them, at the time.). It was banned due to the actions of a number of players both in and out of the UD, so definitely a case of "a few bad apples ruined it for everyone" but it wasn't even the first time this became a problem, and if we allowed it again, it would, I have no doubt, happen again.

Endy is right in that the majority of folks I think see this place as a standout in that it doesn't lean into ERP or gratuitous adult themes. A lot of RP communities, whether it be on NWN2, NWN1, or Conan, all tend to skew towards the "adult" and end up being outlets for a lot of weird erotic fantasies. It's honestly quite nice that BG is not one of those places and i'd personally hate seeing it devolve into such.

[Tekill]

My mother went with me to a Police Academy movie once when I was about 11ish. I enjoyed it very much and I got to see boobies. Although it was a bit embarrassing/awkward seeing said boobies with my mother right beside me.

Maybe the server should be rated LG13?

I think we have come full circle again. And this is why the answer to my question is a definate and hard, Status Quo.
We even got an explanation for this answer. It is because we are meant to follow the rules. We are not meant to continually question them. And we are certainly not meant to change them.

We are not following the rules when we assume we could come together and start thinking of ways to help out the DM team with their very difficult job.

Hey I listen and I understand- it's your ball.
And, you are very gracious for letting us play with it. Even on your terms. Hey, your terms are pretty good!

Being the big nerd that I am, I have played a lot of RPG's. Each of them had their own flavour and rules. Some were better than others. I enjoyed most of them to one degree or another. This is just that.

I happen to like the campfire!

[Rinzler]

As someone who almost exclusively plays in the Underdark, not having PC slaves is the least of its problems. To me, NPC slaves are fine and I also don’t think the PG13 rule is why evil struggles in this community.

That said, it’s kind of funny to me that a Han Solo / Chewbacca type relationship would also likely be prohibited by server rules.

[Zar'shalee]

On the slavery thing, i'll be blunt:

It was banned because people used it as an excuse to turn certain areas of the server into an ERP fest and some of that RP made other players wildly uncomfortable (Me among them, at the time.). It was banned due to the actions of a number of players both in and out of the UD, so definitely a case of "a few bad apples ruined it for everyone" but it wasn't even the first time this became a problem, and if we allowed it again, it would, I have no doubt, happen again.

Endy is right in that the majority of folks I think see this place as a standout in that it doesn't lean into ERP or gratuitous adult themes. A lot of RP communities, whether it be on NWN2, NWN1, or Conan, all tend to skew towards the "adult" and end up being outlets for a lot of weird erotic fantasies. It's honestly quite nice that BG is not one of those places and i'd personally hate seeing it devolve into such.

I was not talking about allowing ERP. But about allowing consentual slavery for PCs. Sorry but mindset of: slavery = ERP is unmature, 12 year old thought process, full of nothing but blind prejudice.

[DaloLorn]

On the slavery thing, i'll be blunt:

It was banned because people used it as an excuse to turn certain areas of the server into an ERP fest and some of that RP made other players wildly uncomfortable (Me among them, at the time.). It was banned due to the actions of a number of players both in and out of the UD, so definitely a case of "a few bad apples ruined it for everyone" but it wasn't even the first time this became a problem, and if we allowed it again, it would, I have no doubt, happen again.

Endy is right in that the majority of folks I think see this place as a standout in that it doesn't lean into ERP or gratuitous adult themes. A lot of RP communities, whether it be on NWN2, NWN1, or Conan, all tend to skew towards the "adult" and end up being outlets for a lot of weird erotic fantasies. It's honestly quite nice that BG is not one of those places and i'd personally hate seeing it devolve into such.

While I agree with Rinzler's subsequent post, I just couldn't help commenting: Do the server rules not have a separate prohibition on ERP? The way you describe it, it's as if the rule was added... what, because the existing rules weren't being enforced? Seems redundant.

That said, I remember from previous discussions that there are less-redundant reasons for the slavery ban. Almarea has usually described those reasons quite nicely, but I can't remember where she last did it, so I can't link to it.

That said, it’s kind of funny to me that a Han Solo / Chewbacca type relationship would also likely be prohibited by server rules.

Why would you think a Han-Chewbacca relationship would be prohibited? No matter which continuity you look at, Chewie's ongoing association with Han is strictly voluntary - at worst, it's demanded by the Wookiee honor code, but if we started objecting to that, then we'd have to object to the existence of paladins! They're honorbound to serve their gods until death, and highly unlikely to even leave whichever knightly orders they might join along the way.

[Almarea90]

Personally, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to consensual slavery idea as long as the two points below are enforced:

a) Any abuse of the concession used for ERP and/or violation of the existing rules is to be crushed with extreme prejudice.

B) This is allowed only with characters created -specifically- for this purpose, forbidding enslavement of existing characters as consensual as it might be. The reason being: if someone asks me "wanna play slave" I'm going to say "no thanks mate". Certain players on the other hand might feel pressured and say yes. Not to mention that a new player might not even know or understand that they can say no. If that had happened when I first started I would have probably been one of those. As much as we like to say it is up to the person to say no, in many cases this is a skill acquired with time and not something that comes easy to everyone.

[Zar'shalee]

B) This is allowed only with characters created -specifically- for this purpose, forbidding enslavement of existing characters as consensual as it might be. The reason being: if someone asks me "wanna play slave" I'm going to say "no thanks mate". Certain players on the other hand might feel pressured and say yes. Not to mention that a new player might not even know or understand that they can say no. If that had happened when I first started I would have probably been one of those. As much as we like to say it is up to the person to say no, in many cases this is a skill acquired with time and not something that comes easy to everyone.

I am starting to be rather confused here. Getting your character enslaved (with consent ofc). Should be the way for people to step out of their comfort zone and motivate new RP, and meet new people and characters and make their current story even deeper. Slavery is not a permanent thing, slaves can be bought, freed or they can escape. I believe that nobody who plays here wants deliberately to make others feel miserable and uncomfortable and if yes these cases should be judged individually.

Please, lets not get ourselves into: "what if this" "what if that" otherwise nothing will change.

Everything I see in previous posts is: "10 years ago someone did something bad so we banned slavery as whole" - instead judging person who actually f**ked up. Previous admin team implemented collective guit upon everyone. Perfect

And you are still being surprised why community of 30 people is segregated into smaller groups who are barely tolerating each other. Why some people hold grudges literally years old. Why some players feels like being bystanders.

Yes, it is not about slavery, but I think it provided perfect probe into much wider problematics and hopefully something to think about.

[Louvaine]

To be fair, many rules are still a thing because of something called peer pressure. I'm not against slavery, or ERP for that matter (we all know it happens, whether IG or on Discord), but I can easily imagine how someone might be pressured into consent. The very same thing can happen with PvP. It is a valid concern.

As for Tekill's statement about questioning the rules, I do have to point out that recently Church of Shar had been told they are breaking rules of naming themselves under disguise. I won't go into details here - what I can say is that I personally have spoken to DM Team and asked for clarification or change of the rules. In the end, the rule was changed (you can see it now implemented!) and while I disagree with DM's decision, my concerns were listened to and acted upon to avoid further confusion. Talking does work. I don't know if we have quite mastered the way to talk. For example, SummberBreeze had recently commented on how he isn't keen on reading number of pages of a thread (I can't remember the exact wording, don't crucify me). I cannot blame SB here. It's too much, regardless of who you are and what your role in community is. These threads might not be the best way to communicate. I don't know what is a better way. For the specific ruling on disguise name changes, PM to DM Team worked just fine.

[Rinzler]

Why would you think a Han-Chewbacca relationship would be prohibited? No matter which continuity you look at, Chewie's ongoing association with Han is strictly voluntary - at worst, it's demanded by the Wookiee honor code, but if we started objecting to that, then we'd have to object to the existence of paladins! They're honorbound to serve their gods until death, and highly unlikely to even leave whichever knightly orders they might join along the way.

Technically, Chewie has a “life debt” to Han which could be interpreted as slavery. If not, voila, we might’ve just found a loophole for people who are hung up about slavery.

[BloodRiot]

Chewie's life debt is being beholden to another by virtue of it's code of honor, not by will and enforcement of the person he's beholden to. Solo does not restrict Chewbacca and Chewbacca would probably not leave Solo if the code didn't not compel him to. It's a bad example.

A better example would be Zaalbar if PC Revan goes down the dark side path where in the end he is forced against his will by his code to slay the dissenting comrades with one of them being his closest friend. Though i suppose that will teach him to offer a life debt for such a comparatively simple save early in the game. Anyway I digress.

On point I too have no interest in either side of the slavery gameplay. And I definitely care even less for ERP. But Dalo hit the nail with his "ERP is already against the rules therefore redundancy". Also a lot of these rules end up throwing the baby out with the bath water. We are nor so many that any rule breaker is not immedeately apparent and can be dealt with. People being pressured into something they don't want is also already ruled against by constituting harassment. So a player wanting to force another into ERP is already breaking too rules whether it involves slavery or not.

This leads me to another final point regarding this sort of ruling. If I were a betting man, i'd wager the collective population of the server is probably over 40 years old average. I would also be very surprised if we had any minors in our midst. So in essence we are a bunch of 40+ year olds on average that can't handle fictional bad things happening and we are bound to saturday morning cartoon themes and depictions. This effectively makes a lot of the stories and book on faerun, which includes but not limited to drizzt's origin story for one, would be off limits to our server.

[DaloLorn]

Why would you think a Han-Chewbacca relationship would be prohibited? No matter which continuity you look at, Chewie's ongoing association with Han is strictly voluntary - at worst, it's demanded by the Wookiee honor code, but if we started objecting to that, then we'd have to object to the existence of paladins! They're honorbound to serve their gods until death, and highly unlikely to even leave whichever knightly orders they might join along the way.

Technically, Chewie has a “life debt” to Han which could be interpreted as slavery. If not, voila, we might’ve just found a loophole for people who are hung up about slavery.

It's still a strictly voluntary service, no different from that of a paladin or cleric to a god. Only his honor binds him to Han, and we see in KotOR that a life debt does not constitute unlimited coercion: Zaalbar essentially needs to be dominated into serving a darkside Revan (though admittedly only because it requires killing Mission, one of the only acts he considers worse than dishonoring himself), and Hanharr is so twisted that he turns it into a directive to kill whoever saves his life.

The slavery rule prohibits ongoing coercion with few or no practical limits, such as indentured servitude or actual slavery. It doesn't prohibit a PC from voluntarily swearing fealty to a character for any reason, precisely because this loyalty can be limited and even rescinded outright. Granted, things do automatically get problematic if you call yourself a slave regardless of the specifics of your relationship, but I interpret this as an effort to cut down on the amount of gray areas that a player might wander into, both for the player's protection and lightening the DMs' workload.

A better example would be Zaalbar if PC Revan goes down the dark side path where in the end he is forced against his will by his code to slay the dissenting comrades with one of them being his closest friend. Though i suppose that will teach him to offer a life debt for such a comparatively simple save early in the game. Anyway I digress.

You beat me to the actual posting here, but I will reiterate that you need to seriously screw with his mind to enforce the debt. His prior loyalty and code of honor provided an opening for Revan to bend him to his will, but they weren't enough in and of themselves, and when he snaps out of it, he does not hesitate to attack Revan.

This leads me to another final point regarding this sort of ruling. If I were a betting man, i'd wager the collective population of the server is probably over 40 years old average. I would also be very surprised if we had any minors in our midst. So in essence we are a bunch of 40+ year olds on average that can't handle fictional bad things happening and we are bound to saturday morning cartoon themes and depictions. This effectively makes a lot of the stories and book on faerun, which includes but not limited to drizzt's origin story for one, would be off limits to our server.

21 or 22 as of the time I joined, turned 26 just over a month ago. Shadowspinner was under 18, possibly under 13 (I can't remember anymore), though this only came to light precisely because players around her(?) were trying to violate the ERP rules.

[metaquad4]

Re; PG-13. The rating system is more about euphemisms than actually hiding themes. I do actually believe you can do most things (and for the very few couple things you can't, there are other mediums adjacent to BG that thus won't violate the rules).

I've seen gore, blood, viscera, language, etc (by both DMs and players). I've myself RPed downright brutal stuff, and I'm glad I'm able to!

I'm of the opinion that:
1) PG-13 exists to ban ERP from taking place in game (relegating peeps to Discord/Haven alts instead basically). That is fine, it doesn't really change much for the ERP-inclined and it hides it from view for the non-ERP-inclined. (One might go a step further and say this is just a product of the "violence is OK but sex is bad" part of judeo-christian culture)
and
2) PG-13 exists as a means for DMs to punish specific activity (basically it is relatively unenforced until someone -wants- to enforce it, then it is there as a tool to use).

As for slavery well:
1) Indentured servitude! The classic. You owe something and provide service for that thing.
2) "It isn't slavery, I love my captor or my captor is good for me" - stockhole syndrome taken to the extreme, etc.
3) Some sort of lawfully-inclined service (contracts, oaths, etc.).

All 3 can effectively be the exact same as slavery. Basically you can have slavery just without the "word" slavery. A euphemism.

As far as I understand, PG-13 was just put in one day to the server (maybe as a legal cover-your-ass?) because an Admin wanted someone related to them (who was underage) to be able to play way back in the day. It has no real practical bearing on server activity. Though that could be wrong - that is just what I understand the history of the rule to be.

So yeah. I guess I can understand the perspective that it might as well not exist. It isn't exactly a "real" rule. I guess at the end of the day, it is a similar "psudeo-unenforced" rule as most police have? You have a rule that you pull out to punish someone who you feel is breaking another rule but you don't have exact evidence. So you pull out the PG-13 rule and use it. That is how I see it, anyway. From a rule-design perspective, that makes sense to me.

[BloodRiot]

Honestly, I think it's more important to be respectful and mature about the subjects. It needs to have a purpose other than for it's own sake. But overall I utterly despise euphemisms and talking like there's an underage kid in the room. Just because I'm allowed to say (do-me)!, doesn't mean ill be using it without purpose, excessively in substitution of a comma. I do not like being infantilized, I do not like infantilizing adults either.

There is also the matter of time and place. I am fairly sure no one expects to enter a church of a lawful good deity and see the priests there cursing like sailors, ...but I do expect that in Roaring Shore or at Baldur's Gate docks for instance. I do not expect to find slavery a prevalent thing in Baldur's Gate, due to lore, very limited slavery in Sshamath. I however fully expect to see slaves in a proper-to-lore Drow city.

If I go to Menzoberranzan and I see the Matrons there organizing bake sales and tea parties it's gonna put me off tremendously. And it's not that I want to roleplay extremely gory torture porn scenes. I don't even care to play the slavery on either side of it either. But if I travel to Menzoberranzan, or Thay I will at least EXPECT to see it as a prevalent thing because by lore IT IS. If some people have objection to such themes, fine sure, that's legitimate. Please do not go in the server where that is practiced instead of wanting the server to compromise it's lore integrity and themes to appease your own sensibilities. Any more than it would be acceptable for drow to walk openly in Baldur's Gate proper.

[TheBorderPrince]

I agree. PG-13 serves no purpose, just limits the narrative (especially for us on S2 ). Avoiding ERP is a valid point (by which I mean I can understand why it is there, personally i don't give a damn that way or another), but the thing is it can be banned as a separate thing and not in a package deal with tons of other stuff.