Consent Flag

[Pheonix]

What do players think about adding a 'change consent' flag, so we don't have to keep consenting for certain common (for you mudsexx0rs) scenes such as sexual or torture?

The default could be consent required for all, and the player can have the option of adding what they don't require consent on such as mild sexual/graphic torture emotes. Then, if someone wants to check for consent, they don't have to interupt the scene if unnecessary and just type 'consent' or something and it'll show what sorts of consent flags players in the room have.

Too complicated? Unnecessary? Thoughts?

[Qzzrbl]

Some may think too complicated-- others may think unnecessary....

But I know I'd use it.

[Pheonix]

Just another thought while rereading this, but perhaps be able to direct a consent request to individual players using keywords instead of using OOC.

I just find it really jarring at times when consent is needed and cuts into the middle of an intense scene, or when there's 4+ players that all need to use OOC for it. There's ways to minimize this, but removing or lessening the need for the interruption altogether would be great.

[Qzzrbl]

It also kills it when you OOC for consent to rape before even instigating rape.

[WagonsHo]

It would also avoid all the TERRIBLE DRAMAZ alluded to in the prostitution thread. 

[WWYD]

I don't think it's very necessary. At the very least, I think it'd have an unfortunately negative impact on the game, such as people forming cliqueish "omfg, she doesn't wanna RP teh sexzors? I'm not gonna RP with you" attitudes, and likely lead to OOCly-influenced decisions. I've always found people to be good about use of OOC for consent, anyway - it rarely, if ever, takes more then thirty seconds for everyone to say yea or nay.

[spawnloser]

People could be in the mood one day and not the next while forgetting to turn the flag off.  This would be an unacceptable situation, in my mind.  This idea has been brought up before and I oppose it now as I did in the past.

[Samira]

People could be in the mood one day and not the next while forgetting to turn the flag off.  This would be an unacceptable situation, in my mind.  This idea has been brought up before and I oppose it now as I did in the past.

Seconded.

[Incognito]

The main reason why I would not deem this as a necessary implementation - is that your PC might want to consent to certain PCs and not to others.

i.e. - my PC might consent to graphic sex with his/her mate, but at the same time, might not consent to rape and torture and sexual advances from OTHER PCs.

Having a blanket flag - would definitely be problematic in such scenarios.

[Cutthroat]

The current system works because of the fact that it demands immediate player input upon the formation of a given IC situation. If all of this was decided ahead of time, players would RP certain things with certain players and not RP certain things with other players, regardless of whether their character actually would. So, no, we don't need a consent flag.

[Mazy]

I liked that Armageddon has a consent rule now. I like that Armageddon allows graphic content, since it adds to the harsh realities of the setting. I don't like the idea of flags that would just scream, "torture me pls!"

Keep in mind that graphic scenes can vary wildly, too. Some scenerios are worse than others.

I've wondered if a buglar hidden under the bed ever:
>ooc no I'd rather not see that

Or if someone accidently walked while a templar was torturing someone in public, and due to busstling spam or a heedless emote was not able to ask for consent.

Either way, a fraction of OOC shouldn't kill the RP
Unless it goes like this:
the tall, muscular man OOCs:
"consent to rape?"
the curvaceous maiden OOCs:
"Jack the Ripper or Mike Tyson style?"
the tall, muscular man OOCs:
"whats tyson style?"
the curvaceous maiden OOCs:
"Hm. You have your way and then face the consequences."
the tall, muscular man OOCs:
"o defantly ripper style then"  

[Qzzrbl]

It really sucks to ask for consent to rape....

Because they're more than likely gonna say no, and they're gonna peg your character for a rapist, etc., etc., etc., subliminal OOC crap, etc.

[AmandaGreathouse]

If nothing else, I think it would be nice to have a 'consent to rape' flag, since that's a really good point, Qzzrbl makes. I would pretty much always consent to it, but then I'm hardcore like that. The only time I ever want to fade, really, is due to time constraints, and that's with rape/torture/maiming. With sex, I like to fade when it's not the first time or something particularly unique, just because of the time typically involved, not because I mind seeing it. But in a situation where consent is required to even begin pursuing a plotline, but it's something so OOCly controversial, I think a consent flag would be great. After all, you can always ask to fade the actual scene when/if it happens, if you consent to the plotline.

+1 for the rape consent flag.
I like the other flags idea, too, but would want to see something where you could possibly note it or target consent to specific characters /vs all characters, etc etc.

[Akaramu]

I would also agree to a rape consent flag - as long as it simply indicates consent for the deed to happen, as part of a plot, but not intent to emote it out. It has never happened to any of my characters and I only ever heard of it happening to another PC once - but realistically, it should be quite common. Personally, I think there are much worse things that can happen in Zalanthas than rape - including some things that some NPCs do. Some of that stuff could give me nightmares. A faded rape scene likely would not.

[Niamh]

From a code standpoint, how would other players know whether or not another has this consent flag toggled on or off, and for what types of activities?

[netflix]

From a code standpoint, how would other players know whether or not another has this consent flag toggled on or off, and for what types of activities?

Something that could be checked with an assses -v I suppose. But I think the trouble would come in that there are multiple situations that require consent and some people may be alright with some, but not with others. And that would require -multiple- consent flags, which I think is reaching the point that it'd become more trouble then it's worth.

[Pheonix]

I was thinking something like the current 'who' command, but only applicable to those PCs currently in the same room?

While I can understand the arguments against some of the flags, players can always keep it on the default (requiring consent as it currently is) while other players can make use of the different options if they choose to.

[brytta.leofa]

I don't really think this is a good idea, but...

> consent
You previously elected to consent to graphic torture, moderate sexual situations, and no sexual abuse.
To remove all consent, type: consent none
To change your options, type: consent [torture|sex|abuse] [none|moderate|graphic]

> consent check
Everyone visible to you consents to at least: moderate torture, no sexual situations, and no sexual abuse.

When you type "consent check," other players in the room will receive the following message (with certain exceptions):
The tall, muscular man's player wishes to know everyone's consent preferences.
You previously elected to consent to graphic torture, moderate sexual situations, and no sexual abuse.
To remove all consent, type: consent none
To change your options, type: consent [torture|sex|abuse] [none|moderate|graphic]

However, folks won't receive that message more than once every three hours (logout time included).

45 seconds after you type "consent check," if the net consent status of people visible to you in the room has changed, you will be notified:
Everyone visible to you now consents to at least: no torture, no sexual situations, and no sexual abuse.

If you're invisible or hidden and someone types "consent check," your consent status will not be reported. However, you will ALWAYS get the following message:
The tall, muscular man's player wishes to know everyone's consent preferences.
Because you are [hidden|invisible], your consent preferences will not be reported to this player. 
If you want your preferences to be considered, type "consent tally" immediately.
You previously elected to consent to graphic torture, moderate sexual situations, and no sexual abuse.
To remove all consent, type: consent none
To change your options, type: consent [torture|sex|abuse] [none|moderate|graphic]

[Lizzie]

Consent, and denial of consent, should never be left to automation. If a game requires consent, it should require *active* consent, or *active* denial of consent. Otherwise, don't bother having the rule at all.

[deviant storm]

I really don't care for the thought of flags. Every situation is different. Where I might consent to one scene doesn't mean I want to be everyone's victim.

I dislike the thought of it also because there will be people who look at the consent flag on someone and make preconceived notions based upon that. Some will oocly judge you for what your character is or is not willing to do. It might influence the rp in one way or another, based on preconceived notions.

I don't see any harm in asking if the story leads to that point where torture/rape/sex is a posibility. We're players, people, what's wrong with remembering that once in a while?

[spawnloser]

If you can see what someone has consented to before initiating a scene, that would subliminally affect your handling of the scene long before you would ask for consent.  Again, I must oppose this idea.

[Malifaxis]

Syntax:

consent
What would you like to consent to?  Choose:
   graphic violence
   torture
   rape
   dismemberment
   all

consent on rape
You are now consenting to rape.

consent off dismemberment.
You are not consenting to dismemberment, and will notify anyone who checks consent room.

consent status
You are consenting to rape, and are not consenting to dismemberment.

consent room
The dapper, long-schlonged man is consenting to all.
The one-eyed, slender man is consenting to rape, torture, and is AGAINST dismemberment.
The buxom, hard-nosed templar is consenting to torture, graphic violence and is AGAINST rape.

[brytta.leofa]

consent room
The dapper, long-winded man is consenting to all.
The one-eyed, slender man is consenting to rape, torture, and is AGAINST dismemberment.
The buxom, hard-nosed templar is consenting to torture, graphic violence and is AGAINST rape.

You really don't need to know who consents to what; you only need to know the maximum mutually consented to.

[Malifaxis]

consent room
The dapper, long-winded man is consenting to all.
The one-eyed, slender man is consenting to rape, torture, and is AGAINST dismemberment.
The buxom, hard-nosed templar is consenting to torture, graphic violence and is AGAINST rape.

You really don't need to know who consents to what; you only need to know the maximum mutually consented to.

True, but knowing what each person's limits are would allow you to tailor the scene specifically.  *shrug*

[Sephiroto]

I consent to all things all the time out of a matter of principle.  Give me a flag!

[boog]

I consent to all things all the time out of a matter of principle.  Give me a flag!

This. But probably because I'm mentally fucked up somehow. I just think it really stretches my writing skills to have different situations offered to me. Like random writing topics in English classes.

Perhaps there should be a flag for people who are more queasy about it, rather than those who openly consent to any sort of situation and wish to play it out? Me, personally, if I'm going to consent, I'm going to probably consent all out. It'd be silly to OOCly ask for an okay, only then for the player to all of a sudden (unless it was a RL emergency or their spouse was reading or something, harr) cop out after being sliced, impaled, whatever'd, up.

flag consent FTB
You have now been flagged to make all graphic scenes of violence, torture, rape and otherwise fade to black.

[Barzalene]

The reason the consent rule is in place is to protect players from being disturbed by situations that take them out of there comfort zone. If you are not disturbed that is nice. I would rather incovience you with inconvient consent conversation, than risk a flag misunderstanding causing someone emotional pain.

[valeria]

I don't really think this is a good idea, but...

stuff

No offense intended toward an idea that was very well put together.  However, I would find this even MORE immersion breaking than a simple 'OOC Consent guyz?'  But then, I don't have any problem with the way it works currently.  ANY way for me to be checking someone's OOC preferences is going to break my immersion.  And the way it is, makes it so that you can take into account all kinds of variables before you decide to consent to a specific scene, without people just assuming it's okay to tear your eye out and eat it because you forgot you had on 'consent to moderate torture'.  Which is very subjective anyway.

[Sephiroto]

I don't think it is an issue so much with breaking immersion, but with the fact that consent convos are personal and jarring in comparison to coded checks.  I liken a coded consent check to checking your stat or score and don't see it as a bad thing.  I give kudos to any reasonable feature that helps players avoid OOC communication during roleplay, even if it doesn't cover all cases.

Personally, I don't get involved in those situations often at all, but I'd love to waive my consent automatically so that the "ooc" command never needs to be used in my regards if I ever happen into such a situation.  I understand that this isn't for everyone, particularly those who may change what they're comfortable with on a whim, but I think it shouldn't be hard to add a few lines of code to help out those who WANT to use such a feature.  So, you don't want to perma-waive consent...then don't.  You can always OOC whether or not there's a code, but you can't use a helpful code feature that doesn't exist.

[brytta.leofa]

Another...thing...about an automated solution is that you could ask users their birthday when they create an account, and then prevent them from giving certain types of consent until their volunteered age is above some threshold.

Just sayin'.

[brytta.leofa]

And then we could replace our accounts with Facebook Connect.

[Mazy]

The reason the consent rule is in place is to protect players from being disturbed by situations that take them out of there comfort zone. If you are not disturbed that is nice. I would rather incovience you with inconvient consent conversation, than risk a flag misunderstanding causing someone emotional pain.

I agree, but I also see where everyone else is coming from.  This is a bright and clever idea.

When reading the rules over again, I realize a bloody truth that this mud is hardcore, brutal, and generally unconcerned with the player's characters being abused. The little clause known as consent gives players the right to circumvent roleplaying some worst case scenerios which are a daily reality in the dark fantasy setting of Zalanthas. Yeah, it would be convinent for players to be able to view a consent flag. I still stand against flags, because it's basically the same as asking yet would give an obfuscating response. >consent all, in my opinion however, WOULD clearly state a person's stance, but if they run around with it on, it might encourage others to use this OOC tidbit to their advantage. Not only that, but consent flags themselves are an OOC interruption really. Consent settings are a good theoretical. In the end, you just can't please everyone, and you just can't rape everyone who isn't happy with you either.  

[Gobbleneck]

It could be easily abused.

Code Select Expand

>change ldesc is sitting here, naked
The tressy woman is sitting here, naked.

The tall muscular man has arrived from the south.
You notice the tall muscular man glance your way.

>Consent status
Your forced sexual consent is on.

The tall muscular man runs over to you, pulling his pants down.
The tall muscular man roars and grabs you!

>Consent 1 off
Your forced sexual consent is off.

The tall muscular rapes you.

>ooc I didn't have consent on

The tall muscular says in OOC: "WTF"

>ooc No I didn't.  Maybe I should send in a complaint.

You notice the tall muscular man glance your way.
The tall muscular man runs north.

[Mazy]

Gobbleneck understands my argument! <3

[Sephiroto]

Another idea:  "consent <type> <duration>" such as "consent sex on" or "consent torture 60" with 60 being the number of minutes if not permanantly turned off or on.  So, you consent for the given time then the option turns off at the expiration.

It could be easily abused.

Even the emote command can be abused....  As players we trust one another to regulate ourselves and act accordingly.  As I said before, this is an issue of principle to me.  We don't get to argue that we forgot to change "nosave fall/arrest/subdue", so I see no reason to get bent out of shape if someone is taken advantage of when they clearly flagged themselves as accepting of such.  At least with things like torture/rape/sex you can always OOC for it to stop, unlike hard-coded effects from having saves turned on/off.

If someone isn't reasonable to stop a situation after an OOC like "Please stop the rape now or FTB, I forgot to change my consent settings..." then no amount of OOCing or Flagging with regards to consent is going to stop them in the first place.

I see no reason to prevent the inclusion of a code mechanism that can help people because some people are uncomfortable with it due to the ebb and flow of what they're comfortable with.  If you don't want to accidentally get diddled while having a flag on, then don't use it in the first place, I say.

Anyway, I think I'll bow out after this final statement: I never want to use the OOC during gameplay with another PC unless there is no other way to fix something gone wrong or communicate necessary information.  Consent is one of the top reasons for the OOC command use during RP, aside from typo corrections and Helper'esque assistance to other players.  If staff can implement a tool to help avoid any of those three instances then I'm all for it and consent should be the easiest of these three to fix.

[AmandaGreathouse]

Another idea:  "consent <type> <duration>" such as "consent sex on" or "consent torture 60" with 60 being the number of minutes if not permanantly turned off or on.  So, you consent for the given time then the option turns off at the expiration.

It could be easily abused.

Even the emote command can be abused....  As players we trust one another to regulate ourselves and act accordingly.  As I said before, this is an issue of principle to me.  We don't get to argue that we forgot to change "nosave fall/arrest/subdue", so I see no reason to get bent out of shape if someone is taken advantage of when they clearly flagged themselves as accepting of such.  At least with things like torture/rape/sex you can always OOC for it to stop, unlike hard-coded effects from having saves turned on/off.

If someone isn't reasonable to stop a situation after an OOC like "Please stop the rape now or FTB, I forgot to change my consent settings..." then no amount of OOCing or Flagging with regards to consent is going to stop them in the first place.

I see no reason to prevent the inclusion of a code mechanism that can help people because some people are uncomfortable with it due to the ebb and flow of what they're comfortable with.  If you don't want to accidentally get diddled while having a flag on, then don't use it in the first place, I say.

Anyway, I think I'll bow out after this final statement: I never want to use the OOC during gameplay with another PC unless there is no other way to fix something gone wrong or communicate necessary information.  Consent is one of the top reasons for the OOC command use during RP, aside from typo corrections and Helper'esque assistance to other players.  If staff can implement a tool to help avoid any of those three instances then I'm all for it and consent should be the easiest of these three to fix.

Everything that Seph said. Also: Perhaps you could have something in there, where you could just type 'consent me' or 'consent <character's name>'. The first could set your consent to permanently on for one, two, or even all of the flags (permanent until manually changed), and the second would be a good thing for those who say 'Well, with some people I'd play out blahblahblah, but with other's, I'd rather not.'. You would, in theory, have your flags off for anyone who looked for it that wasn't included in the list of people you consented to.

[Delstro]

I would never give consent to some of you people, but others I will always consent to.

I would hate to autoconsent to every Tim, Dick, and Griefer.

[AmandaGreathouse]

I would never give consent to some of you people, but others I will always consent to.

I would hate to autoconsent to every Tim, Dick, and Griefer.

for those who say 'Well, with some people I'd play out blahblahblah, but with other's, I'd rather not.'. You would, in theory, have your flags off for anyone who looked for it that wasn't included in the list of people you consented to.

[Pale Horse]

New code, maybe?

Code Select Expand

>Consent me

You do not currently have any consent flags set.

>Change consent

Choose your consent flags: Rape, Torture, Mudsex, Extreme Violence

>Consent Torture

Your Torture consent flag has been set to On.

Do you want to add conditions to it?

>Yes

Please type in your conditions:

> Consent to "light", tastefully done torture emotes.  I will give an ooc warning when/if the scene starts to become too discomforting.

Your Torture conditions have been noted.

>Consent me

Your Torture flag is On, with conditions.

>Consent torture me

Consent to "light," tastefully done torture emotes.  I will give an ooc warning when/if the scene starts to become too discomforting.
>

Using "Consent Tressy" would bring up a view of the tressy-tressed woman's consent flags for the reader's eyes only, and maybe a date as to when the conditions were edited.  That way, if you are in an adult situation and see that they haven't updated in a long time, you can then go OOC and see if their flags are still set the way they want them to be.

Personally, I like the way things already are.  I just tossed the above out to feel like I'm adding to the discussion.

[Delstro]

That is a whole lot to code for:

OOC Consent to sexual scenes?
The one person says, OOC, Consent.
The other person says, OOC, Consent.
The griefer says, OOC, Consent.

[Qzzrbl]

Wait.... Hold up.

Is anyone else noticing something here?

More than one person has stated they would consent to certain people, but not others.

What's up with that?

[MeTekillot]

Wait.... Hold up.

Is anyone else noticing something here?

More than one person has stated they would consent to certain people, but not others.

What's up with that?

I'm guessing consenting to sex with the buxom, tressy-tressed maiden would be more tolerable than consenting to sex with the horribly-disfigured, severly-maimed crone?

[Is Friday]

I like how it is currently. Consent is too complicated to code into simple categories.

I think this would bring about more problems than solve.

[Barzalene]

Wait.... Hold up.

Is anyone else noticing something here?

More than one person has stated they would consent to certain people, but not others.

What's up with that?

I'm guessing consenting to sex with the buxom, tressy-tressed maiden would be more tolerable than consenting to sex with the horribly-disfigured, severly-maimed crone?

I don't think that's it.

[Is Friday]

Wait.... Hold up.

Is anyone else noticing something here?

More than one person has stated they would consent to certain people, but not others.

What's up with that?

I'm guessing consenting to sex with the buxom, tressy-tressed maiden would be more tolerable than consenting to sex with the horribly-disfigured, severly-maimed crone?

I don't think that's it.

Certain players garner more "trust" than others.

Also, I wonder if this consent flag would increase the amount of arranged rapes. Err... do people do that?

[Nyr]

I don't foresee something like this getting put into the game.

[boog]

I guess I am just delightfully ignorant of those who play certain characters and certain characters that do certain things. :x

[BlackMagic0]

I guess I am just delightfully ignorant of those who play certain characters and certain characters that do certain things. :x

This.

[Qzzrbl]

Certain players garner more "trust" than others.

If that's not blatantly letting OOC factors affect IG actions, then I don't know what is.

[Barzalene]

Certain players garner more "trust" than others.

If that's not blatantly letting OOC factors affect IG actions, then I don't know what is.

There are some pcs I enjoy playing with more than others for purely ooc reasons. Like the pace of their rp. Or the depth of their rp. Or how they don't break character or give little ic/ooc lectures.

Maybe it is letting ooc factors affect ig actions. I don't care. When I get paid to play I'll be more willing to endure people I don't enjoy.

[Is Friday]

Certain players garner more "trust" than others.

If that's not blatantly letting OOC factors affect IG actions, then I don't know what is.

Like it or not, it happens. Quite often, I might add.

[jriley]

What do players think about adding a 'change consent' flag, so we don't have to keep consenting for certain common (for you mudsexx0rs) scenes such as sexual or torture?

The default could be consent required for all, and the player can have the option of adding what they don't require consent on such as mild sexual/graphic torture emotes. Then, if someone wants to check for consent, they don't have to interupt the scene if unnecessary and just type 'consent' or something and it'll show what sorts of consent flags players in the room have.

Too complicated? Unnecessary? Thoughts?

I like.  +1

[caellyndria]

Yeah, I would never use this. Just sayin'. The thing about trusting the player is a key factor of why. I may not know that person from a hole in the wall OOCly, just like... well, most people on Arm that I play with. But if I'm comfortable with their playstyle, I'm more comfortable with content too. And consent is about the comfort level of a player, so it's not a ridiculous notion.

[Nahara]

Consent isn't an IG action.

[Xeran Van Houten]

I don't foresee something like this getting put into the game.

[spawnloser]

Certain players garner more "trust" than others.

Also, I wonder if this consent flag would increase the amount of arranged rapes. Err... do people do that?

If that's not blatantly letting OOC factors affect IG actions, then I don't know what is.

What Q said.

Also, seriously, you shouldn't know who is playing the character, so any claim that you trust the player more than another?  What?  What does TRUST have anything to do with your comfort level when playing out a scene.  THAT's what consent is for, not because you like another player more than another.

[AI Fashion and Swag]

You don't have to know who plays who to trust their player more than the average bear.

You people really strawman the shit out of anything, don't you?

[spawnloser]

Are you actually accusing me of a strawman?  Please tell me that you're not, though I could use the laugh if you are.

[Barzalene]

You don't have to know who plays who to trust their player more than the average bear.

Exactly.

[Qzzrbl]

You don't have to know who plays who to trust their player more than the average bear.

Exactly.

Trust them to do what exactly?

I'm seriously not trolling or putting up a strawman or anything....

If you consent to rape or torture from certain character but wouldn't even consider doing it for other characters....

Are you trusting them to rape or torture you better or something?

[flurry]

Certain players garner more "trust" than others.

If that's not blatantly letting OOC factors affect IG actions, then I don't know what is.

I would say that it's letting OOC factors affect an OOC action. Isn't consent always based on OOC factors?

What does TRUST have anything to do with your comfort level when playing out a scene[?]

Plenty. Why wouldn't it?

[Lizzie]

It's so much easier, and so much -less- "immerson-breaking" to just use the ooc command.

ooc Consent for torture/rape/
ooc Torture ok, rape no.
ooc No torture, sorry.

So you fade the torture and the rape never takes place. End of story.

Or..

ooc consent for torture/rape
assess joe
joe consents for rape and torture
assess sue
sue consents for torture but not rape

emote starts emoting about torture in graphic detail
ooc Hey I'm joe, I forgot to reset my flag. no torture!
ooc uh - well pretend you didn't just see all that.
ooc too late, I already saw it. asshole, you should've waited another 10 seconds!
ooc but the rules say you're supposed to have it already set. I shouldn't have to wait.
ooc blah blah blah an ooc discussion ensues about the proper ettiquette involved in setting consent flags.

Some people don't want to consent simply because they don't have the TIME to roleplay it all out. So some days they're be fine with RPing it out, but RL time constraints prohibit it this time around.

There are some characters I will never consent anything with, because I can't stand having to RP with those characters, and avoid them like the plague as it is. If I ever got stuck dealing with a torture/rape scene with them I'd ooc to them an tell them to just kill my character and pretend my character refused to cooperate.

I'd generally be okay with a FADED rape..and I would normally consent to a fade on it while not consenting to the details. I'd also consent to faded torture scenes with no detail. But some characters I just will absolutely not deal with, period.

[deviant storm]

You don't have to know who plays who to trust their player more than the average bear.

Exactly.

Trust them to do what exactly?

I'm seriously not trolling or putting up a strawman or anything....

If you consent to rape or torture from certain character but wouldn't even consider doing it for other characters....

Are you trusting them to rape or torture you better or something?

Let me see if I can come up with a little explanation on how at least I agree that some people fit better and are 'trusted' more than another.

You're playing with this Amos character, and the rp is great between you. I'm not talking that you two get along, but just that the rp seems more intriguing to you as a player. Or just that there's a backstory and while you're rping through the story you're pretty confident Amos' character is going to take this in intriguing directions. Mind, that doesn't mean you two are going off to be best friends. He pulls the whole betrayal thing out and gets you while you're vulnerable, and when he asks for consent to torture/whatever you, you're all for it because it's the continuation of a long struggle between you, well played out.

As opposed to getting grabbed by that Malik that you've never seen before, or maybe you've only seen him a couple times in the local tavern and usually his play style kind of gets on your nerves. But he's got you fair and square. When he asks to consent, do you really want to play out something that might take you past your comfort zone or just you might find frustrating as a player?

When you're roleplaying this sort of stuff, it is all about player to player trust. Either there's some, and it's a good scene, or there isn't and you're just not comfortable.

But I think the whole issue is dead in the water, now.

[Barzalene]

Trust here means many things. To do it well, yes. Which to me means. Cognizance that there is a player n the other side of that PC. Which among other things means the pacing should be reasonable - not drawn out interminably, not so fast I can't react. But mostly I want to trust it's not gratuitous. What happens should result as a result of who and what both PCs are. I don't want to feel like it's so some sick fuck of a player can get his/her jollies.

[Barzalene]

And what DS said, exactly.