#NoConsent

[Heade]

#NoConsent

There has been a lot of speculation around the movement that began with the hashtag #NoConsent. The hashtag was intended to fire back at reductive, aggressive ad hominem attacks from opponents of these ideas that didn't address the actual issues. It is intended to give those who would otherwise engage these bumper sticker crusaders with civil discussion, with an easy rebuttal to their personal attacks and reductive micro-aggressions. For the record, the #NoConsent movement isn't actually about completely removing consent. It's about making the gameworld harsh, and keeping options on the table for scenes to be played between consenting players. This is the #NoConsent Manifesto.

We're tired of seeing content that is conducive to interesting roleplay being systematically removed from the game due to OOC sensitivities and "balance" issues. The changes that have happened to the game that we don't agree with include:

1.   The removal of Tuluk. The absence of Tuluk has created a massive hole in both the geography of the gameworld and the abstract motivations of the PCs that populate it. Arguments for how deeply this affects the gameworld and ideas for the reintroduction of Tuluk have been better discussed elsewhere, like here: https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,55898.0.html

2.   The removal of PC slavery from the game. PC slavery as an option created and supported other related roles, such as Borsail Nobles, Tribal Slavers, Slave Traders, Raiders who capture instead of kill, and so on. The failure to support or implement PC slavery in such a way that makes it both practical to play and genre appropriate represents a serious lack of capitalization on a significant part of the gameworld. The old website has extensive documentation on Zalanthan slavery that in and of itself could have served to make PC slaves more practical to play without the issues that have been previously cited. With some rather minor modifications to the culture of slavery in Zalanthas, PC slaves could be largely playable and enjoyable even when slave playtimes don't match up perfectly with their owners.

3.   The removal of rape and rape accusations as scene and/or punishment options from consenting players. No one in the #NoConsent movement is arguing that anyone should be forced into RPing a rape scene or the aftermath thereof. Instead, we think that these options should be brought back and allowed between consenting players, but the consent rules slightly modified to allow players to completely decline to have this happen to their character. In the event that a player doesn't consent, the potential perpetrator would then be free to interact with their character in a way that adheres to the current consent rules, so instead of that happening, they can request consent for torture, maiming, etc. Not having these topics as options between consenting players removes many opportunities for alternatives to murder, as well as emotion-invoking rivalries and revenge plots. If people don't want to play through these, they shouldn't have to. But if two people want to, they shouldn't be stopped from doing so.

4.   The expansion of the consent rules. We think consent rules should be minimally invasive to the roleplaying experience, and so we should allow players to set flags for consent to include 3 flags: Consent to Graphic/Sexual RP, Consent to Torture/Maiming, and Consent to Rape/Sexual Torture. They should be simple and easy for players to understand, and the flags should be able to be seen easily on other visible players with a command like "Consent" showing you the consent flags of all players in a scene. This would allow RP without breaking immersion with OOC communication to request consent that has already been given by pre-set character flags.

5.   The removal of full clan sorcerers/elementalists. The idea of sorcerers only being able to learn one path of sorcery runs completely contrary to the established documentation on how sorcery is learned. Sorcery is most often learned in an effort increase their own personal power, and in so doing, they make themselves have a secret that puts them at odds with the entire known world. If characters knew ICly that they would only ever be able to learn one path of sorcery, they would be unlikely to ever set down the path of learning it to begin with. The payoff simply isn't worth the cost in terms of ultimate destiny. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. We suggest that PC sorcerers remain a subclass to avoid guild sniffing, but gain a codified way to learn spells from other paths. One suggestion was to allow 1 PC holder of each sorcery path in the game at any given time. This would help limit aggregate PC sorcerer power in game to be no greater than a single sorcerer with all four paths. This would mean that there could be any combination of 1 to 4 PC sorcerers in game at any given time(two that each have one path, plus one that has two, or four that each have one path, or one that has 4 paths, etc.). This would create a situation where if a sorcerer wanted to pursue further knowledge, they'd have to seek out and eliminate rival sorcerers to steal their knowledge. It would create innate plots for players of these PCs, drive conflict, and very potentially cause these conflicts to become noticed by the mundane PC world as they unfold. Plots can naturally spawn from this sort of dynamic without staff having to intervene. If a single sorcerer manages the monumental task of accumulating all four sorcerer paths, that could allow staff to work with the player to create a world-level plot for the game. When that player is no longer in game, the 4 paths become available for other players again. As for elementalists, I wouldn't suggest any change to the existing subclasses, leaving all of those options available, but we would like to see the option for full elementalists added back to the game as a subclass to avoid guild sniffing. We suggest that the full elementalist spell tree for each element be reintroduced to the game as a 3 karma special app only subclass option. This would also prevent people from being able to easily guild sniff individual aspects.

6.   The removal of kanks, halflings, and other Darksun redactions. These things were removed from the game based on their names and cultures infringing on the IP of Darksun. All of these things could have been slightly modified as to not directly copy their IP while still including the essence of this content. Because much of D&D and Darksun draws on Tolkienesque fantasy concepts, minor changes to these things would take them far enough away from the Darksun IP to make them allowable in game.

This list is not meant to be comprehensive, or to include the full details and opinions of everyone who identifies with what #NoConsent is about. It is simply a demonstration of the types of things that we have a problem with and would like to discuss improving upon.

[Saellyn]

#NoConsent

I assisted in writing this, and I will gladly admit such.

[triste]

I hate your hashtag. But I love the irony that you opened this thread right as staff locked the other thread.

Cheers to you all, "I do not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."

[NinjaFruitSalad]

I think I'll chime in and say that the very first character I tried to make was going to be a slave owned by House Borsail. But, that wasn't allowed...

And no, it's not like I wanted kinky things done to my character, I just kind of felt like playing that sort of role, doing a bunch of menial chores and errands and...  well, I'm not sure.  Maybe as a very first character, it could have been beneficial to be in that sort of position where you're just doing what other people tell you to do, as being a new player, you probably don't know the best decisions to make yourself. And maybe escape later would have been a possibility too!  But anyway, that didn't pan out, but thankfully I've been getting along regardless.

I'm all for reopening Tuluk and bringing back kanks and halflings. You know, halflings and kanks are still codedly mentioned in the game!  Izdari has halfing pieces.  And kanks are on a set of polished obsidian dice for that one game with dice that have a noose, knife, kank, purse, and the moons.

[Saellyn]

We've been working on this thread for a while. Specifically, the dynamics of what we're actually proposing. Some of this may get a look at by Staff, and options may become available. Or it may be discounted entirely. But this is to cast light on the actual ideals of the #NoConsent group. We're not the #RapeSquad, that's not our intention. #NoConsent was simply to draw attention so we could espouse what we see wrong with the game, and offer our opinions on the matter in a constructive manner. So. Please keep debates related to ethnicity, gender, religion or whatnot out of it.

We're here to talk about these points, keeping in mind that certain facets cannot be discussed, or gone into deeper specifics.

[Ol 55]

That has to be the dumbest hashtag I've ever seen.  Your hashtag is #NoConsent.  A hashtag is supposed to encapsulate an idea and propel it into the collective thought.  The message you're conveying is that consent (of undefined type) is negative.  It doesn't matter what your actual manifesto says. Which, by the way, it would seem your message is really #SomeConsent.   You seem to be aware of that, but you want the attention.  How edgy. 

[Malken]

We've been working on this thread for a while.

Do you get together and talk about not consenting to stuff?

[Namino]

CallALocksmithRobinHood.gif

[Shabago]

Locksmith indeed.

[Brokkr]

Staff expect a certain level of discourse on these boards. If discourse does not adhere to that level, we will moderate or lock threads.  Especially when posters start being shitty to one another rather than discussing the issues at hand.

Trying to use something potentially inflammatory, like "#NoConsent" to get discussion around your set of ideas is, in my opinion, below the level of discourse we expect.

Points 1 and 5 seem fine and dandy to discuss in a different thread.  Point 2 seems to forget we just recently have supported slavery in the form of Gladiators and Byn slaves.  We have no intention of going to unrestricted slavery.  Slavery roles will exist, but it will be at Staff discretion.  Again, feel free to discuss in another thread.

Point 3 is not going to change anytime soon.  As a Producer, I would vote against rolling this back, and I have a fairly good idea of how the other two Producers would feel about this.  In this area, the only ones who determine what "should" happen are the three of us.

Point 4 is problematic, because sometimes  a player would consent and sometimes they wouldn't.  It isn't in our opinion some generic thing, it is specific to the scene.

Point 6 isn't something we are contemplating. The game content slowly changes.  That means both additions and subtractions.  Things get destroyed.  Gone forever.  It would be nearly impossible to have meaningful, large scale plot arcs if this was not the case. Or have Staff change their mind about the direction and content of the world.