Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
My character, as a paladin of Lathander, decided that this crime could not be tolerated any longer and shouted "Your foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!" and prepared to attack. The game was stopped and I was accused of being a bigot for saying that, which was against the trigger warnings established. I defended myself, pointing out that the enemy was an undead monster, a foul creature of the night that has to feed on the living to survive and that slaying the vampire was not only our only choice, but that it was the righteous choice.

These people have a mental issue and you need to get the F away from them as fast as possible. I'm quite serious. You could bump into one of them accidentally and end up in a police station charged with sexual assault.

As for the concept of a "trigger warning". If I'm at a table that wants to delve into extreme things that would classify a movie as NC-17, then yeah, that could do with some warnings up front so I know that that specific game isn't for me. I personally like to keep my games more PG-13, but don't mind a slight dip into R now and again where it's pointing out the absurd(Deadpool level stuff). Even then, I personally steer clear of sexual content. Some tables are into that, and if they are it should be stated up front.

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 28, 2024, 07:52:37 PM
A bunch of adults gabbing at the pub don't need trigger warnings, so neither do imaginary elf games. With the exception of running games for kids. And in that case it's not even a trigger warning; it's a filter.

So true. 

I always played with friends so my experiences are skewed.  We never had trigger warnings and never needed one.  But even if I did play with strangers, I'd like to think that if some content became uncomfortable, then the person who is uncomfortable could speak up.  A table of adults would honor that request and tone down the scene and continue gaming.  But I think those types of days are long gone.

A paladin wanting to kill a vampire is now a bigot?

What the fuck...

Also NOT the PALADIN, the PLAYER. The PLAYER is a bigot because his paladin PC wants to kill a fucking vampire. Sounds like these clowns need a lobotomy.

Quote from: Brad on January 28, 2024, 08:13:30 PM
A paladin wanting to kill a vampire is now a bigot?

What the fuck...

Also NOT the PALADIN, the PLAYER. The PLAYER is a bigot because his paladin PC wants to kill a fucking vampire. Sounds like these clowns need a lobotomy.

Sounds like they've had one.

That's such a weird story. To me it almost sounds like a clash between what 5e says a vampire is, versus the group's understanding.

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
But, I still think that my character shouldn't be threatened with breaking his Oath for striking down an undead creature. Maybe I am just an old fart, but I thought undead are monsters beyond redemption. This is not the "goblin babies in the cave" situation. It is my firm belief that in the past, we could have had a discussion about this at the table without the need for the table to brow beat me with the trigger warning shield and label me a 'bigot' for calling a vampire a "filthy bloodsucker". From what I understand, the problem wasn't that I wanted to kill the vampire, but that I acted as a bigot against vampires by calling him that and then proceeding to wanting to slay it.

It seems to me that this is a problem not with trigger warnings per se, but with the others' attitudes over bigotry and vampires.

As for your attitude about undead -- that is something that depends on the game world. For example, in the world of my current campaign, there are many non-evil undead creatures. There are holy mummies, specters of righteous vengeance, and helpful ghosts. Different worlds have different rules. As another example, in the "True Blood" book and TV series, there are many well-meaning vampires. In other worlds, vampires strongly tend towards evil but there are a few exceptions, like in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or World of Darkness, where a vampire might resist being evil.

I've had some recent discussions of times in my past where I was accused of being a murderhobo or the equivalent for something I did. I think the clash can happen regardless of trigger warnings.

---

Regarding the poll, I had trouble with the categories. I think it's important to talk about levels of content like romance, sexuality, torture, gore, rape, and so forth -- but I'm not sold on trigger warnings as a specific means of talking about it.

I have a certain liking about the "lines and veils" type of presentation, but some people seem to think it's imposition. And yet, if someone decided to describe a rape in detail, during a game, I'd probably get up and walk away, whether or not such rules were part of the formal agreement for the game or not.

By any chance, was this a game being played with a group of white women?

If so, the level of mental illness and the absurdity of the labeling of "bigot" would make a lot of sense.  To a lot of modern women a vampire is erotic partner because of the twilight series.  From their perspective, you would be a bigot for killing a vampire.

Quote from: jhkim on January 28, 2024, 08:31:23 PM
It seems to me that this is a problem not with trigger warnings per se, but with the others' attitudes over bigotry and vampires.

As for your attitude about undead -- that is something that depends on the game world. For example, in the world of my current campaign, there are many non-evil undead creatures. There are holy mummies, specters of righteous vengeance, and helpful ghosts. Different worlds have different rules. As another example, in the "True Blood" book and TV series, there are many well-meaning vampires. In other worlds, vampires strongly tend towards evil but there are a few exceptions, like in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or World of Darkness, where a vampire might resist being evil.

I've had some recent discussions of times in my past where I was accused of being a murderhobo or the equivalent for something I did. I think the clash can happen regardless of trigger warnings.

---

Regarding the poll, I had trouble with the categories. I think it's important to talk about levels of content like romance, sexuality, torture, gore, rape, and so forth -- but I'm not sold on trigger warnings as a specific means of talking about it.

The game world is obviously Faerun since the character was a paladin of Lathander.  If you are going to use a game world, then they should honor the lore of the world.  Lathander hates undead because they are an abomination to the cycle of birth and rebirth.  The player roleplayed correctly, in my opinion.  I don't understand why you are bringing up different worlds when clearly the setting was established?

Quote from: Brad on January 28, 2024, 08:13:30 PM
A paladin wanting to kill a vampire is now a bigot?

What the fuck...

Also NOT the PALADIN, the PLAYER. The PLAYER is a bigot because his paladin PC wants to kill a fucking vampire. Sounds like these clowns need a lobotomy.

From what I understand after the lengthy discussion, they really didn't want me to kill the vampire but the real problem was that I called it a "filthy bloodsucker" which apparently makes me a bigot.

As they described it, my actions were problematic because of those two things. First, being a "murderhobo" for reaching the sword without letting the vampire explain his actions but even more problematic than that was my word choice. It was a game of 5, a DM and 4 Players. Two of them really, really had a problem with me calling the vampire a "filthy bloodsucker" for reasons that I never fully understood.

The female player that was playing the cleric of Lathander said that it was not something Lathander would approve because it was "merciless", since vampire spawns still have intelligence and feel emotions, meaning I was essentially attempting to kill a person with an act of unprovoked violence.

I replied something to the effect of "the violence is provoked, since we have irrefutable evidence of the crimes committed. This vampire kidnapped innocents and either feasted on them, send them to his master to feast on them, or worse."

That's when the conversation turned to "he is a victim because vampire spawns cannot disobey their masters".

Like I said, in hindsight, I would have been OK with their characters trying to argue for not slaying the vampire. I think there are some arguments to be made here. Like getting information on the bigger threat, that is his Master or an even nefarious reasons for the kidnappings.

In that sense, I would have agreed that my character may have turned hostile a little prematurely. But, my stance would have been to vanquish the vampire after we got the info we needed as such a foul creature should not be left to feast on the living any longer. Even in jail, there is no guarantee it will not escape. In fact, talking with the creature may give him time to escape our grasp. Such was my reasoning for attacking on sight.


My problem and the reason why I left the table, was the discussion was being levied at me, not my character. I entertained the discussion because I am that desperate to play again and because I am not a murderhobo and actually do not like that behavior. So, I treat it as a misunderstanding and I wanted to explain my train of thought and demonstrate to them that I was not trying to be a murderhobo since I dislike that style and that my character had a legitimate reason to smite a vampire without questions.

When the conversation turned into my supposed bigotry that's when I slowly started to realize the game was done for me and now I was in a situation where I had to defend my character, as in my own values as a person, and not my character as in the paladin I was playing as.

It has become clear to me that my definition of "Don't be a racist. Don't be a bully. Don't be a bigot." are not the same as the people in that game. As such, the trigger warning discussion that we had did not helped me understand their trigger warnings. Perhaps the way the discussion went was not exhaustive enough, but I was thinking that maybe the trigger warnings themselves could be the problem and so I was curious to see what others within the hobby think about it. This is why I created this poll.

Greetings!

Conquest, war, hatred, bigotry, and sexism all flow like floodwaters in my campaign.

Might makes right. The strong rule over the weak.

My campaign world is like Rome, Sodom & Gomorrah, the Dark Ages, and the Crusades, but with magic. There are no "Trigger Warnings". I play with adults, and generally have a film rating of Rated R.

DEUS VULT!!!!

Cipher, your situation is terrible. Don't play with Leftist Woke morons, no matter how desperate. Solo Gaming until you find an appropriate group!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

They wanted you to bring him to a jail, so that they could pay his bail and get him back on the streets. Art imitates life.

Quote from: BadApple on January 28, 2024, 08:47:20 PM
By any chance, was this a game being played with a group of white women?

If so, the level of mental illness and the absurdity of the labeling of "bigot" would make a lot of sense.  To a lot of modern women a vampire is erotic partner because of the twilight series.  From their perspective, you would be a bigot for killing a vampire.

It was an online game so I have no way to know. This is why I decided to go this route, since my local scene is either completely dead or only accommodates games for the "tumblr" crowd on the few places that actually have local games running. You know who. Oh, and they only run D&D 5e. The very few times I decided to not judge a book by its cover and showed up to play, they told to my face that as a white straight man that is well off in terms of money, I had to sit quietly in my chair and let them pontificate to me about how much privilege I have and basically they police what kind of games I can run and what kind of characters I can play.

Never again.

I though playing online with strangers would go better, since they couldn't see my "white maleness". But, now that you mention it, that could have been the reason. These people are younger than me, of that I am sure as some of their banter flew right above my head and we joked that I was the "fossil" at the table, something I took no offense at all and laughed it off as the playful joke it was. But, it could be that their idea of vampires is different than mine. Specially because the female player playing the cleric referred to him as a "victim" because as a spawn he had to obey his Master's orders.

As far as I know of the lore, I know this to be true but I am not sure how unwilling this NPC was about kidnapping people. Perhaps he truly was a victim or perhaps not. As I said, I would have been completely OK for their characters to make that argument. I am not privy to any lore changes 5e has in regards to Forgotten Realms, as I understand, Lathander is anti-undead so I thought my actions were 100% in character and not out of line.

It seems the real "trigger" was my usage of "filthy bloodsucker" to refer to that vampire. I still think that its not a bigoted statement.

Even in Vampire: The Masquerade, where the Players are actually vampires, the game is about wrestling with being a filthy bloodsucker undead monster while holding on to the last embers of humanity as you try to perish as you navigate a cutthroat landscape of political intrigue.

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 28, 2024, 09:00:28 PM
They wanted you to bring him to a jail, so that they could pay his bail and get him back on the streets. Art imitates life.

This comment made me belly laugh very loudly.

Thank you, sir!

At some point, it kind of appeared that way. Not sure how much in jest was this comment made but perhaps you are more right than I realize.

Quote from: Silverblade on January 28, 2024, 08:47:43 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 28, 2024, 08:31:23 PM
It seems to me that this is a problem not with trigger warnings per se, but with the others' attitudes over bigotry and vampires.

As for your attitude about undead -- that is something that depends on the game world. For example, in the world of my current campaign, there are many non-evil undead creatures. There are holy mummies, specters of righteous vengeance, and helpful ghosts. Different worlds have different rules. As another example, in the "True Blood" book and TV series, there are many well-meaning vampires. In other worlds, vampires strongly tend towards evil but there are a few exceptions, like in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or World of Darkness, where a vampire might resist being evil.

I've had some recent discussions of times in my past where I was accused of being a murderhobo or the equivalent for something I did. I think the clash can happen regardless of trigger warnings.

---

Regarding the poll, I had trouble with the categories. I think it's important to talk about levels of content like romance, sexuality, torture, gore, rape, and so forth -- but I'm not sold on trigger warnings as a specific means of talking about it.

The game world is obviously Faerun since the character was a paladin of Lathander.  If you are going to use a game world, then they should honor the lore of the world.  Lathander hates undead because they are an abomination to the cycle of birth and rebirth.  The player roleplayed correctly, in my opinion.  I don't understand why you are bringing up different worlds when clearly the setting was established?

Indeed, Silverblade!

I must admit, however, that I am not privy to any changes to the lore in 5e. They asked me if I was OK with playing Forgotten Realms, I said that I was fine and that as a fan of the Baldur's Gate games, I was familiar with the lore and appreciated that they wanted to make sure I was on board and that everyone would be creating characters that fit that established lore.

It is my understanding that Lathander is anti-undead and as such that's why informed my decisions when encountering the vampire spawn. Maybe the lore has been changed and I failed to do my homework, but I don't recall that being mentioned when had that lengthy discussion that halted the game. It was all centered about me playing wrong because I was acting like a murderhobo and then it shifted towards being a bigot for calling the vampire a "filthy bloodsucker." I don't remember anyone pointing out that Lathander was no longer anti-undead.

One player playing the cleric of Lathander did point out that attacking the vampire unprovoked was an act of merciless violence and thus was against Lathander's will, but I argued that the act of violence was provoked since the vampire was caught holding innocents in a hidden room in the cellar of his estate, basically an underground prison with evidence of the people caught not being the only ones to ever be held there.