But what about Seduction ?

[Jen]

If a guy seduces a gal then it's kinda rapy, if vice versa then you play right into the sexist stereotype which make you a gigantic miso-gonist (sorry, that's word is really hard to remember for me). Soooo not that I'm complaining, but is guy-on-guy the only road that I must walk in order to find that hot and steamy seduction story ?

I also want to ask for some examples on what do people consider a seduction attempt, do you think that it lie more in the intention (I want that guy to like/notice me) or action (It's strip time!).

Ex3 also has sex and seduction charms, ooooh, from the way people describes them I already has a bunch of plothooks for them, finally I can do the "From Lust to Love: Hairy Crimelord and Stoic Doctor" story that I have always dream of (too bad Sidereal now don't have Celestial Bliss Trick anymore, oh well, being Sid is suffering). So how much merit does argument like "Those charm's wordcount could be use for a GM chapter", "Sex charm is asexual erasure" and "Having sex charm means players and GM will rape each other" has ? I'm not quite sure whether they are legitimate or troll concerns.

[Tiresias]

So how much merit does argument like "Those charm's wordcount could be use for a GM chapter", "Sex charm is asexual erasure" and "Having sex charm means players and GM will rape each other" has ?

About as much as arguments that school shootings happen because of violent video games. But hey, if people want to blame the book instead of dealing with the fact that their friends are apparently assholes, that's their problem.

[Zelbinnean]

"Having sex charms means players and GM rape each other."

No. Not at all. This is forbidden, unless everyone is ok with it.

It's kind of sad that the Red Rule needed to be explicitly stated in writing to put the kaibosh on this kind of action, but that's what it does. The Red Rule basically says that nobody's character can be forced into performing an intimate or sex act, using any kind of magic or mechanics or anything, unless the player is ok with it.

This doesn't mean you can't flirt and try to create an intimacy to exploit. This also doesn't mean you can't try to become someone's lover to reap future benefits. but it does mean that the player has inalienable control over the character's attraction, arousal, and related actions and that not even Charms or Psyche magic can force the character to participate in a sexual situation that the player is uncomfortable with or uninterested in.

I wonder if this rule was explicitly written because of how easy 2e made it to bypass sexuality and consent with social attacks...

[The Unsung Hero]

It's sad, but also Amazing how much 3e codifying a few basic rules about how to play the game have made so many people more confident in stating some common sense about how they play their games. Of course the Red Rule makes sense, but by writing it down, suddenly people are (generally) more open to things like seduction charms because now there's a rule that says you can just say No.

This is, at least, my observation of the forum and friends who have read the book.

So, to answer your quandary Jen, do the seduction you want to do. If someone's not cool with it, they will say no, and they CAN say no. Done deal.

[TheCountAlucard]

I wonder if this rule was explicitly written because of how easy 2e made it to bypass sexuality and consent with social attacks...

It was pretty awkward of MoEP: DBs to slip in stealth errata for adjusting MDV based on a character's sexuality. It was almost as awkward as how puny the adjustment actually was... but then again, things like "what your character cares about" and "your character's very reason for being" were themselves pretty pathetic in MDV calculations in 2e. That Fair Folk noble's Appearance 8 apparently means a lot more to you than every person, thing, and principle you hold dear.

[wonderandawe]

Non-Creepy Seduction is all situational. For example, asking someone to join you for coffee while you are in a library is not creepy. Asking someone to come back to your apartment for no strings attached sexy fun times while in a library is creepy. Likewise, a dance club may not be the best place to ask someone for coffee, but a great place to look for someone to have sexy fun times with.

In a RPG situation, one way to make seduction less rapey is to have the NPC be interesting in having sex with someone. You use Social rolls/charms to help the NPC choose you as their partner over other people. Also, be sure your NPCs have applicable intimacies for spouses, lovers, abstinence, asexuality, etc if you think seduction may come up in game. Someone in a political marriage may be more willing to cheat on their spouse than someone who has been in a loving marriage for thirty years.

[Fata-Ku]

It's sad, but also Amazing how much 3e codifying a few basic rules about how to play the game

Agreed. Though I think it's useful to make it a Rule when you have charms like Celestial Bliss Trick; keeping in mind that Defining Intimacies are of the "I would go on a suicide mission for X" variety, and subject to influence such as "If you slaughter your family we can have sex again".

I'm a little saddened that there aren't examples of more beneficial sex charms, like one that would relax all parties involved such that a short post-love nap would net 8 hours of rest or eliminate fatigue penalties, though perhaps it's best for those not to be so useful that players feel uncomfortably cheated if they don't "participate".

But yes, all in all, what Tiresias, Zelbinnean and Unsung Hero said.

[Weimann]

I also want to ask for some examples on what do people consider a seduction attempt, do you think that it lie more in the intention (I want that guy to like/notice me) or action (It's strip time!).

For me, if I wanted to define "seduction" to be used in a game environment, I'd make it imply 1) a context of sexual or romantic closeness, 2) a party that is clearly interested in another party within that context, and 3) the first party making conscious efforts to arouse those feelings in the second party as well. If a character wanted to roll for a seduction attempt, they'd primarily need to state the intention behind it, in my opinion; how they go about it is less important.

Of course, you could also do something without the intent of seduction which happened to make someone interested in you, but that's another thing in my opinion.

Ex3 also has sex and seduction charms, ooooh, from the way people describes them I already has a bunch of plothooks for them, finally I can do the "From Lust to Love: Hairy Crimelord and Stoic Doctor" story that I have always dream of (too bad Sidereal now don't have Celestial Bliss Trick anymore, oh well, being Sid is suffering). So how much merit does argument like "Those charm's wordcount could be use for a GM chapter"

I mean, that's true. Then again, that's also true for any other part of the book, so it kind of presupposes that these Charms in particular are undesirable, rather than making a case for why they are. Not a very strong argument in my opinion.

"Sex charm is asexual erasure"

Asexuality is a thing that could use more representation in media in general, and certainly in the RPG scene. By which I don't mean leaving out mentioning sexuality, but making characters overtly asexual. I can get behind the sentiment of that. That said, I'm personally not convinced that the presence of... what, two or three Charms based on sex implies erasure of asexuality. I'd be all for Charms based on asexuality as well!

"Having sex charm means players and GM will rape each other" has ?

The same publication that included the sex Charms also included the Red Rule. They are equally published, and either both matter, or neither.

I'm not quite sure whether they are legitimate or troll concerns.

I don't think they are "troll" concerns, in that they are meant to upset people for the lulz. However, I've yet to see one that convinces me. I do acknowledge that sex Charms are controversial and requires some unfamiliar thinking, but the Red Rule goes a long way towards addressing those, and frankly, we might benefit from thinking new things sometimes.

[Totentanz]

If a guy seduces a gal then it's kinda rapy, if vice versa then you play right into the sexist stereotype which make you a gigantic miso-gonist (sorry, that's word is really hard to remember for me). Soooo not that I'm complaining, but is guy-on-guy the only road that I must walk in order to find that hot and steamy seduction story ?
.

Err...um...no?

Seduction, to me, means one person arouses another person, and then they both want to have sex. That's not "rapey." That's just part of the continuum of human sexuality. Sometimes both partners are into it at the same time, and sometimes one of them takes steps to arouse the other. As long as the person being seduced isn't actively resisting, there's nothing inherently coercive or wrong about that.

As for sexist stereotypes, I can think of nothing more sexist than setting a double standard on which gender is permitted to initiate sexual relations.

I guess what I'm saying is let the fiction be what it needs to be.

As for the charms issue, the Red Rule covers that. It's essentially a safe word to allow people to handle adult concepts within the confines of the game. It's okay if there is magic behind the seduction of the characters. It's even okay if that magic is portrayed as a bit coercive or rapey within the context of an individual group and their stoies. As long as the players are all consenting adults, do what's fun.

The instant it's not fun anymore, it's not a game, and it stops. Unfortunately, it was necessary to encode that bit of human decency and respect into the game rules.

Generally, I default to PG-13 for the sexual elements in my stories. Graphic implications, but strictly off camera. The couple of times I pushed it beyond that, it was with the prodding and consent of the players at the table. Truth be told, it's usually my female players that want to push the boundaries. The men are generally too worried about coming off as being creepy. Maybe I'm just lucky.

[Zelbinnean]

The comment about it being "rapey" is probably related to how men hitting on women is portrayed in a lot of media. Many of these scenes revolve around this concept that a man shouldn't take no for an answer and should try to "persuade" the woman to change her mind.

This is a scene that persists despite increasingly leaving a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of people for its take on interaction and consent.

I must say I don't get the sexist stereotype of women hitting on men tho.

[AnubisXy]

To be fair, there's a fine line between a seducer and a pickup artist, and it's not unreasonsble for someobe to view a seducer, who are just interested in getting his jollies by using woman's body to be skeevy, creepy and "rapey".

It's just in the presentation, and for some people, just a little bit of that sort of action can cross the line.

[Jen]

The rapey thing is what I heard in my Male seductor thread a while back, the explaination for why people don't create those kind of character is that they are, well, kinda rapey.

Seduction, to me, means one person arouses another person, and then they both want to have sex. That's not "rapey." That's just part of the continuum of human sexuality. Sometimes both partners are into it at the same time, and sometimes one of them takes steps to arouse the other. As long as the person being seduced isn't actively resisting, there's nothing inherently coercive or wrong about that.

Some people say that due to Charms, every time an Exalted or a magical being talk to a human the former is basically trying to rape the former.

I mean, I don't have much life experience, but does being talked to by a charismatic person considered attempt rape in the Western world ?

[Isator Levi]

There's seduction in the form of what is basically a game of signals and roleplay between people who are already interested in each other. There's seduction in the form of one person projecting a lot of signals intended to entice another person who is a bit uncertain at the outset. The latter has some problematic undertones. Having acknowledged that, one can keep in mind to not be too obnoxious about it, and move on. It's much like how the very basis of any kung-fu action-adventure's portrayal of the use of violence as a method of solving problems can be acknowledged as a bit problematic, but not to the extent that you only ever play diplomatic pacifists. Besides that, there's a matter of certain kinks; the problematic form of seduction can still be a bit provacative to somebody, a bit of a fantasy, when viewed from a distance. It's not the same as the roleplay one, since it's a distance from a portrayal in which everything is happening seriously. It's still basically a harmless indulgence.

[Sakii]

Soooo not that I'm complaining, but is guy-on-guy the only road that I must walk in order to find that hot and steamy seduction story ?

I have to say that im deeply offended by this. Are you trying to say that girl-on-girl action is wrong. Shame, shame on you.

[Weimann]

If a guy seduces a gal then it's kinda rapy, if vice versa then you play right into the sexist stereotype which make you a gigantic miso-gonist (sorry, that's word is really hard to remember for me). Soooo not that I'm complaining, but is guy-on-guy the only road that I must walk in order to find that hot and steamy seduction story ?

The rapey thing is what I heard in my Male seductor thread a while back, the explaination for why people don't create those kind of character is that they are, well, kinda rapey.

In the male case, there's a tradition of showing how men are determined to get their chosen maiden, not letting themselves be deterred by anything, not even said maiden's opinions on the matter. Traditionally, this was seen as romantic and probably considered to show that the man would be a faithful husband. The issue becomes clear in today's analysis of gender roles: it was a case of whether the man would succeed or fail in making the woman love him, and the woman was never considered to have an actual conscious say in the whole thing. The idea that a man could disregard the woman's wishes is what makes it "rapey".

In the female sense, the issue is slightly different. The problem is that women have often been represented as using their bodies to twist the heads of men, and showing a "seductress" like this could be considered playing into a very old stereotype that has been dominant for a long time already. If the character has little representation beyond that, it could be considered to play into a misogynist tradition.

But that doesn't mean that showing a men seduce a woman, or a woman seduce a man is inherently "rapey" or misogynist. The trick here isn't to not show seduction. It is to show seduction differently than the things you talked about before. That's how you diversify!