Do you think there is a good reason or motivation to forbid or punish "magical realm" (in the sense of including your fetishes in a character or game without it being an ERP/fetish game) if it does not break any actual societal taboos and won't make normal people uncomfortable, much less have them realize there's sex involved?
It seems to me that most of the offense involved when dealing with magical realm and fetish content is born of the simple fact that a person is including something connected to sex in a game, regardless of the fact that they are not forcing any players into sexual encounters - the offense is all meta, and I strongly doubt that people not in the know would notice.
People feel strongly for what they get off on, and while I've seen how it can go wrong, my best players and best PCs have all been fueled by slightly dubious motivations. It kickstarts the imagination something fierce.
There are people with forehead fetishes, finger fetishes, nose fetishes, something for every body part and something for every personality.
There's a fetish for every article of clothing, for every ethnicity, for every language, for every age, for every quirk - and I strongly doubt that most people not steeped in this board's anti-magical-realm sentiment would have anything against a character crammed with clothing and feature fetishes, as long as it doesn't get explicit or sensual.
I want to test this, however.
If you happen to have an idea for a character who's jam-packed with some kind of obscure and not directly sexual fetish, put it up here and we'll see if the concepts actually look disturbing/disruptive or if someone is just being anally devastated.
Do you think there is a good reason or motivation to forbid or punish "magical realm" (in the sense of including your...
'Magical Realm' specifically refers to including fetish based content in your games directly against the wishes of the players, entirely for your personal satisfaction regardless of the experience of the other people involved.
It is categorically, unequivocally a bad thing. The only thing that complicates this is idiots using the term 'Magical Realm' to refer to literally anything that could be interpreted as somehow sexual or fetishized, regardless of context.
>if it does not break any actual societal taboos and won't make normal people uncomfortable
This has never happened in the history of gaming. We all know about your hideous sexual depravity, and your group do not - under any circumstances - want your paraphilia taking up any of their numbered seconds on this Earth.
People being uncomfortable with fetishes is literally just a dumb Veeky Forums meme, in actual games it never really escalates onto something people cant laugh off, its not like normies actually play rpgs
You are hilariously wrong, and I say that as someone who runs a full ERP. I have seen more than a few people clumsily attempt to force their kink into a game, whether as a player or as a GM, and be incredibly disruptive because of it, generally leading to them being booted, if a player, or to the game dissolving if the GM won't quit that shit.
Do you become furiously aroused when making flimsy strawmen?
Is it a form of masochism?
It's the only way I can explain you being that fucking persistent, because no matter what flimsy strawman you come up with next, I know that I see your posts a shitton, posted like clockwork.
fpbp
>Do you think there is a good reason or motivation to forbid or punish "magical realm" (in the sense of including your fetishes in a character or game without it being an ERP/fetish game) if it does not break any actual societal taboos and won't make normal people uncomfortable, much less have them realize there's sex involved?
It distracts from the game, even in a hypothetical scenario where my DM shares all of my top tier patrician fetishes. Let's say that a certain realm is ruled by a powerful queen. In a normal game she'd simply be a noteworthy NPC who gives quest and sometimes shows up to queen it up and do badass shit. If the DM were to expose me to my own magical realm there are three options and all of them are shit: either a lot of detail is spent on the queen and her younger and more timid prince-consort (literally irrelevant to either the plot or any of the PCs), or the DM forces the queen on one of the characters (in-character romances are difficult to do right, fetish fueled in-character romances even harder) or the somehow creates a harem consisting of all the PCS (in which case good job: you're a literal cuck. Go play MAID or something). In short, with the exception of maybe MAID sharing your fetishes doesn't serve the game positively in any way. If I wanted to awkwardly see a powerful queen and her beta husband goof around I'd read Risou no Heimu Seikatsu, if I wanted to fawn over a tall musclegirl and her rippling abs I'd read Saotome-Senshu and if I wanted to see a powerful office lady be dominant as fuck I'd read Ore x Yome. I don't need TTRPGs for this shit.
No need to thank me.
>Those last two
The only worthwhile post in this thread.
The entire point of that Gunshow comic was the GM loudly telegraphing his disgusting fetish for no reason other than he's a fucking weirdo. The players resent this and tell him to knock it off; when he doesn't they hit him.
That's what Magical Realm is. It's graphically describing your sex fantasies out of nowhere for no good reason. You are not daring the players enter if you imply sex is a thing. Even unconventional sex. You are daring them enter if at every turn they walk into a scat orgy and you vividly describe it every time.
That's not remotely true.
No harm, no foul, I guess, but you're still kinda making people unwitting and unwilling participants in your sexual fantasy.
Honestly, the problem is that a lot of shitty GMs (read: the ones who insert their fetishes into the game to begin with) don't have the self-control when they get horny. The stereotypical whizzard GM is a problem not just because of personal disgust but because their personal interest in the subject and their thinking with their dicks and going stupid leads to it derailing the game. If a poor GM for instance has a mind control fetish, the players might start to notice that every third encounter has a mind controller and every other plot twist involves someone being under mind control. In addition to being offputting due to the sexual context, it's also just annoying and bad for story and gameplay.
In that sense, I think it's unethical, as it violates the concept of consent.
You're literally using other people to get off, and since they don't know about it although frankly it's usually pretty obvious, a lot of times players are just too uncomfortable or awkward to point it out they can't possibly consent to being direct party to your sexual gratification.
A lot of people think consent is purely a subject of rape and sexual assault, but it's more broad than that. It's an ethical principle designed to prevent things like this exact situation.
It really shouldn't have to be said, but it's not okay to use other people for your sexual gratification unless they're also into it. It's one thing to keep it to yourself and fantasize - everyone does that - but the line is crossed when you're actively using their participation.
These two combined sum up my feelings.
Holy shit we got a sane person on Veeky Forums
Can someone post that one comic where they actually do go into the piss forest and go on adventures and shit? I been looking for it for a while and haven't been able to find it.
Anyway, the reason it's not okay to push your fetishes in the RPG is because it's kinda gross and gay. Like, if the GM is all about giantess fetish and makes everyone run around the Land of Giant Women trying not to get squashed, you can kinda tell he's secretly jerking off to it later and you just talked dirty to him for three hours to get him fluffed up. And that's really damn homo sauce and not something gay guys should do to non-gay guys.
Faggot here, please don't associate us with magical realm cunts.
Things written with sexual satisfaction in mind make less sense than things written without sexual satisfaction in mind, for the most part.
When your motivation is to get off, you'll be thinking of logical reasons for you to be able to get off in the world. This might work for a roleplay, but it will mostly be forced.
When your motivation is to build a coherent, immersive world you'll build a coherent, immersive world.
Herein lies the problem- How much energy are you as a DM spending to try and safely insert this fetish into your roleplay? How much actual, meaningful story and planning thereof is sidelined in favor of you creating whatever context is required for this to take place? What silly hoops are your players being asked to walk through?
It's not that every fetish ruins every thing 100% of the time. It's that fetishes tend to denigrate a work and the effort that goes into it before they support it. Because of that, it's just better off for most people if a DM, and players for that matter, avoid trying to inject fetish material into their setting.
But that's what they're doing, tricking other dudes into talking dirty to them. That's gay. What they are doing is gay.
In my experience of actually running an ERP, this is entirely untrue. Or, I guess I should say it's not necessarily true.
Context is extremely important for me and my group. The world, the relationships with characters and the other events going on all give the ero stuff meaning and make it more significant, which adds to the fun for us. It's not a matter of doing one or the other, the two are intricately linked, adding to one another rather than taking away.
Don't worry, friendo - the person you're replying to is an idiot.
No, you dumb dishrag, it's not "gay". It's "shitty". Sexual preference has no part of someone Magical Realming someone else. Saying it's "gay" is like saying it's "gay" because you're watching a porno created by men. People don't care about the source of their porn - they just want the damn porn. It's only "gay" if the Magical Realmer is getting off specifically to having a guy he's attracted to participate in the MR, because in that scenario, the person providing the stimulation is of his particular interest.
I give that advice as somebody running an ERP myself.
I think you're mistaking the presence of sex in general with the injection of fetishes. Your character relationships might improve on account of sexual or intimate interactions between them, but I very much doubt that the quality of the story and world are improved by the addition of fetish-material.
I'm sure context and relationships are very important for your group. What I doubt is that the desire to be covered in whipped cream and spanked while being called a slippery pine-weasel is making the story between your paladin and warlock fucking eachother more meaningful.
At least in the context of my game, I'd say they do. But then, we started from the bottom up with a fresh setting, building things in based on the kinks of the players, but also considering what repercussions and implications they'd have due to their presence and integrating that kind of thing as a natural part of the world, which has given the setting a distinct, unusual shape and made certain events involving those kinks plot-significant.
I do see the point that injecting fetish after the fact likely warps a setting in odd ways, but doing it at the very foundational layer can make it all part of a seamless whole and actually create unique and unexpected little bits of storytelling alongside the kinky fun.
You say no need, but T. Hanks anyway.
Yeah but talking dirty to other dudes is like phone sex without the phones. And that's gay if it's 2 guys.
And watching porn with other dudes and jerking off in the same room is kinda gay too. Not nearly as gay as phone sex without the phones but still weird enough to be on the gayness spectrum.
Is it gay to read a piece of erotic literature written by a man? Does that change if there are no male characters involved?
I think you think way, way too hard about what counts as 'gay'. Needless categorisation is a pretty silly thing.
It's gay to read erotic literature written by a man if he's in the same room as you reading it to you while you jerk off.
Erotic literature isn't the same thing because there's a disconnect, a lack of intimacy between the reader and writer. Put the intimacy back and suddenly it's gay again.
And do you really think there's a sense of intimacy if a GM is secretly getting off from an unknowing player?
yes
>I think you think way, way too hard about what counts as 'gay'. Needless categorisation is a pretty silly thing.
A sexual experience between two men isn't exactly a controversial definition of homosexual.
>We're not gay, we just jerk off to a fantasy together and don't like labels.
You seem to be making an awful lot of rather silly assumptions
Perhaps, but two guys narrating a sexual fantasy together being a sexual experience isn't one of them.
It is, however, based on silly assumptions that you are still making.
On the flipside, one of the players in my group is an utter puritan and flat out disdains sexual content in just about anything (Very serious christian, doesn't like it when anything, even in fiction is referred to as a god unless it's the god of the bible). Probably sees people attempting magical realms when they don't even exist.
When an NPC succubus tried to seduce the party, thus forcing them to make will saves, he picked up his D20, placed it 20 side up and says 'He passes' in a low and serious voice. After a bit of back and forth, the GM conceded, given arguing with this guy over all this was like arguing with a brick wall.
He's otherwise a very fun player providing you don't even look at that sort of territory, oddly enough.
Well, I can sort of see his side of it as there are certain circumstances where I straight up don't want to roleplay out something and don't think it's fair to automatically suffer long-lasting repercussions for something I didn't want anything to do with. (By my standards, his stance on sex in general is a bit OTT, but some people would think my boundaries on certain topics also OTT, so no stones cast.)
Glad to hear he's otherwise a good player.
Shouldn't this guy discredit the entirety of tabletop RPGs as a thing of the devil if he's that religious?
Like, the whole concept of fantasy RPGs are a blasphemy with that mindset.
My magical realms break the most societal taboos and make the most normal people uncomfortable of anyone's at the table, so I'm good at suppressing mine.
I say hit me with your best fucking shot, as long as it doesn't derail a good plot or setting. Masturbate under the table if you like. I'll judge you based on your taste.
What's so terrible about structured make-believe, exactly? I was under the impression that for sane Christians, believing D&D is a dark ritual or whatever is itself the heresy because witchcraft isn't real and only God can effect that kind of supernatural stuff.
I did ask him about this at one point, and said that just like Lord of The Rings, it's fantasy, and wasn't worth getting upset over. Aside from sexual stuff, which is pretty ubiquitous in fiction anyway, he only takes issue with certain aspects of the in-universe gods, which out games don't really feature anyway.
If it's disruptive then yes. If not, carry on, but at least pretend you're keeping it low key.
>doesn't like it when anything, even in fiction is referred to as a god unless it's the god of the bible
I hate it when fundies assume other people can't tell fantasy from reality.
A fictional setting having fictional gods is not, and shoudn't be taken as, an affront to real-world religion.
I'm not saying anything is wrong with it, it's just that weird, unintentional hypocrisy that religious folk can fall into.
The sexual stuff I can understand. But when he says it's just fantasy and not worth getting upset over, then takes issues to non-existent gods is kind of contradictory.
Still, it's good that you can make it work for him. I had a friend who was like that but would disavow it completely.
>this level of autism
>consent is morality
Here's a thought: just don't be a weird sex pervert.
>weird, unintentional hypocrisy that religious folk can fall into.
>saying X is like X but not like Y is hypocritical
Man, I hate nu-Veeky Forums.
>believing D&D is a dark ritual or whatever is itself the heresy because witchcraft isn't real and only God can effect that kind of supernatural stuff.
No, idiot. Don't ever use the word "heresy" again, you flaming faggot.
>Shit, he's got a point
>I'll just call him autistic, that'll show him
Why is it okay to use other people for emotional gratification or humor in a way that neither requires their physical participation nor disturbs them mentally but it's not okay to do it for sexual gratification?
The sex is also non-existent.
So are you one of those crazy American fundies or are you posting from some African shithole, that you still believe in fucking witchcraft?
Christianity necessitates a belief in angels, demons, and sorcery. The applicability of those to modernity is questionable, but they exist within the Bible, ergo they are a part of the faith. Now please fuck off and don't talk about "heresy" again, you doublenigger.
Looks like I hit a nerve. Which is it?
Because they consented to being used for emotional gratification, humor, and entertainment if they're showing up to a tabletop game, you fucking retard.
The only reason you'd keep your magical realm secret or not admit that's what your doing is because you know they'd be uncomfortable with it. Because they wouldn't consent to it.
But if they're not uncomfortable with it because you didn't tell them then nothing wrong has actually happened.
See the first thing you said is actually frowned upon, because it's unhealthy for you. Humor is entirely different as well, but given that you thought it was perfectly fine to get emotional gratification from a one way relationship I'm not going to get too much into it; You're either baiting or in desperate need of long term real human bean interaction.
The fact that you're reasoning through it on the grounds of consent morality is what's autistic. Anyone who isn't a social retard (not the majority of Veeky Forums) instinctively understands that magical realm violates social taboos by thrusting sexuality into a non-sexual arena. However, as Veeky Forums is filled with socially stunted outcasts whose primary sexual outlet is pornography, you have debates on whether magical realm is appropriate or inappropriate.
In short: you're a degenerate and deserve to be shamed.
I just don't see the point in getting all uptight about something that literally does not bother anyone, if you're able to keep it that way. In my dictionary that's called "wrongthink".
>I can be a pervert and no one knows so it's okay.
By your retarded reasoning, it's okay to rape a woman if she's too drunk to remember it the next morning.
i'm debating that it is NOT appropriate, you fucking retard.
Literally yes. Is this a controversial statement now?
Except if you rape a woman, you've literally physically raped her. You've committed a crime.
Is something immoral because it is illegal?
It's illegal because it's actual, physical rape which leaves behind physical testimony to the fact that you actually, physically raped someone.
But something wrong has happened. You've made other people work for your sexual gratification without their consenting to it. The fact that you don't understand why that would bother or upset someone suggests you're exactly the kind of autistic outcast described in
>i'm debating that it is NOT appropriate, you fucking retard.
You debating it is part of the problem. You articulating consent morality regarding the issue allows degenerates like an opportunity to defend their perversity. Magical realm is not a matter of consent; it's a matter of maladjusted weirdos who have a sexual ethic of "do whatever gives me an orgasm." Trying to explain to them why it's wrong to force their sexual fetishes onto other players is a fool's errand. If you can't understand that jerking off under the table isn't appropriate (and is a sign of mental disturbance), then you deserve to be beaten into submission.
Nobody is debating if rape is illegal, you fucking retard.
But by your logic if she doesn't remember it afterwards, it's okay, because she doesn't know it happened.
>Is something immoral because it is illegal?
>It's illegal because
>is something immoral because...
>it's illegal because...
So are you illiterate, retarded, or trying to avoid answering a simple question?
Why would "making people work for your sexual gratification" require consent? That only applies if it's an openly sexual act for which you could be charged with rape or sexual assault or harassment.
Except that's not true because I'm capable of differentiating between disparate actions with disparate effects.
Again, you folks seem really fond of overgeneralizing. I'm not going to play word games with you—rape is something else and this isn't it.
>Except that's not true because I'm capable of differentiating between disparate actions with disparate effects.
And you're arguing that we should charge surgeons with assault every time they cut into patient.
Sometimes things that are different are, in fact, different.
It's not special pleading. You haven't shown me a scenario in which getting your rocks off secretly and non-disruptively at a tabletop game is wrong, at which point I then would have come up with some reason why only this specific instance was wrong; you've overgeneralized my position to something which I've come out and stated it doesn't extend to.
Anyway, if you want to make an analogy with rape, then sure; let's do that. Here's a scenario for you.
A man goes to the emergency room with a cucumber lodged up his ass which he put up there to fulfill a non-sexual request from an anonymous imageboard user. The doctor extracts the cucumber cleanly, safely, and acts completely professionally the entire way through.
>Scenario A: the doctor enjoyed it no more than any other part of his day.
>Scenario B: the doctor rubs one off in the bathroom during his break afterwards.
Has the doctor in scenario B done something wrong?
And don't say the scenario is unrealistic.
>Again, you folks seem really fond of overgeneralizing. I'm not going to play word games with you—rape is something else and this isn't it.
nailed it in one pic
>Has the doctor in scenario B done something wrong?
answered already
>It really shouldn't have to be said, but it's not okay to use other people for your sexual gratification unless they're also into it. It's one thing to keep it to yourself and fantasize - everyone does that - but the line is crossed when you're actively using their participation.
Jerking off to your own thoughts is private and nobody else cares. Actively steering other people to participate in your fetish, unknowingly, is not private. And the reason you'd keep it secret is because you know they wouldn't want you to do that to them.
Already addressed.
If the only difference between them being happy and them being unhappy about it is their knowledge of your personal state of mind, then nothing wrong has happened. That's not something that people should get to police each other over. I'm not arguing about it because I'm deadset on bringing my magical realm into games, though I know you'll assume that of me anyway; it's that you're straying into the wacky weirdo realm of wrongthink, where something that's completely and totally in your head is somehow an external wrong.
It's not about what you do in your head, it's about what you do to other people.
As has been explained to you repeatedly, the point at which it's not okay is when you expect other people to contribute to your fetish without telling them what you're doing. It's their effort, not your mental fantasy.
I look forward to your "totally academic, not at all relevant to me, honest" spirited defense of GMing in bad faith, or just generally treating your friends in bad faith.
>fundies
>Reddit spacing
I believe you dropped this
If he refuses to take part in the game than you need to kick him out
>b-but we're friends
And? Are you obligated to let him play?
>h-he's a nice guy other than that!
A bad player is a bad player, he is breaking the rules if he is aruging with the DM the DM needs to exercise his authority by kicking his ass out
>Reddit spacing
They're making the same effort either way. To them, the effort is towards having a fun game. To yourself, it's towards having a fun game in a slightly different sense. Remember that the premise states that they're not discomforted by it, meaning there is not a significant difference in the effort they put in to co-operate in the game.
It's a difference that can't be objectively seen outside of each person's private mental state.
>Why would "making people work for your sexual gratification" require consent?
You're making a disturbingly similar argument to literal rapists.
Maybe that's why this thread keeps comparing you to rapists?
Except in the very next sentence I mentioned how you do, in fact, require consent as a distinguishing factor when examining literal (literal) rape.
They're making an effort because they assume you're mutually enjoying a fun game together. They would not make that effort if they learned your actual fun was masturbating furiously to the thought of their characters being subject to whatever your weird fetish is. You know this is true and that's why you're defending hiding it from them, so you can continue to get off on them without them knowing or consenting to being your sexual playthings.
>DM is always right
>Players must agree with everything he says
>Can't discuss shit like adults during the game
You are mutually enjoying a fun game together and their characters are being subject to something which, to them, is completely non-sexual and acceptable in the normal course of gameplay.
If you're playing a game with someone and they assume they're mutually enjoying a fun game with a person they like, but in actuality you're a vile racist or a staunch Communist or whatever, and the knowledge of your mental state would lead them to be uncomfortable sharing a table with you, is it wrong to play with them anyway while presenting yourself in a way that doesn't discomfort them at all?
In the real world, people are willing to make compromises for the sake of social cohesion.
Now you're just being disingenuous. There is a difference between something that is directly related to what you're doing together, and something that is unrelated. If you're getting them to act out your political fantasies, then yes, they should know that.
So if you keep your players in the dark and run a fun political game which they think of just the same as any other game, it's better to ruin it by bringing up your personal politics at the table, or it's wrong to run such a game?
As the other guy is trying to say, user, it's about playing in good faith.
They're bringing a good faith effort to the table, and they expect you to do so too.
As a GM I'd be just as uncomfortable knowing that one of my players is getting off and casting me as basically his sexual fantasy writer.
It's not about "wrongthink," it's not about badwrongfun, it's about the obvious and instinctive discomfort this topic evokes.
And if you can't see that, then you're the autist.
By running or participating in the game in a way as not to disrupt anybody else at the table, you are in fact playing in good faith and putting forth a good faith effort.
And instinctive discomfort isn't a good reason to condemn something as wrong, or else we'd still be throwing gays off tall buildings.
You're already bringing up your personal politics at the table by shoehorning it into the game, you fucking retard. The only difference is whether you're honest about it or not.
I don't think you know what good faith is. Honesty is a non-negotiable part.
But if whether you're honest about your private mental state is the only differentiating factor, then I'd say it's totally acceptable to lie about it.
See above. Honesty is for real events in the real world; people don't have a right or a claim to each others' private minds.
Honestly, the reason I avoid magical realm fetishfags has nothing to do with consent or faith or religion or discomfort or anything.
It's that fetishfags are the fucking worst and every single one thinks they're the exception, they're the ones that can shoehorn in something that excites them sexually without getting excited.
You're not. We all see it and it's fucking disgusting. It's just how men are wired, we think differently when we're sexually excited, we prioritize things differently and we reason differently. This is not my opinion, this is scientific fact and it's been known since ancient times. Fucking famous greek philosophers knew this shit and theorized about it at length.
Its only acceptable in ERP games where everyone is in it for similar or at least compatible reasons, because then everyone's in that headspace and it's mutually enjoyed. Otherwise, It's a little like being the one drunk guy in a sober group - or the one sober guy in a drunk group.
Magical realm GMs often sincerely don't see just how obvious and cringeworthy they really are because their hormones and neurochemistry at the moment literally alters how they perceive things. And the GMs who think they're above this are universally the most blind and oblivious.
>Honesty is for real events in the real world
Like a tabletop game?
Let's say you're chatting with your friends online and someone mentions their feet are cold. This changes the conversation to socks and then feet in general. A girl mentions having painted her toenails, a guy mentions a sock having a hole in it, or another person mentions having bought a pair of rad Batman socks. Doesn't really matter, but someone in the group is a foot fetishist and is getting charged by the conversation and subtly keeps the conversation there as long as seems natural, but drops it after.
Did anything wrong happen on the part of the foot guy?
Now let's take it the next step up. Foot guy asks to see the girl's painted toes. He asks to see the guy's toe peeking out of the sock to determine if the sock is able to be repaired. He asks to see the rad Batman socks. He enjoys the photos.
Did anything wrong happen? What about if he keeps them for use later too?
In the next scenario, he asks for more photos, video, or specific requests ("bet you can't pick up a banana with just your toes").
He's careful to be "funny" or "charming" - so they're not yet made uncomfortable. Is he doing something wrong? What about if they start feeling uncomfortable but don't call him on it because the way he's doing it is still fairly innocent?
Is he doing something wrong if he keeps coming back to the topic of feet, even when it's not a natural part of conversation?
What about if it comes out later that he's into feet and now everyone knows why he asked for those pictures and kept bringing it up and now they're uncomfortable? If you didn't think it was wrong while everyone wasn't aware, do you think it's wrong now that they know?
I don't think we have to bring Magical Realm straight up into rape territory. But I've had plenty of queasy feelings in retrospect of what I thought were innocent interactions with friends that turned out to not be so innocent and later didn't want to be friends with them anymore because they'd violated my trust.
Let me rephrase. Honesty matters when the truth value of a statement is linked to a real event in the physical world, but not when it's linked to the state of one's mind (barring things where limited information is a necessary factor, like test answers and debate questions etc.). If they'd be okay with playing the game given knowledge of the external proceedings, but not the internal mental states of each player, then real events in the real world are no longer the determinant but instead each others' mental states—where people are not owed honesty.
Let me rephrase again and replace "physical world" and "real world" with "external world", just to be sure.
>subtly keeps the conversation there as long as seems natural
see The myth of the fetishfag who covertly manipulates events to appeal to his magical realm without anyone else being the wiser or necessarily losing out is just that - a myth. From the perspective of people who don't see feet as a special topic, he inevitably comes off as weirdly aggressive on the subject and especially over long-term interactions such as an ongoing game, patterns start to emerge.
I had a GM once who seemed to more often than random chance have characters who were androgynous, or men who got mistaken for women as running jokes, or characters whose sex was indeterminable, or women who were actually girl(male)s.
We played games on and off for years, and the pattern was definitely visible. He was never so blatant that we outright called him on it, but it was definitely uncomfortable and over time we stopped asking him to GM for us and stopped showing up to his games because it frankly dominated our perceptions of his play.
Honesty matters for a number of reasons. For starters, you're not half as clever as you think you are. You can't bring up the same set of oddly specific subjects for years and expect nobody will ever figure it out, even if you have the libido control of a fucking eunuch monk, which I guarantee you don't if this is even an issue for you.
Secondly, it's unethical to use people as a means to an end without clearly informing them. No amount of word games changes this basic fact - you're playing in bad faith and using people for a sexual purpose. The fact that you still don't understand how and why this disgusts people is incredibly revealing.
Finally, as has been explained to you in such exhaustive terms even a retarded child could understand it by now, the point at which it becomes wrong is when you manipulate, control, or direct other people's behavior for dishonest reasons. The problem is that you are not merely talking about what's in your head. Nobody cares about what you fap to when you're alone. The thing that upsets people is the thought that you are manipulating them to appeal to your sexual fantasy. That is not internal. That is not in your head. No amount of mental gymnastics will erase this basic essential contradiction. You are taking as an underlying assumption that "If they'd be okay..." and "If they'd otherwise..." - but you're in the same breath talking about things that directly influence their behavior. This is illogical; you have no proper place to talk about what your players would otherwise do since your input is affecting them. This is an experiment with no control.
That's kind of where I was going with my post.
Upthread, people were making a point of "if no one knows, it's nbd - you are golden". And what I'm getting at is that it never just stays at the most benign level with magical realmers. They end up not being able to control themselves and keep going back to it and focusing on it if it ever comes up. Even the oblivious will eventually catch on and after awhile, even the most accepting is going to be at the very least annoyed that the MR'er seems to think they're pulling one over on the group.
If your argument is "it's not going to turn out well in practice" then that's not something I'm disputing. I myself don't do it because I know I can't pull it off (but again, I know you'll still assume it of me).
But, strictly within the confines of the premise, we begin with the fact that the game does turn out well, which is why I'm able to make assumptions like "If they'd be okay..." and "If they'd otherwise...". It's not an experiment; it's ideal conditions—perfect spheres in a vacuum—in order to isolate whether the justified "it ruins games" has experienced scope creep into "other people's sexual gratification is icky". Now, in this scenario, the thought that you are manipulating someone in order to appeal to your sexual fantasy can in fact be totally and perfectly reduced to that: a thought, totally and completely internal.
To me, manipulating, controlling, or directing someone else's behavior for dishonest reasons is wrong when it results in harm to that person, not in and of itself. Whether or not to take that risk is ever acceptable in practice is not something I'm going to argue over, because we agree on that point.
>But, strictly within the confines of the premise, we begin with the fact that the game does turn out well, which is why I'm able to make assumptions like "If they'd be okay..." and "If they'd otherwise...". It's not an experiment; it's ideal conditions—perfect spheres in a vacuum—in order to isolate whether the justified "it ruins games" has experienced scope creep into "other people's sexual gratification is icky". Now, in this scenario, the thought that you are manipulating someone in order to appeal to your sexual fantasy can in fact be totally and perfectly reduced to that: a thought, totally and completely internal.
No, you've started with the premise that anyone expressing disapproval of magical realm fags has boiled down to "other people's sexual gratification is icky," and then attempted to clumsily shoehorn in the litany of valid points against it into that framework.
There is a point past which assuming "ideal conditions" is itself retarded, because when you're assuming a premise that is untrue, the results are meaningless. But sure, let's go along with this horseshit logic - the consequentialist argument, laying out that it never actually works in practice, is a side point as you're assuming that it does and going from there.
That still leaves other arguments. For instance, it's still unethical to use people as a means to an end without clearly informing them. Don't argue it with me, argue with immanuel kant or some shit.
Manipulating, controlling, and directing someone else's behavior for dishonest reasons is inherently wrong because it assumes you have the authority and position to decide for yourself if they're harmed or not by the actions you manipulated, controlled, or directed them to do. Just as your thought process is opaque to them, theirs is to you. You cannot reasonably say that your victims are entirely comfortable with the magical realm you're manipulating them into and it's not your place to assume that of them.