Where do you draw the line with VR?

Remove all ads!

Virtual relationships. If you are roleplaying a fictional character in a persistant world in which you never discuss your real life outside that persistant world, and you have a virtual relationship with another character, is it cheating on a GF/BF/spouse in real life?

[ August 07, 2005, 16:23: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Depends on how sad a case you are. I would have thought in the majority of cases, then no, it isn't cheating. If you start getting off on it, or start believing it then you are cheating, in your mind at least.

Of course it all depends on how secretive you are to your partner about your on-line life and if they have a problem with it.

 

Are actors cheating on their significant other when they kiss another actor in a movie?

That is not different from acting your part in a persistent world. If you are on a role-playing world, and makes sense for your character to fall for another, why should this be wrong?

I see it as a problem only when players cannot make the difference between their real lives, and their virtual ones. In my opinion, people who start virtual relationships on a persistent world just because they are not happy with the one they have in real life (as opposed to "because that is what their character would do"), are to be pitied.

 

Chevbait

If it's in the realms of roleplay - then it's not cheating, for much the same reasons as Colthrun.

 

I believe yes, at least on the material level. This is subject to complications on the formal level, but generally yes. You can't cheat without a cheating intention and generally can't do anything wrong without knowledge and consent, but something is materially wrong with the act itself, as a rule.

Observation: If kissing the female lead while you are the male lead is so asexual, surface only, and not cheating at all, why don't you go ahead and kiss the male support as the male lead, the same way? If it's asexual, kissing a guy should feel the same. Why don't you?

Because cash does not make any excuse. You could say it's just work. Work is something you do to fill your wallet. Conclusion: actors kiss to fill their wallets. Not only is this unfair against the spouse but an example of a certain "entrepreneurial" attitude towards these things.

I tend to agree. But, of course, I have a million reservations:

First, there's a difference between your character thinking your game partner's character is hot and acting on it, and you thinking your game partner is hot and your character acting on it. When it's about the player, it's problematic and likely at least leads to mental cheating, a cheating attitude which is destructive even if it doesn't find fruition.

Second, even if it's not about the game partner on the other side, is it still not about you on your side? As you said, Colthrun, there's a problem when someone's doing it because of dissatisfaction with his current real life relationship. I would add that using one's character to get off or release sexual tension is masturbatory behaviour and, as such, not compatible with a humane relationship.

Third, even if it's clear on your side, what does the game partner think? Is it in-character for him or is he lead on, even by his own delusions? If you can handle it, can he? We are not only responsible for the feelings we have but also the feelings we awake in others.

Fourth, even if it isn't cheating, there are other problems. Imagine yourself being married to an avid roleplayer. One day a guy from her group (you can make him smarter, handsomer etc than yourself... or a total loser, whichever upsets you more ) asking you, "Is your wife's elven bard going to dance on the table naked for us like the other night the party got blasted?" I know I'm exaggerating and I can imagine such situations not being a problem, but... you get what I mean, I'm sure.

Fifth, whatever people do, they do it for a reason. There's no such thing as randomness except maybe apparent randomness within the range of options that still are there for a reason. What characters people want to play reflects them somehow. Generally, it often tends to reflect their restrained side. Why would a hard working father and loving husband, head of the household and so on, want to play a pimp? Why would a virtuous woman, faithful to her husband and strong morals, even want to roleplay a harlot? Reasons vary but most of them are quite... interesting.

Here is a couple of questions a romance roleplayer could ask himself:

• Are you hiding anything about your games from your real-life partner?
• Even if your partner doesn't seem to mind, is that because he really doesn't mind or because he doesn't want to hurt you by speaking openly?
• Are the players' looks and personalities relevant in your choice of partners for your character?
• Do the players mysteriously tend to resemble the type of people to whom you're attracted in real life? Do they tend to be more attractive than the other players?
• Assuming you're a straight male as your fighter is, would your character still romance a lovely elven bard played by... your buddy Jeff?
• Do you have "thoughts" about players when characters are romancing?
• Does roleplaying romance action turn you on?
• Did the questions turn you on?

 

Chev, it is good that you appreciate the difference between Action and Intention. A material (physiological) action without intention can hardly be considered cheating, or even sexual per se. There are cultures where parents kissing their little children in the mouth is accepted as a display of love. In others, this behaviour is shocking. Obviously, the intention is not what the physiological action connotates. When an actor kisses another actor because of a requirement of his job, both consent to it, and their significant others do so too, this can hardly be considered cheating.

Even though the playing of a couple kissing each other should be done without a real interest on each other, the action itself includes physical contact of a very intimate sort which some may find unpleasant, if not disgusting. Even though it should be the same (the same organ, the same fluids), there is a difference. An ilustration: some people find themselves repulsed by the thought of touching loose, wet hair (I’m one of those). I can stroke my girfriend’s hair to my heart’s content, but I cannot bring myself to remove strands of her wet hair from the sink without gagging. It’s the same thing, hair, but out of the context that makes it pleasant. The same goes for kissing other people. Gender has nothing to do with it. Even age could be included here. Would you rather do a love scene with a 25 year old woman, or with a 95 year old?

Would you feel guilty if you romanced any of the female NPCs in BG2 while going out with a girl in real life? Why should you? Jaheira, Viconia or Aerie are not even real. You have no feelings for them (unless you are Beren, of course). When playing a role-play campaign I take exactly the same point of view. I know that there is a real person behind that character, but I choose to ignore that fact, and concentrate on the character.

You create a character with some traits, morals, a background story, and then you try and play that. If Colthrun the Character likes meek, red-haired women, it is surprising if he becomes interested on a meek, red-haired female character? This could happen even though Colthrun the Person does not like meek, red-haired women (my apologies to any meek, red-haired ladies reading this who might have felt they had a chance ). My character is not me, but a creation. That other character is not the other player, but a creation. When role-playing a romance, both involved need to understand that. One should be playing a character, not projecting his/her own desires and interests. The romance itself is not between themselves, but between their characters. It’s like writing a story jointly with another person. This can (and should) be arranged OCC, so that each player knows exactly what to expect, and where are the limits.

It’s not much different than reading a love scene in a book. Some people may get turned on by reading about the characters doing it (and then read it again, and again). Some just read it as part of the story. In any case, it depends on your moral and sexual upbringing, but I agree in part. Mind you, it’s a dangerous line of thought. By the same logic, it could be argued that shooting other players in an FPS is a show of voluntary murderous behaviour. We could therefore label all FPS players as sociopaths.

Chev, I am sorry, but I think you have lost me there. This is reality against fantasy again. Stephen King writes about horror and murders and people don’t think he’s nuts. Why should a person who uses his/her imagination to create a world and characters, or to create a character and narrate what that character does should be considered any less?

In the wife’s example, why should it bother me something that never happened? My wife didn’t get on the table or danced naked. Her character did. It was all on their heads, it was a story, something that her character was doing. Unless she fancied another real guy and demonstrated an interest on him, why should I mind if her character was of low moral tissue? If I had married an avid roleplayer, I should already know that difference, even if I was not into RP. Otherwise, it could’t work. Think about this. I could play a psycho who kills all the village children, skins them, and makes a kite with the material. Does the thought of doing that to non-real children is evil? Does that mean that I (Colthrun the person) am truly evil, for playing a deranged bastard, or that it is my secret ambition to do what my character does?


Edit: Gee, I never thought that one of my posts could look nearly longer than one of chevalier's.

 

Colthrun, you are ignoring the fact that the other character is a real person but are they ignoring the fact that you are? If you are invoking some real feelings in the other player despite the fact that you know it's all in good fun, then is it still ok? How do you know the other person is taking the game the same way that you are? There are a lot of lonely people in the world, and the internet is definitely no exception.

Chev, I disagree with your view on actors to an extent. I think some actors do their job and some actors forget their role. I suppose that it is the same with roleplayers with a big difference. Roleplaying is fun and not a job.I agree with a lot of what you say concerning roleplayers and romance(if they are playing with real people). People are real and the characters that they create always have some content of what is behind the person who created them. Therefor there must be some real feelings involved even if the "roleplayer" can not admit it.

 

I think you are missing one thing. The gesture the actors are performing is normally considered romantic and/or sexual in their culture and is meant to be such. If you kiss your family and friends on the mouth, it would probably be possible for you to kiss such a person in a fake-romantic or fake-sexual way without complications. It might even be possible to kiss a stranger in such a way.

However, the excuse you propose works also for sex and I doubt you would consider it right for actors to have intercourse on the stage because of a requirement. Also, sex is a job requirement for prostitutes, too. Would you not mind your partner being a prostitute? And what makes paid sex (or any sexual activity) morally better in acting than in prostitution? It's only a matter of excuses one decides to use to perform a sexual action in exchange for money. Simply, job doesn't make an excuse.

I somehow empathise with your thesis that there's no cheating where the partner is consenting to your doing something with a third person. I don't necessarily agree, though, and even if we don't consider it cheating, it still doesn't have to be morally proper. If it isn't cheating, it has to be a restricted form of polygamy, which is still morally wrong in my book.

Agreed. I find it repulsive that a woman could kiss a stranger. Let alone for money. There's no way I would accept that.

Err... really? I suppose you would be more inclined to kiss a female than a male, as am I. What I'm going to prove is that such scenes are still sexual. If it really weren't sexual, there should be no problem playing a gay guy and kissing with other guys. I remember I didn't care much around my family when I was a toddler but while I remember kissing female friends on the mouth instead of the cheek sometimes, I don't think I could make myself kiss a guy, even on the cheek. Something is already strange here and if you include money in the picture, as well as the other person being a stranger, it becomes very problematic.

That's the reason why I don't say roleplaying romance is always bad. I don't think there's a problem with BG2 or NWN NPCs and if characters played by real people are like those computer-driven NPCs, then I guess there isn't much of a problem. If any.

I would say, however, that the characters being real or not doesn't exhaust the matter. There's still the problem of what you feel. Those sensations can be quite real. Going through Viconia romance to get off is similar to masturbation in principle.

Not all roleplayers would say that and not all of those who would, would be right in saying so.

All right, but what if Colthrun the Character romanced Melinda the Character because Colthrun the Person fancied Melinda the Person? That's the sort of situation I was addressing. Not your kind of situation, which appears quite sane to me (basing on the data I get from you).

In some cases, that might be too intimate.

But why the limits? If it is totally not dangerous, then why the limits? If you perceive the need for limits, this must be because you are aware of danger of some kind.

Here's my observation: If it's about limits, then the question is not "what's right and what's wrong?" but, "How far can we go?" Obviously, something is wrong if our problem is not the right and wrong but the extent to which we allow ourselves to indulge in something that we know to be dangerous and perhaps morally problematic. It sounds a bit like the kissing is not sex excuse. In short: if we are setting limits, we are making concessions. The problem is not how wrong we can be without being too wrong. Why not be right? If it's just a tiny little wrong but feels good, should we do it? I realise that scrupulous overanalysing of any action kills the joy of life, but there's no fun without responsibility, either.

Or RTS players as genocides, GTA fans as gangsters etc. I agree that's a far stretch. The unique thing about sex is that it creates ties, bonds etc, while murder doesn't leave anything between the murderer and the victim. What is important is the right setting, the right scenery, the right approach -- still not to diminish the value of the "material component".

I said there was a variety of reasons. It may just be creative imagination. But it may be a hidden, repressed urge. If you play a pimp or a loose girl once it probably doesn't mean much, but a consistent habit of playing characters which use their body as currency says something about the person, as does the habit of playing assassin/necromancer/palemasters all the time. It's roleplaying and escapism. For some people, roleplaying is a way to escape the social boundaries of their culture. To do what's forbidden and enjoy it without sinning.

You sound... innocent. But Freud wasn't entirely wrong. There's a reason for everything people do or say. It's interesting how people are sometimes ready to get rid of their inhibitions even in the presence of strangers. But you are right in one thing: It's important why such a character is played. There may be a more or less healthy reason or unhealthy interests, as well. My example carries the notion of attention-whorism. If a woman did that, I would think it were a cry for attention, first of all. Might also be what I call "charity giving", i.e. allowing friends some sexual pleasure even though you are in a relationship with someone else or at least don't want any relationship with the person. In essence, using sex to make someone feel better. Like a hug. Which is still sick, anyway.

@Dragonfly: I'm not sure if I agree. I could roleplay my character getting married to a female friend's character without getting off on it. However, I would have no interest in roleplaying the sexual scenes. What for? I could come up with some flirty lines to show off how big a charmer my character were, but still, what for? Some of it would probably be more or less in character and not overly bothersome. After all, characters are supposed to be real and relationships are a normal part of life. So perhaps there is a safe way of roleplaying romances. A question must be ask, though: Why do I want to include romance in my roleplay? Why can't I live without it? What makes it so important for me?

I could play a mouth kissing scene with a friend without getting off on it, as well. In fact, I can recall kissing or getting kissed on the mouth by friends on some occasions. Again, though, why would I do that? Why does it have to be mouth and not cheek and so on. Why play that. With a stranger... technically, I could. But why? The idea of kissing a stranger on the mouth doesn't appeal to me. Doing it for cash despite it not appealing to me doesn't appeal to me, either.

While one is supposed to submerge in the character, empathise with the role (thus feeling some kind of real feelings), so are actors. If an actor is to play the role well, he practically has to become one with the character, imagine that he feels what the character feels. Channel the same urges, emotions, frustrations. This would also have to be true for any kind of sexual interaction. Especially if it is supposed to look as if you were turned on, you need to invoke some sort of sexual images or attune your body to act in that manner. This becomes problematic. We can't go only by the "no pleasure" excuse. Prostitutes don't feel much pleasure from sex and some of them reserve pleasure for the spouses or other partners they have (about 50% prostitutes in this country have partners). Does it mean it's just job and thus morally right?

Even if it isn't intended to bring pleasure to the person who does it, getting overly generous with one's body is not something I can respect in a person. I will grant it to you that actors are more likely to do real things without real feelings, while roleplayers are more likely to awake real feelings without doing anything real. But I don't think this makes it better for actors. I feel a certain dislike towards vain acts.

[ August 04, 2005, 20:52: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Reality
-------------- <- Right here.
Virtual Reality

It's not real, and someone who treats it as such needs to take a break. Anyone who gets that into it needs to back off a little and get their priorities in order. And I'm not just preaching; it's happened to me. After a couple of months (cold turkey) I was easily able to make the distinction again. Note that it doesn't mean that I can't get into character; I'm actually very good at that. But you have got to have a ... switch you can flip, or it's just not healthy. After all, if you become your character, then where did you go?

 

If I was in a movie, and had to kiss a hot female lead, I'd be very aroused, possibly to the point of flubbing my lines so I got to kiss her repeatedly!

The biggest worry I'd have in a situation like that would be that the character would be female, but it would be a guy on the other end...

 

That made me think and here's the result:

Observation: If the gender of the player does not matter but only the gender of the character does, then the situation is still pretty sane.

But if it does matter and for many, if not most, people it does...

Thesis: The player doesn't matter. Only the character does. It's about characters, not about players.

Observation: The gender of the player, however, matters.

Fact: Gender is one of the core, defining qualities of a person.

Conclusion: One of the defining qualities of the player is not immaterial. Thesis incorrect.

Therefore, someone for whom the gender of the player matters cannot claim that he is detached from the game.

Therefore, the game is not fully roleplayed.

As sexual behaviour between the characters is not fully roleplayed, it's obviously partly real.

We cannot split behaviour into fractions. We can only speak about the intensity and frequency of behaviour. Therefore, such not fully roleplayed but partly real sexual behaviour is real-life sexual behaviour in its own right, even if the intensity and frequency may be debatable.

Now, what was our definition of cheating? Supposing it's "consensual sexual behaviour with a person other than the partner," the above mentioned behaviour must be cheating.

And here's our surprising conclusion: If the other player's gender matters (or anything about the player), roleplaying romance is cheating. Tadaaa....

/me bows

 

If I were Role Playing with some, whether I knew them or not, and a romance fit easily into the RP I could go along with it as long as it was not explicit.

The gender of the other player would not matter.

 

Of course it doesn't matter if you are roleplaying (as in playing as your character) My Star Wars Galaxies character used to hit on every female he met


And for Chev's questions:

Nope, and why would I?

If she were to mind me roleplaying a character I wouldn't want her in the first place.

No, my character does not fall in love with the players.

How would I know? I don't know what they look like in real life.

Yes, of course.

Yeah, thoughts like "wow, he/she is a pretty good roleplayer."

Not really, but I think it is a fun part of the roleplaying experience.

Yeah


I don't see how roleplaying a romance a
is any different than any other part of the roleplaying experience. However, I do NOT think cybersex fits in an MMORPG or any other kind of roleplaying at all. If the characters have sex they should rather do something like; "/emote Bob the Brave and Cynthia the Quick (Behold my naming skills!) spend a night of passionate lovemaking together", before logging out.

It's funny how practically all the female Twi'leks in SWG who are played by guys are lesbians

 

Sorry to have taken so long in answering, folks, I've been out of circulation for a couple of days and missed this most interesting topic. I have re-read the posts and I think the main problem is to decide what is that we are discussing really. I see a difference between a virtual relationship, and role-playing a relationship.

- A virtual relationship is like a long-distance relationship. Two people like each other but live far away. They keep in contact through a internet service (be it chat, IRC, or an online computer game) and talk about their feelings, have fun, and develop further fondness for each other. This is a relationship. If one of the parts is already going out with someone out of the internet environment, this is cheating. There are feelings involved, and a concious desire to look for someone else.

- Roleplaying a relationship is simply acting a part in a story. Your character meets another character with whom they could start a relationship should they be real, or characters in a book, and they do so. The gender, social status, beliefs, and morals of the players controlling those characters should not mean a thing, unless projected to the characters.

If my friend Jeff plays a girl and my male character could be interested on her, why shouldn't he try? If Jeff feels his masculinity threatened because his character is being hit on by other characters played by male players, perhaps he should consider not playing a character he cannot get into. Of course, Jeff could make her character hate men, therefore preventing the possibility of another character hitting on her, but this should be a roleplaying decission, supported by a proper background story. The “I play ladies because they look hot in chainmail, but I don’t want you pervs to hit on me” argument is not valid. I am not hitting on you, Jeff dear. My character is hitting on a female character.

Because it is acting a part what the players are doing, the feeling is not there, and therefore the gender of the other player(s) should mean nothing. If it did, this would indicate that the player is not looking for roleplaying a relationship between characters, but to have a relationship with the other player, which is not what roleplaying is about. This, as chev says, would be cheating.

Regarding Cybersex in a RPG, it is my opinion that looks quite silly, and that it's quite unnecesary. In any case, whether players include sexual content or not in their characters' relationship is up to them, the other players taste and preferences, and to the content and rules of the server where they are playing. I wouldn't include sexual references in a romance.

In many RPGs the character can have sex with NPCs sometimes (BG2, Fallout 1 and 2, Arcanum), and sometimes sex is a way of accomplishing some missions, especially if you play a lady in some games (Fallout), due to the fact that the majority of NPCs in games tend to me male. Sex on those games is normally indicated by an open reference ("I have something for you in my room"), a blank screen, and then some talk ("I can see you are not only quick with guns...") afterwards. You know there have been sex there, but it was not explicit. There was no need for it.

When playing with other people, whether you choose to do something or not, it's a roleplaying decission. That your character does it in the game, does not mean that you would do it in real life, or that you would wish to.

I'd give you an example of roleplaying a sex-oriented way to solve a problem. A couple of rogues (male and female) want to break into a mansion. The DM tells them that there is a big, burly guard protecting the only door they can use to enter. The door is annoyingly well lit by two torches, so they cannot hide in shadow. Neither rogue have ranged weapons. The female rogue decides to put a couple of drops of a strong alcoholic beverage in her mouth to make it smells like she's been drinking too much. She indicates that she has unbuttoned her blouse, showing a generous amount of cleavage, and that she walks to the guard with an unsteady pace. She tells him that she's come from a party, and that she couldn't stop noticing how handsome and big he is, all this while caressing the guards arms and chest. If the DM indicates that the guard is interested, she may kiss the guard, guide him to a shadowy corner of the street, and let him grope her to keep him distracted, while her companion creeps behind and clubs him. It makes sense, it fits in the plot, and it could work. If the DM decides that she's too obvious, the guard could simply send her on her way.

I conceed that this is not the same as roleplaying a romance with another character. I would say it is worse, in fact, as here the female rogue is using her body to obtain something. The thing is that, the person behind the rogue may very well be against this line of acting, but her character may have been designed to act this way. The same can be said of the DM controlling the guard. The DM knows what the rogue is trying, but the guard is not. He must play the guard in the way a lonely guard would react to a willing female.

Is it possible then, to separate who you are from what you play? Hopefully yes. This is especially true of DMs, as they have to play all the other characters in the story, and not be biased by their personal like or dislike of the players. If you are not able to distance yourself (as a person) from what your character does in the game (swindle other people, trespass private property, rob others, kill or maim them, loot corpses and tombs...), you may end up like those teenagers who cut their families to ribbons with a katana after playing Final Fantasy

 

That is correct and there is difference. However, for it to be a real difference, it has to be in something else than the name. I very much agree with Jesper on that cybersex doesn't fit. Actions are similar in roleplaying relationship and in a virtual relationship, so where's the differene? Someone could say feelings, but feelings are not prerequisite for a virtual relationship. As much as I've seen "harmless" romantic roleplaying, I've seen people flirt on the internet, claiming it wasn't real and thus wasn't cheating.

Hey... that definition is missing something. There are guys who would fit in that description for me.

Okay, but everything comes from within you. An actor who has sex on the stage as a character, isn't he having sex? Okay, in roleplaying, it's just words. My character does this, my character does that. But this isn't light years away from the I do this and I do that of a virtual relationship. Note that some players say I, me, mine etc instead of their character (I sneak past the camp guard to land additional damage and end him in one blow etc etc) and sometimes the rules are such that players are characters when they are speaking, so everything is first person. When it comes to romance, there aren't likely any feelings. There might be some physical drive but not necessarily tons of it. But doesn't the very activity affect the player somehow? Isn't it still doing something? Still giving something away?

Before anyone rushes to answer, there is no simple one answer here. There are probably as many answers as there are people. But there is a problem, there is a concern. Everything looks so harmless in theory but haven't we all seen where it leads in practice?

My observations have led me to think that in one's conscience, so long as it's more or less properly formed, a person knows what's the right or the wrong thing to do in any relationship or in any kind of roleplaying or in anything else. When problems arise, they mostly come from stretching that conscience and creating countless excuses for what one wants to do or has already done for internal reasons that have nothing to do with the rational excuse.

Right. Also, apart from seeking a relationship with the player under the guise of roleplaying, one could pursue individual romantic or sexual actions (as opposed to a relationship viewed as a certain continuity) for the thrill of it. If Jeff is playing a female and Jane a male, I doubt there could be much of the thrill in such an action. But what if they play their own genders, making it easier to indentify with the character and they make their characters tongue-kiss simply because both of them like tongue kissing? There are no feelings, there is no virtual relationship, players are not attracted to each other (or we can make them siblings in real life) but something is still not right here.

"Sex is a way of accomplishing missions" and "you play a lady" don't go in one sentence.

I understand what you are saying, but some of the non-single internet flirters wouldn't do in real life what they pretend to be doing online. Some of them would consider it cheating in real life but not online. They have some measure of desire to do it in real life but they certainly have no wish. And yet, we still don't hold them excused. There is more to it than merely being willing to do the same in real life. It reaches deeper.

Okay, notwithstanding the fact that I wouldn't likely get engaged or married with a person pursuing that manner of roleplaying, I realise the situation is a roleplaying one and not cheating per se. However, I would still ask the question what made the person want to distract a guard like that. Why so eagerly use her body instead of coming up with a different solution. You normally can't know what the person was thinking about, but let's suppose the female rogue's player had a husband in real life and she was suffering from sex deprivation when the mansion robbery plan emerged, so she made her character have some action with the guard to achieve a certain measure of satisfaction. This is too shady to call it outright cheating, but it isn't fully compatible with marital vows, to put it this way.

Let's take a real life situation. An intelligence officer, who is a married person, decides to use seduction in his or her work, to gather important information, apprehend a dangerous criminal or whatever else. This ranges from a 19 year old policewoman pretending to be a minor and arresting a pedofile in bed to a high shelf special agent sleeping with a foreign president's wife. There surely are people who will find such actions plausible and self-sacrificing rather than breaking a moral code, but I would immediately file for fault divorce. Showing lots of cleavage and allowing some groping is not sex, but it's still slutty. There are various reasons why people might want to play a slutty character, but more often than not, I suppose, the desire to play such a character or solve quests in such a way comes from sex drive issues. If my girlfriend or wife, if I had one, played her characters like that, I would surely like to cast a thoughtful look on her ways of problem solving in real life and the way she handles her sex drive.

This is slightly off-topic, but has some place in this thread as it is somehow connected. Sometimes people allude to or imply sexual favours to get ahead in life, achieve their goals. Sometimes they follow through with small favours. But there's one thing a girl who smiles in a sexy way to get $5 off the price doesn't realise: she's just indicated that her sexy smile is for sale and set the price at five dollar. If she spends five minutes flirting with the bouncer to go where she isn't allowed to go, she indicates that the price of five minutes of flirt with her is letting her in.

Right. If the person is not corrupting himself or others by such roleplaying and is not indulging in the actions (taking unhealthy pleasure in getting something for sex, for instance), I suppose there's no problem.

Okay, but there you have two somewhat contradicting needs: to distance oneself from the character and to mimic the character as well as possible and get into the role. I'm not saying it's impossible to handle it, but it surely is difficult.

 

I can't agree with all of your opinions about this, chev, but I understand your perspective. As you mentioned earlier:

Any person's upbringing dictates the way they look at things, but then it’s up to each one to decide how much of that is reflected on his/her characters on a role-playing environment.

I do not think this example is applicable to this situation. One thing is my opinion of life and morals, and a very different thing is the opinion of any of my characters. I would not like it if my partner cheated on me, even if national security depended on it. But that doesn’t mean that a character invented by me must believe the same. I am not a religoius person, and yet I am well able to play a very pious cleric if I wish to. My own perceptions of the world I live in don't have to apply neccessarily to a fantasy world, especially one with a myriad of different gods whose existance is proven, and who are pleased with different attitudes towards life.


Some people can’t create or play characters with a physique and/or personality other than their own, because they find difficult not to project who they are into them. Many players choose only good-aligned characters because doing an evil act would be unthinkable to them, even in a fantastic setting. As you said, it is difficult, but not neccessarily impossible.

I’ll give a RP example from a non-RPG. (I know it is sad, I even RP non-RPGs...) When playing a paladin in Diablo 2 I never use weapons with poison damage because, as a paladin, I consider them ignoble. This is a decision based on the character I am playing, not in my personal views about poison. Playing a necromancer I have not such qualms.

Merging what happens in a virtual environment and in real life is what leads to confusion, and to some people getting involved with others in a sentimental way, even when the others were merely playing a character. To answer Dragonfly’s previous post (sorry, I missed this reply before) it is like when people fall in love with the character of a TV series, even though the actor him/herself does not act or think like the character they play. They don’t intend to project feelings on the audience, but part of the audience may still fall for them.

This is stretching it a bit too much, wouldn't you say? Role-playing as a means to escape reality, to become other person and do things you wouldn’t do on your normal life is something I consider unhealthy and dangerous. If you feel you need to escape reality, change your reality. Do not create an alternative life that, in the end, will lead to nothing but trouble. This use of role-playing is no better than the use of drugs or alcohol.