User talk:Luigifan18/Mogeko Snatcher (3.5e Racial Paragon Class)

You Realize...

that you need to make sure it cleaned before re-upload it, otherwise it WILL get deleted again. It still based around the whole abduction mechanics and still has the tentacle rape, albeit not explicitly. --Leziad (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I reflavored the Mogekos as kidnapping fanatics rather than explicitly rapists, and the same goes for the Mogeko Snatcher; it's only a rapist if you choose to interpret it that way. Individual Mogeko Snatchers may or may not be rapists (King mogeko's definitely a rapist, but the jury's out on Moge-ko (there are a few hints that she is indeed a rapist, but it's much more heavily implied that she just plain loves torturing people), and other Mogeko Snatchers' rapist qualifications are up to the DMs or players who create them). There are reasons to kidnap someone other than wanting to rape them. Indeed, I'm pretty sure most kidnappers do it for the ransom money.

The genius thing about the tentacle constriction is that I left out the details on how it works. It can be tentacle rape, if you want to treat it that way, but it can just as easily be some sort of special slime or just sheer unpleasantness. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(Eldritch signs begin to stir. Darkness rises. The elder evil signs of the coming of Eiji have begun to appear... DOOM.) -- Eiji-kun (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this is a bit bitter. I think the first two sentences are still problematic, but beyond that nothing on the page jumps out at me as explicitly terrible.

In my opinion, that's still not good enough. Others might or might not agree, but let me try to give an example demonstrating why I, for one, still find this offensive.

Imagine a class built around these concepts:

• Anonymity. The class can operate without their specific identity being known.
• Fear. They have an intimidating appearance.
• Coordinated effort. They work together in groups to accomplish their goals and attack their enemies.

You might imagine Anonymous, or Imperial storm troopers, or the Power Rangers. You can apply the class validly to a wide array of characters. This broadness makes a certain levity acceptable -- there is no obligation to assign any gravity to something so generic, because it doesn't explicitly evoke any sensitive subject. Who cares if I crack a joke, or if I write it with a flat and emotionless manner? It's just some random faceless group-fighting scary guy.

Now imagine that the class is called "Klansman".

Suddenly it's something deadly serious. Suddenly we have a very specific context for the anonymity, fear, and group effort. Suddenly it is not okay to have a lighthearted or flat tone when writing the class. There's an obligation to make it grim and dark, because if the author isn't explicitly giving a sense that you are supposed to be uncomfortable with it, then it comes across as a bad joke.

That is what you've done here. By attaching it to Mogeko canon, you've put this content in the context of rape, whether the word appears on the page or not. And the page simply does not treat the topic with the respect that it warrants. --DanielDraco (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Mogekos were always supposed to strike a fine balance between horror and humor, because that's what Mogeko Castle itself does. You're supposed to be made very uncomfortable and deeply disturbed by the Mogekos, but at the same time, you're supposed to laugh at their ridiculous antics; the game doesn't get completely serious until Floor 6, when King mogeko makes his appearance (and before then, the scenes with Moge-ko in them are always completely serious as well). Overall, Mogeko Castle feels like a very black comedy, but the point is, you're supposed to be disgusted by the Mogekos. Unfortunately, due in part to my Asperger's, I'm not exactly good with the concept of "subtlety"... ^_^; --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I can relate -- I had the same diagnosis. But even for the most socially adept, black comedy is a hard target to hit. If you struggle to hit that mark, then it's probably best not to try when dealing with themes this dark. IMO, you should either go completely serious and grim, or separate this class from its inspiration. (The latter is probably easier.) Anything else is pretty much invariably going to come off as being in very poor taste.

It might also help to make this a monster or an NPC class. The implication that "you too can be an expert rapist!" will be weaker when it's not targeted at players. --DanielDraco (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't really intend for the Mogeko Snatcher to be aimed at PCs, but it's technically a racial paragon class, as it's aimed at amplifying the natural strengths of a Mogeko. It also has skill requirements, so it skirts the line between that and a prestige class. In any case, calling it an NPC class doesn't really encapsulate what it is. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In that case, it should really be a unique monster. --Ghostwheel (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

THIS. A THOUSAND TIMES THIS. Oh, and (The elder sign grows. You feel your keyboard melt under your fingers. Eiji is coming...) -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, what you're looking for there is a monster. The thousand tiny variations introduced by spreading abilities across a class progression is really only useful for player characters. When you want to vary power in encounters, you give or take some hit dice; you add or remove an ability or two; you tweak a size category. Laboriously going through a detailed level-up process just adds an unnecessary amount of work for a DM who wishes to use the material. This is why the classes which are designed for NPCs are so mind-numbingly simple -- it makes it easy to build and vary characters.

Besides that, from the sound of it, most of the Mogeko were pretty much identical in capabilities anyway. --DanielDraco (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's not lose focus though on the core problem. You've made Rapist (3.5e Class) and the article shows no awareness that this is a seriously grim thing to write. It's crass and insensitive. --DanielDraco (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)