Under what circumstances is it acceptable to introduce prostitute

>I kind of have a thing for kind, motherly prostitute type characters

Keep your fetish shit out.

Just have someone who runs a poor house if you recognize that you're unable to handle such an NPC without touching yourself. Being a prostitute is unnecessary, and it sounds like half the reason you started this thread is just to try and argue that it is necessary.

Quit thinking with your dick, move past this, and focus on things that actually matter.

>1. NPC lady of questionable virtue: good idea or better not?
In general, it's okay. Many works of fantasy have characters who are prostitutes or former prostitutes. It's a common thing and can be used to show what the lower classes have to go through to feed themselves and their families.

>2. How do I avoid shit getting awkward?
Know your group.
If everyone's into it, a bit of magical realm isn't necessarily bad, but if you don't know your group that well or you're doing something like playing with a bunch of uptight, church-going religious folk, than it might be best to stay away from it.

There can be a middle ground too. If a player wants to solicit a prostitute, you can just say "your character goes to the back room and fucks" rather than some full on ERP thing.

>>48725963
Introduce a prostitute NPC IFF a player goes looking for a prostitute.

File: Eskimo Prostitute.jpg (299KB, 850x1200px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 850x1200px

>>48725963
>Under what circumstances is it acceptable to introduce prostitute NPCs?

When your players actively seek them out.
Have an eskimo streetwalker for your time.

>>48726026
This kek.
It's purely for personal appeal so don't do it.

File: download.jpg (11KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 223x226px

Pic related...

Check your game. Why would you add prostitutes to a game set in the Star Trek uinverse

>inb4 "muh green Orion chick!"

Check your group. So many things to consider...

Check yourself. Does this idea turn you on at all? Be very conscious of the fact that, if you said yes, you are treading into the Magical Realm. You might not be quite there, though but you've got to be careful. I'm turned on by high heels. I'm not fetishing up my game with the mere mention of a woman's shoes in the right context. But if I spend more than 6 words on them - describing the style, color, material, sound, etc. - then I'm in the piss forest.

File: 1453408752786.png (266KB, 800x820px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 800x820px

>>48726026
>Finding a character trope that's a walking contradiction and at the same time a plot device interesting and appealing is thinking with your dick

>I have a thing for

Stopped reading there, don't do it.

>>48726522
I have a thing for women, should I not put them in my game?

>>48726394
in b4 I don't know what I've been told...

File: 200_s[1].gif (32KB, 292x200px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 292x200px

>>48726522
I have a thing for Lawful Neutral characters being forced into "muh loyalty" situations where they are forced to choose between their word or what they know is right.

>>48726548
>>48726587
Disgusting fetishists both of you, keep your magic realm out of the game!

keeping out magic realm *is* my magic realm. Wat do /tg/?

>>48725963
>Under what circumstances is it acceptable to introduce prostitute NPCs?
when you aren't playing with retards/idiots/autists/manchildren
So only in a very few cases

>>48726501
>trying to justify inserting your fetish

This is why people hate you.

Not only have you robbed /tg/ of a great source of humor, but it's not all that difficult to come up with contrived excuses to try and force your fetish shit into a game when it's absolutely unneccesary.

It takes no special skill, and you're actually dumber for putting in the effort.
Just fuck off already, and quit being such a cringy fuck.

>>48725963
Prostitution has existed in every major culture and society. If your group can't handle talking to one then yes don't give them the option and swap it with a member of a thieves guild they caught or something. But in any group not made up of teenagers you should be fine.

There are plenty perfectly good reason for a prostitute to refuse a customer. The most likely one being that she doesn't feel like it. A madame of a well to do brothel is going to charge out the ass for her own personal services and only offer them to regulars whose company she enjoys.

What the hell is awkward about a fade to black?

File: Meditate on suicide.png (8KB, 1109x116px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 1109x116px

>>48725963
if you have to ask this question just dont.

>>48728953
What is this image even?

>>48729226
My guess is dwarf fortress. If you think paradox games are autistic, you ain't seen nothing yet.

>>48729241
Is this the game with the preposterous traps?

>>48726866

Hooker with a heart of gold has been a character archetype since the Greeks, anon, it's been found in India and China and has been regarded as a universal archetype.

The point of the character is their contradiction, being an utter dick-sucking whore whose moral fiber is typically more ironclad than others.

File: WhyILoveDF.jpg (413KB, 1203x1479px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1203x1479px

>>48729266

Yes

>>48725963

Now I have an image of a fat, pimply guy, jerking it beneath the table. "Yeah, she's totally maternal and with rocking tits and shit, just like mother used to make - NNNNNGHHHHHHHH - yeah just like that man"

We're here for you, OP. We're here to help you feel some fucking shame again.

Roleplaying is a social event. If you have a wet erection beneath the table, people will be able to tell that this is giving you a boner. Have some sense of self-awareness, man.

Stay away from the shit that turns you on, especially if you're playing a game in real-life with other people. Otherwise, you'll be remembered as "That weird fat fuck who wants to fuck his mother." They'll be judging you with each word that leaves your mouth.

File: gJqN3xPZMg[1].png (22KB, 520x390px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 520x390px

>>48729429
>just like mother used to make
>his mother made tits
>for food

>>48729281
That's fine and dandy if you can handle that, but it's clear that OP can't, so he shouldn't bother forcing himself to, or, even worse, allowing himself to.

File: Ma-ma likes you.jpg (160KB, 497x640px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 497x640px

>>48725963
>Under what circumstances is it acceptable to introduce prostitute NPCs?
If they look like Ma-ma it's okay.

File: YAGpXPd.png (115KB, 636x440px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 636x440px

>>48725963
>I kind of have a thing for kind, motherly prostitute
I was going to make a joke about your mother, but it would be too easy. Just like she is.

>>48725963
>prostitute NPCs
Including rape in your game is a quick trip to a game's failure, awkward discussions with your group, and possibly the loss of one or more friends. I heavily suggest you don't include rape in your games. It never ends well.

>>48726522
This.
If you need to ask, it probably not OK.

I feel ambiguous about fact, that we, as players have moved from using magical realms, to talking about magical realms and how to avoid it. On one hand, its certainly success. On the other hand it show us, there's still some work ahead of us.

File: 1469486057114.jpg (71KB, 500x321px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x321px

>>48732532
. . .
Are you really arguing that Prostitution is the same thing as Rape?

>>48734640
You think any of those women would sleep with you if they didn't desperately need the money? Consent obtained by coercion is not consent. Ergo, prostitution is rape.

>>48729358
Yes. YES! This is The shit!

>>48726488
Isn't Star Trek a post-scarcity setting without currency? A prostitute wouldn't be a prostitute, she'd just be a slut.

File: 1398252105733.jpg (55KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x500px

>>48735516

File: 1394659447199.jpg (26KB, 680x681px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 680x681px

>>48735737
It's a legitimate argument. Otherwise you may as well say that if I blackmail you into sex, it doesn't count as rape. What about the threat of violence?

>>48735863
The difference is that ones is

>I wish to engage your services for financial remuneration

and the other is

>You will give me your services or I will leave you in a much worse state than what you are now

Essentially one is trade and the other is theft at least

>>48735863
Incentive to do something is not always coercion. For example if I go into a shop and put money in the self swipe till and remove a sandwich, that is not theft or coercion, that is an exchange of services for currency or a sale.

If I go to my hairdressers and give them money to cut my hair I am not committing a crime upon them.

If I go to a prostitute and have sex with them in exchange for money I am not coercing them.

>>48735863
By your logic I could sue my boss for slavery.

>>48729429
>we
Take it back to Facebook, crowd-follower.

>>48735910
Where are the temple prosti-I mean, sluts, in the real world, that freely give it up to the downtrodden among us with no hope of aquiring poon on their own merits?

Where are the soup kitchens of the gash?

If you would not provide a service for free out of charitable intentions, then it is wrong to compare it to free trade.

>>48735921
>If I go to a prostitute and have sex with them in exchange for money I am not coercing them.

You aren't, but *they* are still being coerced by a system we call capitalism. They would never fuck you if they weren't desperate for your money.

>>48735927
Depends, is your boss a capitalist?

When the story calls for it and the party is cool with it.

>>48735982
That shit doesn't exist because prostitution is illegal in most of the US and Europe.

>>48735982
Oh, you're a commie.

Disregard everything, you are an irrelevant reactionary and your backwards and outdated ideology will stay that way forever now.

File: aquinas[1].jpg (12KB, 235x325px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 235x325px

>>48735927
>By your logic I could sue my boss for slavery.
By that logic having sex with a robot is rape too.
Oh wait... feminists LITERALLY believe this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxVBjfHzdI4

11:50 is the part where it gets interesting for us. But if you don't feel like watching Sex is rape if there isn't informed consent. Informed consent can only be made when you're free from duress. A sexrobot is always under duress because it literally cannot refuse a sex offer. Therefore, all sex with robots designed specifically for the purpose of sex is rape!

>>48735995
>mfw I want to call this backwards and medieval, but medieval man had a much healthier perception of prostitution than modern man
How disgustingly modern

>>48735982
I know /pol/ is a containment board for the alt-right, but there needs to be a place for your kind as well.

>>48736036

/v/ please leave

>>48735982
>Where are the temple prosti-I mean, sluts, in the real world, that freely give it up to the downtrodden among us with no hope of aquiring poon on their own merits?

>Where are the soup kitchens of the gash?

>If you would not provide a service for free out of charitable intentions, then it is wrong to compare it to free trade.

How about you get a job and pay for it. You are not entitled to a luxury no matter how much you try to claim it's a necessity.

>>48725963
In any major city of a fantasy/medieval setting, these people will exist. If they don't, you better have a damn good explanation as to why.

If we are ever in such a city, and we need information on a noble of some kind, prostitutes are the first stop for figuring out shit about him.

Taking that out is like saying the setting doesn't have horses. Sure, you might be reasonable, but you still need a very convincing reason to avoid having people call you an idiot.

>>48735995
>That shit doesn't exist because prostitution is illegal in most of the US and Europe.

Selling sex is illegal, having sex for free isn't.

>>48736001
I'm not a commie, I just understand we're they're coming from. The legal system prevents me from going out into the woods and owning that which I homestead.

>>48736078
>How about you get a job and pay for it.

Wew lad. Prostitution is not free trade because sex isn't comparable to any other human activity doesn't imply WOMEN SHOULD BE FUCKING ME FOR FREE REEEEEEEEEEE

>>48736131
>Prostitution is not free trade because it would horribly devaluate the price of pussy below what women consider acceptable
ftfy. Making prostitution illegal allows "normal" women to arbitrarily fix the price of their pussies because there's no easy competition.

>>48736142
Again, selling sex is illegal, having sex for free isn't. Where are the charity vaginas?

>>48736094
>The legal system prevents me from going out into the woods and owning that which I homestead.
Why the fuck do you feel entilted to settling in a wood that has belonged to my family for centuries ?

>>48736224
If you aren't doing anything with it, why should you be considered the owner?

>>48736249
But I am, it's where I get the wood for my fireplace, also some mushrooms and where we used to play hide and seek with my cousins and my brother when we were kids.

>>48736163
In every collage campus.

The only qualification you need is not being a neckbeard, fedoralord hamplanet. Qualifications that are not hard to achieve.

>>48736249
It isn't yours, why do you feel entitled to camp there?

>>48736279
Charity doesn't need qualifications. Soup kitchens don't screen for hygiene.

>>48736287
If it isn't yours, why shouldn't I make something of it?

>>48736270
That's basically nothing. If I build a shitty little hut, I've done more with the place in a week than you've done with it in centuries.

>>48736324
>If I build a shitty little hut, I've done more with the place in a week than you've done with it in centuries.
And take a "stray" hunting round.

>>48736324
>Charity doesn't need qualifications. Soup kitchens don't screen for hygiene.
But they do screen for very basic standards of behaviour. Someone coming in waving a knife around get thrown out if they don't stop it.

>If it isn't yours, why shouldn't I make something of it?
It isn't yours either.

>That's basically nothing. If I build a shitty little hut, I've done more with the place in a week than you've done with it in centuries.
Irrelevant. Trespass is trespass.

You just want something for nothing because you're too lazy to go out and work for it.

>>48736340
>implying I don't have as many guns

If we're going down that path, why shouldn't I just shoot you and your family in a home invasion and take your shit?

>>48736354
>But they do screen for very basic standards of behaviour. Someone coming in waving a knife around get thrown out if they don't stop it.

Yes, and? They'll still feed you regardless of how you look or smell or how rude you are. Initiating violence against other people is a far cry from there.

>It isn't yours either.
>Irrelevant. Trespass is trespass.

You can't trespass on land that nobody owns by definition, comrade.

>>48736324
You tell me of a charity hairdresser that will cut anyone's hair for free. Alternately, you suddenly come to the understanding that paying for a haircut is literally rape as they wouldn't cut your hair for free.

>>48736405
>why shouldn't I just shoot you and your family in a home invasion and take your shit?
Because you'd spend the rest of your life in prison, as opposed as only a few months for squatting.

I don't see why some nu-gypsy faggot like you should get anything free from anyone. It's not like woodland is expensive, either.

>>48736405
Where in the world is there land that isn't owned? If the land isn't held by private interests, it's almost certainly held by a government. And you can trespass on even PUBLIC lands, owned by the government.

>>48736405
>You can't trespass on land that nobody owns by definition, comrade.
So no such place then?

>Yes, and? They'll still feed you regardless of how you look or smell or how rude you are. Initiating violence against other people is a far cry from there.

And yet very minimal qualifications have to be met. Charity is never entirely unconditional, even if that condition is as basic as "don't attack the dude handing out the charity".

>>48725963
>Especially because if one of the players tries to sollicit her, she literally has no reason to refuse. In fact, where normally a woman refusing the PC's requests for casual sex is the norm, under these circumstances refusal would be the exception, and no matter what option I pick it's bound to get awkward really fast.


Madames are rarely still among the working girls, or if they are, very client-selective. So that isn't the problem you think it is.

>>48736131
>because sex isn't comparable to any other human activity
Why is this specific service different and special?

I assume that you believe that it should be illegal to pay someone to be in a porn movie?

>>48736163
He believes that women have sex for free. Not true in many cases.

>>48736142
This is absolutely the reason why prostitution is illegal. It devalues other pussy which, until recently, devalued marriage and the church is very much in favour of temporal power.

>>48736131
>Prostitution is not free trade because sex isn't comparable to any other human activity
How puritan of you.

>>48736430
Pretty much any church will hook you up with a haircut so that you can go to a job interview not looking like a bum. Most will loan you a suit.

>>48736434
>Where in the world is there land that isn't owned?
>>48736463
>So no such place then?

Doesn't matter if the government owns it; you don't.

>And yet very minimal qualifications have to be met.

"Not initiating violence" is a universal qualification for all peaceful human interaction, not something specific to free trade or charity. It's irrelevant for our purposes.

>>48736430
Clearly the hairdresser desperately needs the money or they wouldn't be cutting your hair.

>>48736405
>You can't trespass on land that nobody owns by definition, comrade.
But you want to own it. Nice hypocrisy. Either it belongs to someone or it belongs to the people. What makes you think you can just steal it based on your own arbitrary definition of acceptable usage?

>>48736544
>Doesn't matter if the government owns it; you don't.
I'm so confused as to why you even brought it up in the first place. What are you saying? That, because I'm not a government, I can't stop you from trespassing on my land?

Also, what the fuck was all that about "using" the land? I own a guitar, and never play it, haven't practiced in years, and yet I still own it because it's mine. Do you think that anybody should be able to come and take my guitar because I haven't done anything with it in however long?

What's the statute of limitations on how long I can legally own property? How long a family can pass on property? At what point, be it seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, or centuries, do I no longer own what is mine?

>>48736430
There was a girl at my uni that was cutting hair for free in her free time. It was like a passion for her.

I went there once, it was pretty weird.

>>48725963
If you're coming to /tg/ to ask if something is magical realm, you're either a weak-willed shit with no business making your own decisions, or you already know it's magical realm, and are hoping someone will convince you it isn't.

>>48725963
They should be prostitutes but also ninja

>>48736631
Also ninja prostitutes.

>>48736593
Still a transaction. You got a haircut, she got someone to practice on.

>>48736588
>That, because I'm not a government, I can't stop you from trespassing on my land?

No, my point was that it's not your land because you haven't cultivated it.

>>48736572
>But you want to own it.

No, I want to cultivate it, which will in turn give me ownership of it. Your mere usage does not rise to the level of cultivation any more than some guy taking a stroll through the woods to clear his thoughts.

>>48736648
>Still a transaction.

Then nothing is charity because my giving you food results in good feelings for me.

>>48736651
So you want ownership of it.

Why does your usage grant you exclusive ownership but someone else's usage does not?

Or are you cool with someone else kicking you off because they want to build on it and they consider that usage to be more valid than your usage?

>>48726501
OP admits straight away it is a fetish thing. In those circumstances, don't do it.

>>48736651
>No, I want to cultivate it,
So if I come there after, buldoze your shithut and build a high rise it will be mine ?

>>48736659
Yes. Charity is a lie.

>>48736679
>Why does your usage grant you exclusive ownership but someone else's usage does not?

I'm building something on the land and maximising the utility of it. You're not.

>>48736684
This would be analogous if you'd ever done anything with the land. Once I start farming on it, it's mine. You never owned it, you just occasionally gathered wood on it.

>>48735516
It's not coercion.

>>48735982
Prostitution is one of the oldest professions in the world, many women barter their bodies when they don't have anything else to trade. Pretty common among widowed women with children to keep food on the table.

>>48736039
I assume it's some neo-feminist bullshit, but yeah that should be in /pol/ as well.

>>48736631
and breath fire

>>48736641
It's all fun and games until they try to kill you, and you keep coming back and they keep getting better.

>>48736704
>many women barter their bodies when they don't have anything else to trade.

HMMMMMM.

If I blackmail you, you're fucking me because you don't have another choice in the matter. Why is that coercion but poverty isn't?

>>48736698
>Once I start farming on it, it's mine
No it's not by your own logic, if I can raise the cultivation level by evicting you (assuming this means anything).

Plus, not every kind of land needs to be cultivated or is even proper to be cultivated, you'd know it if you weren't some kind of city dweller. You still need woodlands to provide wood for building and heating.

>>48736730
If the person doing the fucking put them into poverty so that the fucking could take place then the person doing the fucking coerced them.

If the person doing the fucking is unconnected to the poverty then he hasn't coerced her. He has simply provided something that she badly needs and she has provided him something in return.

>>48736747
>No it's not by your own logic

Before I started cultivating it, nobody owned it. I have the only claim to ownership. Once I own it, you bulldozing my hut/farm is theft.

>>48736729
That's why you go to a brothel. Everyone knows that teams of ninja are shit. Only lone ninja are dangerous.

>>48736698
How is cutting down the trees on order to cultivate it maximizing the use of woodland? It's destroying it.

>>48736730
You do have a choice in the matter, facing the consequence of whatever you're blackmailing me with. If you're comparing that to prostitution I guess facing the consequence would be "not getting paid".

Rape on the other hand would mean you do not have a choice in the first place. I wish the subject wasn't trivialized by such ignorant correlations, then again we're on /tg/.

>>48736792
Not at all, he's increasing the level of usage to further approach maximum utilization.

That beats your shitty cultivation.

According to your ridiculous justifications for trespass and theft.

>>48736783
>He has simply provided something that she badly needs

ie: She's had sex because the alternative was starving. She's had sex in circumstances that do not allow for her to give consent.

If I come across you hanging from a cliff, and I pull you up on the condition that you agree to be my slave for life, assuming that slavery is legal should a court enforce the contract? You were clearly not in a position to disagree.

>>48736792
Before I built a factory farm on it, nobody owned it. I have the only claim for ownership.

See ?

>>48736806
>Rape on the other hand would mean you do not have a choice in the first place

What choice does starvation give this hypothetical woman?

>>48736815
>Not at all, he's increasing the level of usage to further approach maximum utilization.

He's not increasing it from nothing. When I started, there was no usage of the land, nobody owned it. When he started, I owned it. One is homesteading, the other is theft.

>>48736698
>Once I start farming on it, it's mine. You never owned it, you just occasionally gathered wood on it.
So every time you allow a field to lie fallow anyone who feels like cultivating on it can come along and claim ownership?

>>48736829
>Before I built a factory farm on it, nobody owned it.

Untrue, because I owned it by virtue of having cultivated the land.

>>48736834
You don't feel that allowing woodland to exist undisturbed as a habitat for wildlife is an acceptable usage?

It's either cultivate crops, live on it or nothing?

>>48736837
If you *were* farming it, then you probably should have mentioned that rather than just saying that sometimes you took wood or mushrooms from it.

>>48736792
Of course I owned it, I even used it as you usually do with woodlands : to get wood from it.

If you want to rent one of my fields, feel free to outbid the farms working them right now, but you won't chop down the best woodland around.

>>48736817
So offering food to someone starving in exchange for a fee is coercion as well?

>>48736850
>You don't feel that allowing woodland to exist undisturbed as a habitat for wildlife is an acceptable usage?

It's explicitly *not* usage. At the bare minimum you should build a fence around it or something.

>>48736848
your 3 potatoe plants, a mudhut and a hog doesn't constitute "farming", gypsy.

>>48736850
In soviet Russia/Communist China etc etc

>>48736854
You don't farm woodland retard, unless you don't want to have woodland anymore.

>>48736868
>a fence
>around woodland

For what fucking purpose ?

>>48736865
Depends on if you charge more for my being starving, I expect.

>>48736858

>you won't chop down the best woodland
>so that I can chop down the best woodland

right, how does forestry work again?

>>48736868
He should build a fence to prevent theft? You'll be blaming women for not taking sufficient precautions to avoid rape next.

It's the prostitute at fault for her own rape because she took insufficient precautions against poverty?

>>48736880

To indicate ownership.

>>48736879

Oh, so you're *not* farming it. Christ, stop being so damn bipolar.

>>48736871
It's rudimentary cultivation, and it's more than the nothing you were doing.

>>48736874
In communist China the land explicitly does not belong to the farmers.>>48736884
>>48736884
>Depends on if you charge more for my being starving, I expect

>>48736894
>He should build a fence to prevent theft?

You can't steal what isn't owned. Why should you be considered the owner of land if you've a) never cultivated it, b) never done anything with it, c) intend to never do anything with it, and d) never done anything to indicate that it's even owned?

On a side note, I have a bridge for sale.

>>48736899
Stop assuming that you're talking to a single person newfag.>>48736884
>Depends on if you charge more for my being starving, I expect

>>48736916
I don't assume that. I do assume that if there's a chain of posts, the people responding are rational enough to read them and understand the conversation.

>>48736899
Does this ridiculous logic apply to other things or is land a special case?

>>48736884
>right, how does forestry work again?
There is 2 options
1- you chop one tree at a time, slowly, enough to let tree grow as fast as you are cutting to get wood. That's a continuous supply of wood
2- you chop all at once and leave the land uncultivated so a new forest grow out of it. That's a massive supply of wood once every 40 or so year.

I do 1, I even maintain the paths within my woodland, so effectively I exploit it, even if it's sparsely.

Checkmate.

>>48736914
Other than buying it and legally having the deeds to it.

If you want the land then make an offer so that I can refuse it

>On a side note, I have a bridge for sale.
No you don't. You're too stupid to own property.

>>48736927
It's impossible for a guitar or any other object to exist in an uncultivated state. Someone had to make it.

So in short, no. Don't be stupid.

>>48736899
>To indicate ownership.
The ownership of my piece of woodland is duely recorded at the townhall, so I don't have to enclose it in some fence.

>>48736914
>On a side note, I have a bridge for sale
Oil your bridge currently unused, if so I have some bad news for you.

>>48736914
>intend to never do anything with it
What he intends is not something which you armor need be privy to.

>>48736914
>never done anything to indicate that it's even owned?
So if something isn't clearly marked as being owned that makes theft acceptable?

>>48736935
>Other than buying it and legally having the deeds to it.

Who'd you buy it from, and why are they considered the owner when they never did any of the things previously listed?

>>48736930
There's plenty more wood for you to chop down. Feel free to go do so. Your *lack of action* in not chopping down more trees is not cultivation, otherwise I own all land ever because I didn't clear cut it.

>>48736937
But if it has never been used and is never intended to be used then surely it isn't owned?

Why does that object which was obtained in a financial transaction have a different status to a piece of unused land obtained in a financial transaction?

>>48736944
You never owned it in the first place, because you never cultivated it. Your claim is negated.

>>48736955
>Oil your bridge currently unused

It was *built*. Unlike the land, which was merely found.

>What he intends

Is explicitly to not use it. Like how he's never used it.

>So if something isn't clearly marked as being owned that makes theft acceptable?

If there's no signs that it's owned at all it's not theft.

>>48736967
>Who'd you buy it from, and why are they considered the owner when they never did any of the things previously listed?
Who says they didn't? If I buy piece of farmland and then allow trees to grow on it suddenly I'm not the owner because I'm not chopping the trees down to grow crops?

>>48736972
>But if it has never been used

But it has. Because it was made.

>Why does that object which was obtained in a financial transaction have a different status to a piece of unused land obtained in a financial transaction?

The guy who sold it to you didn't own it in the first place. Quite unlike the bridge I have for sale.

>>48736687
Gb2dead, Rand.

>>48736992
Except that there are signs, just ones not visible to you. Like a record of ownership.

>>48736992
>because you never cultivated it.
But I do, since I get wood from it. Woodcutting is a part of agriculture.

File: the-thieving-gypsy-bastards-small.png (167KB, 691x972px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 691x972px

>>48736955
>So if something isn't clearly marked as being owned that makes theft acceptable?

>>48736997
>If I buy piece of farmland and then allow trees to grow on it suddenly I'm not the owner because I'm not chopping the trees down to grow crops?

No farmhouse, no barn, no field furrows, no fences, no irrigation, no anything to indicate that it was ever used?

There's a reason that squatters rights is a real actual thing.

>>48737005
>The guy who sold it to you didn't own it in the first place. Quite unlike the bridge I have for sale.
So you know for a fact that the previous owner did not cultivate it?

>>48737023
>There's a reason that squatters rights is a real actual thing.
It's not, squatters get evicted.

>>48737023
You would not expect to see any of those things on woodland being used in a sustainable manner.

>>48737023
>No farmhouse, no barn, no field furrows, no fences, no irrigation, no anything to indicate that it was ever used?
>in woodlands
lmao

>captcha : select all trees

>>48737012

I have a piece of paper in front of my desk which says that I own you as my slave. Hurry up and suck my dick.

>>48737043
I would expect to see them on property that was once used for farming. Catch up, son.

>>48737042
>It's not, squatters get evicted.

Google adverse possession.

>>48737027
If there are no signs on the land that it was ever cultivated, yes.

>>48737018
It's a primary industry, but it's not agriculture. And my farming doesn't even negate your ability to cut wood, given how little of it you're using.

>>48737023
>squatters rights is a real actual thing.
I'm happy to live in a country where squatters have no rights and may be freely evicted without court order (assuming that I don't want to have them arrested and charged).

>>48737047
Catch up, Barney. Read the previous post.

>>48737059
Google adverse possession.

>>48737056
>adverse possession
Adverse possession only works here if the registered land owner does not oppose it.

>>48726026
What's with the sexual repression in this board? Shit

Madam-type prostitutes, who serve as surrogate mothers to the other prostitutes are as common an event as can be. It's not even fetish, as much as a goddamn fact of life.

How something this remotely connected to ACTUAL sex can still make you act like such an autist is beyond me

>>48737078
Good luck living on my shit for the 11 to 15 fucking years that shit takes to kick in without me having you dragged out, or just shooting you for trespassing myself.

>>48737078
Like i said, doesn't work here. You can only take possession via adverse possession if the registered owner does not oppose.

>>48737098
>or just shooting you for trespassing myself.

Cool, I shoot you for threatening me.

>>48737100

Which is what's referred to as squatter's rights. If I'm behaving as the owner and nobody else objects, it's mine, regardless of whether or not you have paper.

>>48730110
How is it obvious? So far the only arguments shown were basically "EWWWWW SEX".
Making sure the thing doesn't turn akward doesn't rely nearly as much on the GM as it does on the players. If you're mature about it, you've done your piece.

>>48737068
>>48737056
Ok city fuckboy, let me tell you something : there is a fuckton of land not enclosed in fences in the countryside. Mostly because the only use of fences is to prevent animals to get out of their grazing field. You don't use fences to mark the borders of your woodlands or wheat field.

Second, in 700 years of residence here, my family has been way more able to see which pieces of land should be used as farmland and which ones should be used as woodlands than an entitled gypsy.

>>48737133
I object.

What now ?

>>48737151
>Mostly because the only use of fences is to prevent animals to get out of their grazing field.

If there's nothing marking your borders, why does your ownership stop at whatever you consider them? Why doesn't it extend forever?

This is a serious question.

>>48737133
No.

Squatters have no rights here. I can have you evicted at any time without a court order.

Squatting is also a crime that carries jail time so I can have the police remove you at any time.

If you manage to stay on the land for ten years without me noticing then you can file a claim for adverse possession. I will be notified by the court of your claim. If I oppose your motion then it is rejected and I send the police to arrest you.

I can have all of the land I want as unused as I want and it is impossible for you to claim any kind of ownership.

>>48735516
That's a pretty big stretch on coercion. While it might be true, in some cases, applying that to all prostitution is silly as fuck. It'd be like saying all work is forced labor, because you're under the punishment of not receiving money.

>You think any of those women would sleep with you if they didn't desperately need the money
Why not? Can women not enjoy sex, or want to make a career out of it?

>>48737157
I don't know, apparently I'm shooting you.

Alternatively, I'm disagreeing with the validity of the paper in the first place. If nobody ever cultivated it, on what basis did anybody own it to sell to you?

>>48737167
There is always some point of reference.

In modern times this can easily be done with GPS.

In older times it involved lengths of rope, pegs and reference to natural objects to gain reference from.

>>48737174
>Can women not enjoy sex, or want to make a career out of it?

Why are there no charity prostitutes? The mere fact that nobody gives away sex for free implies that it's different from other human activities.

>>48737177
So, can you start chopping down trees in a nature reserve and build a hut and till a field, because it's a nature reserve?

>>48737177
Who cares? The land registry says that it's mine. Cultivation is not a criteria for ownership except in your head.

>>48737184
>There is always some point of reference.

Not my point: why do you own the land that you own and not the land beyond the land you consider the land you own?

>>48737167
Mostly because the land next door belongs to someone else, Someone else who is very real and who may even live in the same village ?

>>48737167
>If there's nothing marking your borders, why does your ownership stop at whatever you consider them?
Do you not know how deeds and markers work? Building a fence is not required to mark ownership.

>>48737133
Nigger, you won't get a chance. There's no threatening. You are on my land, without my permission.

The first you hear of me is your skull exploding.

>>48737177
The forest has been in my family for 7 centuries, and the papers are all valid.

What now ?

>>48737196
Because it is not mine as recognized by any court or government. It belongs to someone else.

Their land ends at my land for the same reason and in the same way.

>>48737189
From where did the original ownership derive?

>>48737188
What's to indicate that it's a nature reserve?

>>48737221
Over a thousand years of court recognized records tracking the ownership.

Cultivation has never been a criteria for ownership here. Property is either purchased or granted by crown. Detailed records of both are kept.

File: AA Generic TWT nature reserve sign Credit TWT_39.jpg (23KB, 408x285px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 408x285px

>>48737221
Same thing that indicates private property: A sign.

>>48737221
>What's to indicate that it's a nature reserve?
Maps and papers at the town hall. Since everybody is expected to know the law, you can't claim ignorance.

>>48725963
>Under what circumstances is it acceptable

when its appropriate? Why wouldnt a prostitute be acceptable? Unless you're playing with a bunch of children.

>I kind of have a thing for kind, motherly prostitute type characters

Completely irreverent, don't just cram in you're fetishes so you can touch yourself during game time.

>one of the players tries to sollicit her, she literally has no reason to refuse.

While not necessarily true, I get your point. And if one of your players wants to fuck a prostitute, let them. Fade to black, say "your fucking her, what are the rest of you doing while fuckface mcgee is contracting wizard aids?" theres no reason for you to go into any more detail. If your player wants more detail tell them to fuck off cuz thats weird.

Not a tough question.

>>48737233
>Cultivation has never been a criteria for ownership here
It has probably never been a criteria, ever.

>>48726711
You'll have to master the secret art of the stealth fap

>>48737187
Lel wut?
whether you give something to charity or not doesn't determine if you did it willingly. That's a really shitty way of proving intent.

People can hate their job, do it for the cash they receive, and still be completely okay with it overall. In fact most people tend to consider their jobs nuisances.

Another extremely common occurrence is people enjoying their jobs, but still not doing them for free because remuneration is important to them.

People give things out for charity when they consider it will improve someone else's life, or/and they care about their fellow individual. Nothing to do with whether they are being forced to do it or not.

>>48737299
Or just run a game over the internet. It's very easy to masturbate in the middle of a session if you aren't physically there. I know from experience.

>>48737187
>The mere fact that nobody gives away sex for free
anon no

>>48737281
There are places where land that has no claim of ownership could be claimed by living on it and cultivating it.

I'm not aware of anywhere where land that has a record of ownership becomes up for grabs if the owner isn't cultivating it.

>>48737187
>The mere fact that nobody gives away sex for free
You what

>>48737337
No one gives anything away for free.

>>48737366
It depends on your definition of "free". Free, as in, you don't have to pay money for it? Sure. That exists in spades. Many business have free samples that they hope will encourage you to buy whatever wares they're hawking. Friends give friends free things all the time. There's no money changing hands.

>>48737383
Yep, and that definition includes sex.

If we say that a transaction occurs when one party gives something to another without renumeration because of the improvement in their self perceived moral or emotional state then nothing is free and there is no charity. That would also apply to sex.

In neither case is it different or special.

>>48737383
We either have the explicit or implied definition of a transaction.

Explicit - goods, services or currency are exchanged for goods, services or currency.
Implicit - goods, services or currency are exchanged for a benefit of some kind which might be goods, services or benefit but might also be more subtle - emotional gain, advertising, goodwill, etc.

Whichever definition we choose to use for a transaction sex can be categorized the same way as any other service.

>>48737397
But (consensual and non-paid) sex isn't one party giving something to another, it's both parties having fun together.

The sad thing is that I can't even tell if this poster is some kind of SJW or an alt-right robot who's trying to prove that if he can't have "free sex" from "roasties" then all sex is degenerate and coercive.

>>48737094
>>48737146
You moron. OP says he has a thing for it, and more importantly needs to ask about. That's how you already know that he's better off not bothering with trying to justify inserting his fetish, because he lacks the self-awareness to make sensible decisions.

It's less "Ew sex" and more "Faggots like yourself are idiots who ruin games due to your obsession, and you should stop making these dumb threads seeking other faggots to make yourself feel better."

The default answer for all of these threads is "If you need to ask, don't do it."

>>48737439
So they're both providing and receiving sexualized services from the other. An equitable transaction.

If one one party didn't really want to have sex but did so because the other party bought her some some shoes it's still an equitable transactional. She wasn't raped because she lacked the funds to buy the shoes herself.

>>48737662
Continued.

If you have sex with someone and you put way more effort into their enjoyment than yours do you not feel short changed?

>>48737233
>Over a thousand years of court recognized records tracking the ownership.

At some point the ownership was originally conceived. From where does *that* ownership derive?

>>48737337
>>48737344
Point me to the temple prostitutes.

People will have sex with other people because *they want* to have sex with those people, but nobody has sex with a second party for the explicit purposes of charity.

Pity sex is different for obvious reasons: it's a momentary thing which has been gained through emotional connection.

>>48737457

It's pretty explicitly about prostitution being mostly rape.

>>48737457
This is 4chan. There is a good chance any argument is just false flagging

>>48737677
Exchanging goods and services for more or less than their implicit value is how capitalism works

>>48737732
No, it's how markets work. Market socialism would function the same way in that respect. Capitalism is explicitly defined by the private ownership of the means of production.

>>48737707
When one dude set up his flag on unclaimed ground and said "mine".

Their is no unclaimed ground anymore.

Or alternatively he killed the dude who previously owned it therefore making it his by right of conquest/spoils of war.

Current legal systems tend not to support this method of acquisition.

>>48737662
Do you describe a game of chess, MtG, warhams or a d&d session the same way ?

>>48737766
If the method of acquisition is illegal, why is the current claim legal? If I buy a laptop from a guy who stole it, my ownership of the laptop is not legal.

>>48737832
>why is the current claim legal?
Because it has been made legal.

>>48732532
>kind of have a thing for kind, motherly prostitute
>I was going to make a joke about your mother, but it would be too easy.

Rape? no one is talking about rape. There is an argument for a woman exchanging willing sexual favor money in a fantasy setting like what commonly happened in the real world during early human history to late middle ages.

>>48737832
>If the method of acquisition is illegal, why is the current claim legal?
Because law isn't retroactive.

>>48737845
Nazi Germany didn't murder Jews, then, because the holocaust was legal at the time.

>>48736094
You obviously have not heard of Imminent Domain Law have you? It let's you do just that go out to an undeveloped piece of land, establish a homestead, make improvements to the land and thus claim it for your own after a time. Which is why land holders of undeveloped property have to invest time in patrolling their land for squatters building permeant structures on their undeveloped land, or other improvements least said squatter takes away their land.

>>48738003
Notice how the nazis weren't judged and found guilty by german laws but by international laws. Totally different thing altogether.

>>48738026
>Eminent domain (United States, the Philippines), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption (Hong Kong), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia), or expropriation (France, Mexico, South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Portugal) is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use.
Are you talking about this one ?

>>48738073
>Notice how the nazis weren't judged and found guilty by german laws but by international laws
International laws ratified in 1950 condemned nazis for acts committed beween 1933 and 1944. Because that makes perfect sense.

>>48736834
The choice to go work at Wal-Mart, Target, Farm and Fleet, CVS, K-mart, McDonalds, Tacobell, KFC, seek government aid, work at a factory, become a artist and milk money from Patreon, join the army, navy, marines, air force or really seek any other form of employment.

File: 1435208847176.gif (2MB, 320x184px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x184px

I'm getting real tired of these threads where some chucklehead can't use common sense to answer pretty basic quandaries and has to write up a whole paragraph to explain why something anyone old enough to be on this site (if anyone actually enforced the rules) should already have a through understanding of, and more than enough common sense to handle.

> wants to include a prostitute
> isn't comfortable with the concept of characters having sex

Pick one. Unless you're a group of children there's no reason a consort would fuck up the campaign. Seriously, this is a non-problem, just like every other one of these types of, "socially inept person doesn't know how to deal with non-homogenized content."

> "but what if one of the players wants their PC to have sex with her!?!??!"
Then let them have sex with her. That is literally her job.

> "-omg, but sex! It could get so awkward!"
> see image

>>48738114
What makes sense is that Germany was entierely occupied at that time and international law is written at the point of a gun.

National law isn't, so your Godwin point doesn't matter.

>>48736880
To prevent Imminent domain claims. Also building paths and trails helps.

>>48737707
Nobody gives away expensive cars for free or for charity purposes, so luxury car trade is theft or robbery? There are lots of things that are sold but almost never given away for free, my dude, that doesn't make paying for them unethical

>>48738144
Eminent domain doesn't work like that.

>>48736937
actually under US law land is a special case.

>>48738144
Maybe if you live in some lawless shithole it works like that.

>>48736992
Under US law he is correct you failed to protect your domain, and thus he is able to obtain a deed to it. You have an expectation to kick off squatters and remove any structures they build before they can register them.

File: Oprah car.jpg (160KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 500x375px

>>48738147
>Nobody gives away expensive cars for free or for charity purposes

hmm

Also, cars are often given away in contests. Sex? No.

>>48738139
>National law isn't written at the point of a gun

What.

Law is written by a body which has a monopoly on violence. In what way is it not done at the point of a gun?

>>48738205
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3461709/Schoolboy-16-live-Russian-porn-star-hotel-month-winning-online-competition-admits-mother-isn-t-happy-it.html

>>48738205
Are gunshots a common occurence in the US senate, or are you confusing "written" and "enforced" like a moron ?

>>48738233
>often given away

Some people juggle geese, doesn't make it a common occurrence.

>>48738235
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderick%E2%80%93Terry_duel

>>48737157
You will need to go to court, and prove your right of claim, and prove your claim is more valid than his, as under law you did nothing to protect your domain. You allowed another person to build a lasting structure on your land, and live there for 10 years without you once making legal notice or attempting to remove them or said structure. You will need to prove intent to use the land for something, or that you have in recent years used the land for something.

>>48738233
>Under the rule of the competition, he can pass on the prize to his 'official representative', for example, his father. But the mother is against this too.

holy kek

this is so dumb

>>48738285
No because my country has no retarded Eminent Domain laws.

Tomorrow the cops are removing his ass from my land.

>>48738139
>and international law is written at the point of a gun.
>National law isn't
So international law has no legitimacy and functions solely on the "might makes right" principle.

>>48738312
Exactly

>>48737189
Under US law it is considered a land improvement, ergo a way to establish domain over a piece of land, along with building a lasting structure such as a house on said land. A shed is not by the way considered a lasting structure.

Therefore if all other criteria are met, ownership transfers.

>>48725963
>Under what circumstances is it acceptable to introduce prostitute NPCs?

I can't fathom any. It's not a good idea to thrust your players into potentially uncomfortable situations they simply don't want brought up at the table in the first place.

Nothing of a sexual nature will ever occur in any of my campaigns. I have no idea how my players feel about it, I don't want to bring up awkward issues like one player's sexual orientation versus the kind of sexual content appearing in the game, unwittingly forcing players to revisit sexual traumas, etc.

It's just something that's best avoided altogether.

>>48725963
Any time your players walk into a city. Not so much a town but an actual city. Though a large town may have a cat house.

These sorts of things are very common in the settings of most RPGs as they take place premodern times. A motherly prostitute character may exist, likely she is an experienced one who helps the younger girls or is the woman running the place. AMC's Hell On Wheels gives a great example of this.

Learn to master the fade to black it will help.

>>48738374
>I have no idea how my players feel about it
Ask them.

>unwittingly forcing players to revisit sexual traumas
What about violent traumas? Something that count occur from a combat, perhaps? What about emotional traumas, such as dysfunctional families or bullying or abusive relationships?

What makes all of those risks fine to take, except sex?

>>48725963
Yeah, sure. If the PCs are gathering information and one of the people they ask is a prostitute, it's fine. Just don't be weird about it.

>>48725963
All these threads are the same fucking thing
>help me justify muh fetish

Instead asking "what can I do to add X," why not ask "what does having X do for my game?" Or "how does X benefit the story/game/setting?" If you can come up with good answers for those questions then have X. Otherwise leave it out. This applies to literally every plot point, not just stupid fetish shit

There. Let's never have a justify muh fetish thread again

>>48738653
>If you can come up with good answers for those questions then have X

The issue is that they think that contrived answers count as good ones, hence these threads are perpetually made by delusional idiots, always ready to come up with the lamest justifications for fetish insertion with other idiots here to debate them.

>>48725963
When it's reasonable to encounter prostitutes