remember me
Register | Forgot Login

Forums > RP Discussion > 'No Consent' character

What does this phrase mean? I've seen it now on a handful of other players' characters. At first I thought it was smut-related, but that doesn't always make sense in the context of how I've seen it used.

Someone enlighten me, please! :)

To my knowledge an experience:

No Consent character means you do not need to ask for permission to do something that would normally trigger players into protecting their character. generally its for harm and or character death but it could be anything.. like.. turning them into a frog.. or yes.. smut.

A consent based character means if you want to maim, kill, turn into a frog ect that you must ask the player for permission and discuss the instance before carrying forward.


As far as I know that is the basic gist of it that has been fairly consistent as I have played. the only one that gets confusing is those who are non-consent based except for character death (which in my point of few is just a looser version of a consent based character with only one restriction)

No Consent characters are characters that you don't have to ask permission of the writer before trying any life-changing actions, like stabbing them in hopes of killing them, for example. When it comes to maiming, death, and the like in a roleplay, most writers seek out consent before acting those kind of things out. The writers of no consent characters are okay with you going ahead with any ideas you may have without asking them about it, no matter how dark or dangerous it is: they'll just act via their character's personality and any active factors in a roleplay.

At least, that's what I know about the term. Someone might be able to give more insight or correct me if I'm wrong, though!

Thanks Mipps and LightSide! That makes sense. (More sense than the non-con smut stuff the term originally conjured to my mind, at least!)

I guess it's just a shift in perspective. I usually go the route of "character X tries to stab character Y". (Assuming it's a freeform RP.) Then leave it to the writer of character Y to decide the actual outcome.

So if character Y is labeled as 'no consent', does it get a little fuzzy on where the line for god-modding is?

I think when it comes to non-consent, writers expect their partners to roleplay as how their character would act while keeping common sense and realistic consequences for their actions in mind. For example, you wouldn't shoot your best friend in the middle of a city during the day and expect to not only walk away scot free, but still be friends with them. Someone would call the police and you'd be arrested. And even if you did get away, your ex-friend will never forgive you for trying to kill them. If they're still alive, that is.

I can see how it gets fuzzy with non-consent and godmodding. You can even say that realistic consequences can apply to any roleplay, not just those with non-consent rules. But I think non-consent writers rely on common sense and consequences far more than consensual writers, who can talk things through and end up on the same page. It also gives a lot of trust and freedom to your partners, in hopes that they'll make proper choices and deal with the aftermath in a believable manner according to their character's personality. If someone godmods their way out of a situation that requires a consequence, then it stops being believable. That's when a non-consent writer would call them out, I think. Or just drop the roleplay or even godmod them back, depending on how bad it is.

I hope that helps explains things a bit. I don't do non-consent myself, though a few roleplays back when I first started teetered on it before I established the rule myself.

Well consent/non consent based actions are different then godmoding. godmoding is when you determine that the action was successful. we are merely talking attempts when it comes to consent. Often times people become consent based to avoid godmoding.

If for example, no matter what happens you roll the dice and accept the consequences of actions you are a non-consent based player or character.
But for example, if someone bursts in and started shooting lazer beams from their eyes and claimed it hit and killed your character.. I mean.. thats just tacky and even a non-consent player dosnt like tacky.

edit: I do non-consent for every single character but I have rules against godmoding/OP stuff. I personally dont mind the depth it can bring in campaigns. But I value hyper realism in my rp.. so allowing the dark, the gritty and the bad with the good is something I deeply enjoy.
On occasion I find myself at odds with a consent player. but I dont think its too difficult because my non-consent applies to my character alone. While I LOVE it when other people feel the same about their characters, I respect their rules as best as I can. There are only a handfull of instances where it was ever a conflict of interest and that was more so because they were the kind of character that ignored things i wrote in entirely to direct the story the way they wanted. thats not really a consent issue.. that is a whole other topic xD

Hmmm.... good food for thought.

I'd like to say I'm on the no-consent side. Though I can think of two times I still greatly appreciated another player asking before injuring my character in some major, irrevocable way ... mostly because it would have drastically changed the tone of the RP. (My sell-sword in both cases. He seems to have a knack for that.)

Thanks for the clarifications. I get the difference. :) Even if I'm not sure if I fall firmly into one camp or the other.

Moderators: MadRatBird, Keke, Libertine, Cass, Auberon, Copper_Dragon, Sanne, Dragonfire, Darth_Angelus


Forums > RP Discussion > 'No Consent' character