So, why isn't this a thing yet?

[Kaedan94]

The problem with the 'no child race cause perverts' is that same argument can be applied to everything. Better not have a gun class, cause you might attract those who want to shoot people. Can't have a mage class cause you'll attract arsonists. Better not have rogues, because you'll attract thieves.

Remember how FFXI Ninja had a skill where they literally blew themselves up in hopes of damaging the enemy? Oh man. So many bad elements joined that game, it was nuts for awhile. All those rage DC's made you worry.

You can't actually be serious? What a poor argument.

A gun fanatic can't shoot you through your computer screen. An up-and-coming arsonist can't set fire to your house through the internet. A pedophile could dress said character in provocative clothing, or simply walk around in nothing but underwear.

The difference between doing it with a miquote and a child? One is quite obviously an adult and the other is not.

[Remilia_Nightfall]

snip

..are YOU serious with that post?

By your reasoning a pedophile would also be unable to physically harass anyone behind a monitor, and of course he would be unable to molest his own in-game character. What's your point?

[Kaedan94]

..are YOU serious with that post?

By your reasoning a pedophile would also be unable to physically harass anyone behind a monitor, and of course he would be unable to molest his own in-game character. What's your point?

I don't think you comprehended.

A gun fanatic or arsonist can't cause any harm in the game. The best they could do is spout their propoganda, but you can blacklist them. A pedophile with the ability to create a child character can, by simply doing what I said. Others are forced to see his disgusting habits. Blacklisting doesn't make someone disappear.

[Bablioteca]

I don't think you comprehended.

A gun fanatic or arsonist can't cause any harm in the game. The best they could do is spout their propoganda, but you can blacklist them. A pedophile with the ability to create a child character can, by simply doing what I said. Others are forced to see his disgusting habits. Blacklisting doesn't make someone disappear.

You're actually making the case for obscenity right there, not pedophilia, as one cannot have sex with their character nor are they human beings that can be subject to abuse.

[Kaedan94]

You're actually making the case for obscenity right there, not pedophilia, as one cannot have sex with their character nor are they human beings that can be subject to abuse.

Pedophilia isn't the act of sexual relations with children, that's only one possible aspect of it. Pedophilia is sexual feelings and expressions towards children. Regardless, it would essentially be child pornography.

[Nadirah]

I don't think you comprehended.

A gun fanatic or arsonist can't cause any harm in the game. The best they could do is spout their propoganda, but you can blacklist them. A pedophile with the ability to create a child character can, by simply doing what I said. Others are forced to see his disgusting habits. Blacklisting doesn't make someone disappear.

Gun fanatics don't kill people.

Psychopaths with destructive tendencies do. Regardless of the tools.

[HodgepodgeMcDodge]

You can't actually be serious? What a poor argument.

A gun fanatic can't shoot you through your computer screen. An up-and-coming arsonist can't set fire to your house through the internet. A pedophile could dress said character in provocative clothing, or simply walk around in nothing but underwear.

The difference between doing it with a miquote and a child? One is quite obviously an adult and the other is not.

Ok. Got me there. But let me pose this question, then. What if SE handled it responsibly? If the unequipped child's attire consisted T-shirts for girls and shorts that fell to their knees for both genders? If the bikinis changed to one pieces for the girls? It's known, for a fact, that race/gender affects gear appearance for some items, so this wont be a big issue dev-side. If all 'erotic' clothing was changed to a modest appearance for this race (or in the case of Play Boy Bunny, simply denied the ability to equip it), would you still have an issue with the child character?

Another problem with this 'ermagerd pedos' argument is that people assume SE wont take measures to prevent the sluttifying of the characters. And as far as rule 34 goes, there's nothing anyone can do about that, except be careful what they browse. This wouldn't encourage rule 34 anymore than The Simpsons does.

Personally, I would like to see the option available. It would add more creativity to the creation process, and give us a much wider range of characters. I would like to see the child adventurer, as well as the aged adventurer who has a walking-stick in one hand, and a great sword in the other. Variety is the spice of life.

[Kaedan94]

Ok. Got me there. But let me pose this question, then. What if SE handled it responsibly? If the unequipped child's attire consisted T-shirts for girls and shorts that fell to their knees for both genders? If the bikinis changed to one pieces for the girls? It's known, for a fact, that race/gender affects gear appearance for some items, so this wont be a big issue dev-side. If all 'erotic' clothing was changed to a modest appearance for this race (or in the case of Play Boy Bunny, simply denied the ability to equip it), would you still have an issue with the child character?

.

I would not have nearly as much problem with it, no.