[causality0]

Are they obvious? From a logical standpoint, it's quite odd that actual murder is considered a worse crime than actual rape, but fantasy murder is much less objectionable than fantasy rape. It extends beyond roleplaying with other people. Fantasy murder is a feature of most videogames, but fantasy rape is limited to low-budget niche titles not offered on most digital or physical storefronts. I'd be interested in the psychology behind that. Could it perhaps be related to a perceived permanence? That is, maybe resetting the game more effectively un-murders the characters than it would un-rape one? Maybe it's relatability. Most of us have fantasized unseriously about murdering someone, be it in traffic or at work, but fewer of us regularly fantasize about raping someone. Other immoral acts such as animal abuse have some of the same taint as virtual rape and are similarly rare in the daily fantasies of the average person.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

I think it's really a lot simpler. Most fantasy RPGs have combat and death simply because there is a conflict where there is no mediating authority. This is kind of central to the genre. So, "murdering" NPCs is a very small diagonal step from killing them in combat. It does not stand out.

Rape, on other hand, could hardly serve any acceptable in-game purpose (or real life purpose for that matter). Its purpose is to terrorize and psychologically maim -- something you never need to do to an NPC. An ally who rapes someone in-game is not furthering the quest, and moreover is doing something that is well outside the bounds of typical PC behavior.

[Wowfunhappy]

In books, I really struggle to get through scenes where people are tortured and sometimes have to abandon stories because of it, whereas I have very little trouble with characters dying. I don’t think this is unusual.