Momo is Still Not Real (But Memes Are)
  • Momo is Still Not Real (But Memes Are)


    D&D is no stranger to moral panics, and there's a new boogeyman taking the place of demons in the 80s: Momo, a fake picture of a fake sculpture about a fake trend.


    Moral panics can arise from a popular trend that is unique to children and is foreign to some adults. Sociologist Stanley Cohen outlined the social theory of moral panic in his 1972 book titled Folk Devils and Moral Panics. It proceeds through five stages, beginning with a perceived threat to social norms; news media coverage; widespread public concern; authorities responding; and actions that result. This is precisely what happened with Dungeons & Dragons.

    Dungeons and...D'oh!

    Joseph P. Laycock lays out what happened in the 80s with D&D in Dangerous Games: What the Moral Panic over Role-Playing Games Says about Play, Religion, and Imagined Worlds:

    Anyone who was aware of fantasy role-playing games in the 1980s and 1990s was equally aware of claims that these games were socially, medically, and spiritually dangerous. A coalition of moral entrepreneurs that included evangelical ministers, psychologists, and law enforcement agents claimed that players ran a serious risk of mental illness as they gradually lost their ability to discern fantasy from reality. It was also claimed that role-playing games led players to commit violent crimes, including suicide and homicide, and to the practice of witchcraft and Satanism. In North America, the United Kingdom, and Australia, activists mobilized against these games. Several school districts and colleges banned gaming clubs and removed gaming books from their libraries. In the United States, activists petitioned federal agencies to require caution labels on gaming materials, warning that playing them could lead to insanity and death. Police held seminars on “occult crime” in which self-appointed experts discussed the connection between role-playing games and an alleged network of criminal Satanists. Dozens of accused criminals attempted the “D& D defense,” claiming that they were not responsible for their actions but were actually the victims of a mind-warping game.

    There were several factors that led to D&D's moral panic, ranging from the disappearance of Dallas Egbert III while supposedly playing a LARP in the steam tunnels beneath Michigan State University )and the subsequent dramatic retelling in Mazes & Monsters) to a game called to task for straddling the line between adults and children. We discussed previously how D&D's target audience was slowly defined not by its creators (who were more interested in tabletop wargamers) but by market forces, with the Eric J. Holmes Basic set creating a curious dichotomy of younger players who eventually would graduate from Basic to Advanced...and their parents weren't happy with what they saw. Art & Arcana explains:

    In no time flat, new allegations emerged, often driven by a casual perusal of the imagery: D&D was a clandestine recruitment vehicle for Satan worship and witch covens. TSR did little to calm these concerns when it unveiled another AD&D hardcover core book, the 1980 Deities & Demigods cyclopedia—a revision of the 1976 release Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes, but this time with all new artwork instead of the mostly public domain medieval header pieces and ornamental designs that had been used in the work previously. It contained a mix of sections nominally based on historical beliefs as well as pantheons of gods and godlings drawn from fantasy fiction.

    Art & Arcana succinctly demonstrates what a "casual perusal" might look to a parent flipping through the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual (above). All this added up to a moral panic in which the media breathlessly reported the threat of children being corrupted by the game, police offered warnings, and worried parents blocked access. If this sounds familiar, it's because it's happening again with a modern twist.

    You Again?

    We've already discussed Momo, a photo of a disturbing-looking sculpture that encourages children to commit suicide. She's back again, this time attracting hundreds of thousands of views on Facebook, dominating the news, and even showing up in supposed Peppa Pig videos on YouTube aimed at children. It wasn't real then, and the Guardian explains it's not real now:

    Child safety campaigners say the story has spread due to legitimate concerns about online child safety, the sharing of unverified material on local Facebook groups, and official comments from British police forces and schools which are based on little hard evidence. While some concerned members of the public have rushed to share posts warning of the suicide risk, there are fears that they have exacerbated the situation by scaring children and spreading the images and the association with self-harm.

    What changed to make Momo popular again?

    Although the Momo challenge has been circulating on social media and among schoolchildren in various forms since last year, the recent coverage appears to have started with a single warning posted by a mother on a Facebook group for residents of Westhoughton, a small Lancashire town on the edge of Bolton. This post, based on an anecdote she had heard from her son at school, went viral before being picked up by her local newspaper and then covered by outlets from around the world.

    This in turn propagated in the tabloids, led to celebrities chiming in (which created more headlines), and police and schools issuing formal warnings (which led to yet more headlines). YouTube says the claims are false:

    After much review, we’ve seen no recent evidence of videos promoting the Momo Challenge on YouTube. Videos encouraging harmful and dangerous challenges are clearly against our policies, the Momo challenge included. Despite press reports of this challenge surfacing, we haven’t had any recent links flagged or shared with us from YouTube that violate our Community Guidelines.

    Snopes agrees. And yet Momo persists despite evidence to the contrary. It's entirely possible children are now being exposed to Momo not due to a pernicious Internet monster, but because the media has plastered her face everywhere. Like parents flipping through the Monster Manual or Deities & Demigods, all it takes is one picture of Momo next to a kid's video to propagate parental fears:

    It’s important to note that we do allow creators to discuss, report, or educate people on the Momo challenge/character on YouTube. We’ve seen screenshots of videos and/or thumbnails with this character in them. To clarify, it is not against our policies to include the image of the Momo character on YouTube; that being said, this image is not allowed on the YouTube Kids app and we’re putting safeguards in place to exclude it from content on YouTube Kids.

    The rise of streaming video has its benefits, as D&D can attest. That's not to say that the threat of self-harm or of children being upset by pernicious Internet videos isn't a concern. But like anything else, parents should exercise judicious restraint over what their kids do by educating themselves before blocking YouTube...or throwing out their D&D books.

    Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.
    Comments 77 Comments
    1. Donald Powell's Avatar
      Donald Powell -
      John Eric Holmes, or Eric to those close to him, was not only the creator of the basic set but also a neurologist who looked at the Satanic Panic movement through the critical lens of his profession. He published an article in Psychology Today titled “Confessions of a Dungeon Master.” Definitely worth a read.

      http://questingblog.com/wp-content/u...Master1980.pdf
    1. Ralif Redhammer's Avatar
      Ralif Redhammer -
      All I can think of when I hear about this Momo Challenge thing is the sweet and charming animated film, A Letter to Momo.



      I think kids have always been into weird stuff. When the world is new, there's a lot to explore, and not all of it is sunshine and flowers. I think there'll always be a touch of fear and hysteria about things kids are into, by people that have forgotten what it was like to be a kid.

      Though, I am eternally grateful that my parents were mostly unfazed by all the D&D and then later Goth stuff my brother and I got into.
    1. Celebrim's Avatar
      Celebrim -
      A casual perusal of the images at the top of the story generates a game of "One of these is not like the other".

      The occult panic of the 1980's almost certainly wouldn't have occurred or reached the scope that it did had the game not deliberately included imagery and content meant to connect the game to the occult beliefs pertaining to a real world religious group (or groups). A parent perusing the content of the 1e AD&D game, casually or intently, would have immediately recognized the connection between some of the content and traditional depictions of Satan, devils, and demons. The names given to many of the characters - Baal, Asmodeus, Beelzebub, and so forth - would be recognizable as references to demonic forces in either their sacred text of the Religion or in the occult practices of splinter groups. The depiction of horned bat winged figures would immediately be recognizable as depictions of demonic forces. The 1e PH included spells for binding demons that have been notably lacking in later versions of the game, which tend to strip occult associations out of the base line Wizard or at least make them much less direct, much less core to the game, and leave the imagery up to the individual table.

      For many parents and guardians these depictions absolutely would have been offensive in context even if they made no assumptions about the purposes for which the content was included in the game. One doesn't have to believe that the games creators were actually Satan worshipers to object to the content. In the context of depictions of the occult, depictions of paganism and magic which might have otherwise been perceived as relatively innocent would take on an entirely different character to many pious believers. A parent that would have had no objection to reading a fairy tale as a bed time story, could still object to depicting Satan or Beelzebub in a story otherwise divorced from an appropriate religious context.

      Nor from one perspective were the parents entirely wrong in there concerns, to the extent that I can personally attest to several people I know developing (usually passing) interests in the occult or paganism following experience with D&D. I've even heard (but not confirmed) that in the 90's one neo-Pagan druidic group added to its membership form, in answer to the question, "How did you first become interested in Druidism?" a multiple choice answer, "By playing D&D or other RPGs"? While I haven't confirmed that story, based on my personal anecdotes it's a very believable story. So regardless of the intent, from the perspective of the religious, even the innocent association with the religious ideas that they found objectionable were in fact religiously objectionable.

      Parallel objections can be found in some religious and irreligious communities to the pro-Christian content of CS Lewis's Narnia books, even down to the objection that it is inappropriately and covertly trying to influence the religious beliefs of children.

      Similarly, the 'Momo Challenge' hoax likely would have gotten no legs at all, had it not followed on the heels of a number of equally unbelievable and yet apparently true assertions involving Tide pod challenges and boiling water challenges, and even innocent challenges like ice water challengers. In the context, a person could reasonably object the hoax even knowing that it was a hoax. It's simply not something which it is appropriate to joke about, nor is trolling parents about child safety a particularly funny thing to do. Starting a hoax about suicide can be objectionable even if it is a hoax, and while people might be relieved to discover it is a hoax, less shame falls on them for having fell for someone's hoax than on the hoax maker.

      There is a certain disingenuousness involved in wanting to name drop imagery associated with a religion in order to piggy back on the story telling power of that religion and the associations that provokes, and then pretend to be shocked when the people for whom those stories are more than stories are offended by the usurpation of those stories for commercial purposes. For those wondering, depiction of a horrible skeletal monster for most religious people is very different than appropriating the traditional depictions of Satan and his minions. The Lich picture might have been deemed inappropriate for young viewers, but it wouldn't have been deemed inherently inappropriate by most the way the sexualized Succubi or Satanic Asmodeus were, however innocently it was done. Writers like Tracy Hickman who is himself devoutly religious had no objection to depicting vampires and mummies and other monsters of movie horror in his works, nor are would his works like I3: Pyramid or I6: Ravenloft likely have drawn negative attention or skepticism from the broader religious community had they not been called into question by association.
    1. HawaiiSteveO's Avatar
      HawaiiSteveO -
      Quote Originally Posted by Celebrim View Post
      A casual perusal of the images at the top of the story generates a game of "One of these is not like the other".

      The occult panic of the 1980's almost certainly wouldn't have occurred or reached the scope that it did had the game not deliberately included imagery and content meant to connect the game to the occult beliefs pertaining to a real world religious group (or groups). A parent perusing the content of the 1e AD&D game, casually or intently, would have immediately recognized the connection between some of the content and traditional depictions of Satan, devils, and demons. The names given to many of the characters - Baal, Asmodeus, Beelzebub, and so forth - would be recognizable as references to demonic forces in either their sacred text of the Religion or in the occult practices of splinter groups. The depiction of horned bat winged figures would immediately be recognizable as depictions of demonic forces. The 1e PH included spells for binding demons that have been notably lacking in later versions of the game, which tend to strip occult associations out of the base line Wizard or at least make them much less direct, much less core to the game, and leave the imagery up to the individual table.

      For many parents and guardians these depictions absolutely would have been offensive in context even if they made no assumptions about the purposes for which the content was included in the game. One doesn't have to believe that the games creators were actually Satan worshipers to object to the content. In the context of depictions of the occult, depictions of paganism and magic which might have otherwise been perceived as relatively innocent would take on an entirely different character to many pious believers. A parent that would have had no objection to reading a fairy tale as a bed time story, could still object to depicting Satan or Beelzebub in a story otherwise divorced from an appropriate religious context.

      Nor from one perspective were the parents entirely wrong in there concerns, to the extent that I can personally attest to several people I know developing (usually passing) interests in the occult or paganism following experience with D&D. I've even heard (but not confirmed) that in the 90's one neo-Pagan druidic group added to its membership form, in answer to the question, "How did you first become interested in Druidism?" a multiple choice answer, "By playing D&D or other RPGs"? While I haven't confirmed that story, based on my personal anecdotes it's a very believable story. So regardless of the intent, from the perspective of the religious, even the innocent association with the religious ideas that they found objectionable were in fact religiously objectionable.

      Parallel objections can be found in some religious and irreligious communities to the pro-Christian content of CS Lewis's Narnia books, even down to the objection that it is inappropriately and covertly trying to influence the religious beliefs of children.

      Similarly, the 'Momo Challenge' hoax likely would have gotten no legs at all, had it not followed on the heels of a number of equally unbelievable and yet apparently true assertions involving Tide pod challenges and boiling water challenges, and even innocent challenges like ice water challengers. In the context, a person could reasonably object the hoax even knowing that it was a hoax. It's simply not something which it is appropriate to joke about, nor is trolling parents about child safety a particularly funny thing to do. Starting a hoax about suicide can be objectionable even if it is a hoax, and while people might be relieved to discover it is a hoax, less shame falls on them for having fell for someone's hoax than on the hoax maker.

      There is a certain disingenuousness involved in wanting to name drop imagery associated with a religion in order to piggy back on the story telling power of that religion and the associations that provokes, and then pretend to be shocked when the people for whom those stories are more than stories are offended by the usurpation of those stories for commercial purposes. For those wondering, depiction of a horrible skeletal monster for most religious people is very different than appropriating the traditional depictions of Satan and his minions. The Lich picture might have been deemed inappropriate for young viewers, but it wouldn't have been deemed inherently inappropriate by most the way the sexualized Succubi or Satanic Asmodeus were, however innocently it was done. Writers like Tracy Hickman who is himself devoutly religious had no objection to depicting vampires and mummies and other monsters of movie horror in his works, nor are would his works like I3: Pyramid or I6: Ravenloft likely have drawn negative attention or skepticism from the broader religious community had they not been called into question by association.
      Name: MICDROP.jpg ► Views: 1483 ► Size: 25.4 KB
    1. lowkey13's Avatar
      lowkey13 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Celebrim View Post

      Nor from one perspective were the parents entirely wrong in there concerns, to the extent that I can personally attest to several people I know developing (usually passing) interests in the occult or paganism following experience with D&D. I've even heard (but not confirmed) that in the 90's one neo-Pagan druidic group added to its membership form, in answer to the question, "How did you first become interested in Druidism?" a multiple choice answer, "By playing D&D or other RPGs"? While I haven't confirmed that story, based on my personal anecdotes it's a very believable story. So regardless of the intent, from the perspective of the religious, even the innocent association with the religious ideas that they found objectionable were in fact religiously objectionable.

      /facepalm

      My older brother's best friend told me that those scorch marks outside of town were left from people sacrificing babies to Satan.


      (It is difficult for me to believe, in this day and age, that there is a defense of the terrible moral panics of the 80s ... on a TTRPG website. What next- "Jack Chick, misunderstood genius who truly understood D&D?")
    1. Staffan's Avatar
      Staffan -
      The only Momo anyone should care about is the one from the novel.
    1. Celebrim's Avatar
      Celebrim -
      Quote Originally Posted by lowkey13 View Post
      /facepalm

      My older brother's best friend told me that those scorch marks outside of town were left from people sacrificing babies to Satan.
      Are you claiming that in fact I don't know people who developed interests in the occult or paganism following and often because of experiences with D&D?

      On second thought, let me take that up a notch. Are you claiming that I don't personally know someone whose suicide was connected by his family to his playing D&D and that as such, I have no personal experiences or particular take on that claim which are relevant to the discussion? Not hearsay. Not my brother's best friends cousin told him. Personal experience.
    1. lowkey13's Avatar
      lowkey13 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Celebrim View Post
      Are you claiming that in fact I don't know people who developed interests in the occult or paganism following and often because of experiences with D&D?

      On second thought, let me take that up a notch. Are you claiming that I don't personally know someone whose suicide was connected by his family to his playing D&D and that as such, I have no personal experiences or particular take on that claim which are relevant to the discussion? Not hearsay. Not my brother's best friends cousin told him. Personal experience.
      I quoted and bolded exactly what you said.

      I suggest reading what you wrote, and what I quoted, before getting your hackles up.


      As for your other issue that you're trying to introduce now ... it is a tragedy when anyone ends their life. But if you are accepting that someone ended their life because of D&D, I would suggest that either you don't know a great deal about mental health, or that the idea that his "suicide was connected by his family to his playing D&D" may not be 100% accurate.*

      Carry on.



      *Unless, of course, this was the family of Tom Hanks.
    1. talien's Avatar
      talien -
      As someone who was targeted by religious groups in school, for a long time I reflexively felt that there was nothing wrong with how D&D presented itself. But after re-reading Art & Arcana and looking at the art through the eyes of a parent...yep, I would have had a problem with it.

      I think D&D's split focus was largely to blame for this. D&D co-opted a variety of religions in Deities & Demigods and the Monster Manual -- and none of that was an issue. I think that came from wargaming, where there was a certain deatchment from the whole thing -- replaying historical events didn't mean you agreed with the nation's policies that you played -- and so D&D treated religions like more data, independent of cultural concerns. And that's all fine and good in the scholarly world of wargaming played by adults.

      It falls apart when you have Basic D&D, which was marketed to kids, that was meant to be a stepping stone to Advanced gaming. The disconnect was sharp -- Basic D&D was almost independent of Gary's AD&D, and as a result the two different depictions of religious symbols varied greatly.

      It was only a matter of time before D&D got tarred with the same broad brush and parents got upset.

      Similarly, video streaming has never been more popular with kids and at the same time, YouTube and other companies have never been less trusted. It's a fertile mix for where we're at now, where nobody really knows what's real anymore.
    1. hawkeyefan's Avatar
      hawkeyefan -
      Now that I have kids of my own, I certainly look at some of those images from the early D&D books with a different eye.

      But what I also look at with a different eye is how my parents, who clearly weren't crazy about all of it, didn't tell me I couldn't have those books or otherwise restrict me from the hobby.

      And that makes me appreciate them more, and helps me in how I want to parent my kids.
    1. Celebrim's Avatar
      Celebrim -
      Quote Originally Posted by lowkey13 View Post
      I quoted and bolded exactly what you said.

      I suggest reading what you wrote, and what I quoted, before getting your hackles up.
      I know exactly what I said. IIRC, the anecdote about the neo-Druidic membership form was related to me as a funny story by an active neo-pagan. I've never had the form in my hand to verify that, but seeing as I have first hand experience with people who got into paganism or Satanism (in most cases for a short while) after first exposure in D&D, the story was believable. I prefaced that I could not in fact verify it, in case it was an urban legend and because knowing that there is an active pagan community on EnWorld, I thought I could possibly get confirmation.

      There is no need to tell me not to get my hackles up. It's quite obvious to anyone reading the thread that I first got your hackles up before you got mine up.

      As for your other issue ... it is a tragedy when anyone ends their life. But if you are accepting that someone ended their life because of D&D, I would suggest that either you don't know a great deal about mental health, or that the idea that his "suicide was connected by his family to his playing D&D" may not be 100% accurate.
      You don't know what I'm saying or thinking, because I haven't given you my take on the death of my first cousin (or on Jack Chick for that matter). I'm just addressing the idea that I'm making statements based on hearsay, which was the main thrust of your challenge to me.

      That the suicide of my first cousin was connected by his family to his playing D&D is not something you are in a position to gainsay. Whether that diagnosis is accurate is not something you have the information to comment on, because regardless of your claims to be an expert in mental health you are wholly and completely unfamiliar with the details of this particular case. How I connect the two is not something I've talked about, because seriously, I don't consider EnWorld the sort of place where you can carry on serious conversations with any expectation that they'll be seriously thought about. Though, I think it's probably fair to guess that as an avid RPer, I probably don't have the same take my family has nor that I agree with Jack Chick about much of anything.

      The truth is not that my hackles are up, so much as soon as someone offered an opinion that diverged even slightly from your world view, you took it as carte blanche to be insulting.
    1. billd91's Avatar
      billd91 -
      Quote Originally Posted by talien View Post
      As someone who was targeted by religious groups in school, for a long time I reflexively felt that there was nothing wrong with how D&D presented itself. But after re-reading Art & Arcana and looking at the art through the eyes of a parent...yep, I would have had a problem with it.

      I think D&D's split focus was largely to blame for this. D&D co-opted a variety of religions in Deities & Demigods and the Monster Manual -- and none of that was an issue. I think that came from wargaming, where there was a certain deatchment from the whole thing -- replaying historical events didn't mean you agreed with the nation's policies that you played -- and so D&D treated religions like more data, independent of cultural concerns. And that's all fine and good in the scholarly world of wargaming played by adults.

      It falls apart when you have Basic D&D, which was marketed to kids, that was meant to be a stepping stone to Advanced gaming. The disconnect was sharp -- Basic D&D was almost independent of Gary's AD&D, and as a result the two different depictions of religious symbols varied greatly.

      It was only a matter of time before D&D got tarred with the same broad brush and parents got upset.
      Honestly, I doubt a more nuanced treatment of religions and demons would have mattered much. Any form of witchcraft or magic would probably have been enough to provoke a response once D&D got popular enough with kids. Just look at the anti-Harry Potter hysteria. The stories incorporate some strong and positive moral messages, yet they are the object of a senseless moral panic among some groups because of their inclusion of magic.
    1. talien's Avatar
      talien -
      I think one important piece I missed pointing out in the article is that the traditional forms of authority are no longer trusted. D&D was outside the experience of a lot of groups (including police and religious institutions) and similarly we don't know what to make of social media's push to target kids. There's no "Internet police" to help us determine what's right and wrong, so people react this way "just to be safe."

      Which is how we get "authorities" (principals of schools, police) issuing statements and their statements only adding fuel to the panic.
    1. Celebrim's Avatar
      Celebrim -
      Quote Originally Posted by billd91 View Post
      Honestly, I doubt a more nuanced treatment of religions and demons would have mattered much. Any form of witchcraft or magic would probably have been enough to provoke a response once D&D got popular enough with kids. Just look at the anti-Harry Potter hysteria. The stories incorporate some strong and positive moral messages, yet they are the object of a senseless moral panic among some groups because of their inclusion of magic.
      The two things aren't alike.

      For anything, there is always a small amount of people that are outraged about something. The interconnectedness of modern media tends to create a platform that can magnify the actual scale of concern, without actually giving people any concrete sense of how widespread the outrage or concern actually is. That someone protested 'Harry Potter' doesn't surprise me. But I'd guess that disapproval among Christian groups in the United States for D&D at the height of the Occult scare hit 50% or higher.

      A comparatively high scale protest, but which attracted less media attention, was concerns within the Christian community concerning Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' series, and I invite comparison between how well accepted the Harry Potter series was on both sides of the pond, compared to how well Pullman's work was accepted in still largely religious America compared to the largely post-Christian UK. Pullman's work certainly 'raised some hackles' in a broad way; protests of Rawlings work was a blip largely confined to a few highly insular fundamentalist groups.

      In the case of Harry Potter 'hysteria' I can feel pretty safe in saying it did not remotely match the scale of the occult panic with respect to D&D. The groups that are offended by Harry Potter very strongly overlap the groups that think for example that CS Lewis and Tolkien were Satanist promoting occult ideas. That these groups represent a miniscule fraction of the evangelical Christian movement is hardly something that needs to be said. In the vast majority of even evangelical churches, using or quoting Tolkien or CS Lewis in a sermon illustration is considered perfectly acceptable, and for that matter, considering the mid-story conversion by Rawlings to Christianity, the later books are decidedly pro-Christian in context.

      Similarly, while I hardly have a survey I can point to prove this, I think I can safely present myself as subject matter expert, and say that while there certainly would have been congregations that objected to fantasy as a genre as a whole, they are vastly outnumbered by the congregations that object to explicitly occult and Satanic content specifically. This things have a scale to them, and while you may be right that some response would have been forth coming, I feel fairly safe in saying that had the comic book code been in effect on all of TSR's publications, and had no overtly occult symbolism been used, the scale would have been so small we wouldn't have been having this conversation.
    1. Mark Craddock's Avatar
      Mark Craddock -
      Quote Originally Posted by lowkey13 View Post
      /facepalm

      My older brother's best friend told me that those scorch marks outside of town were left from people sacrificing babies to Satan.


      (It is difficult for me to believe, in this day and age, that there is a defense of the terrible moral panics of the 80s ... on a TTRPG website. What next- "Jack Chick, misunderstood genius who truly understood D&D?")
      Leave it to someone on the internet to excise a well articulated point and focus on one small bit of the statement to make their argument.
    1. Arma virumque's Avatar
      Arma virumque -
      Quote Originally Posted by Celebrim View Post
      A casual perusal of the images at the top of the story generates a game of "One of these is not like the other".

      The occult panic of the 1980's almost certainly wouldn't have occurred or reached the scope that it did had the game not deliberately included imagery and content meant to connect the game to the occult beliefs pertaining to a real world religious group (or groups). A parent perusing the content of the 1e AD&D game, casually or intently, would have immediately recognized the connection between some of the content and traditional depictions of Satan, devils, and demons. The names given to many of the characters - Baal, Asmodeus, Beelzebub, and so forth - would be recognizable as references to demonic forces in either their sacred text of the Religion or in the occult practices of splinter groups. The depiction of horned bat winged figures would immediately be recognizable as depictions of demonic forces. The 1e PH included spells for binding demons that have been notably lacking in later versions of the game, which tend to strip occult associations out of the base line Wizard or at least make them much less direct, much less core to the game, and leave the imagery up to the individual table.

      For many parents and guardians these depictions absolutely would have been offensive in context even if they made no assumptions about the purposes for which the content was included in the game. One doesn't have to believe that the games creators were actually Satan worshipers to object to the content. In the context of depictions of the occult, depictions of paganism and magic which might have otherwise been perceived as relatively innocent would take on an entirely different character to many pious believers. A parent that would have had no objection to reading a fairy tale as a bed time story, could still object to depicting Satan or Beelzebub in a story otherwise divorced from an appropriate religious context.

      Nor from one perspective were the parents entirely wrong in there concerns, to the extent that I can personally attest to several people I know developing (usually passing) interests in the occult or paganism following experience with D&D. I've even heard (but not confirmed) that in the 90's one neo-Pagan druidic group added to its membership form, in answer to the question, "How did you first become interested in Druidism?" a multiple choice answer, "By playing D&D or other RPGs"? While I haven't confirmed that story, based on my personal anecdotes it's a very believable story. So regardless of the intent, from the perspective of the religious, even the innocent association with the religious ideas that they found objectionable were in fact religiously objectionable.

      Parallel objections can be found in some religious and irreligious communities to the pro-Christian content of CS Lewis's Narnia books, even down to the objection that it is inappropriately and covertly trying to influence the religious beliefs of children.

      Similarly, the 'Momo Challenge' hoax likely would have gotten no legs at all, had it not followed on the heels of a number of equally unbelievable and yet apparently true assertions involving Tide pod challenges and boiling water challenges, and even innocent challenges like ice water challengers. In the context, a person could reasonably object the hoax even knowing that it was a hoax. It's simply not something which it is appropriate to joke about, nor is trolling parents about child safety a particularly funny thing to do. Starting a hoax about suicide can be objectionable even if it is a hoax, and while people might be relieved to discover it is a hoax, less shame falls on them for having fell for someone's hoax than on the hoax maker.

      There is a certain disingenuousness involved in wanting to name drop imagery associated with a religion in order to piggy back on the story telling power of that religion and the associations that provokes, and then pretend to be shocked when the people for whom those stories are more than stories are offended by the usurpation of those stories for commercial purposes. For those wondering, depiction of a horrible skeletal monster for most religious people is very different than appropriating the traditional depictions of Satan and his minions. The Lich picture might have been deemed inappropriate for young viewers, but it wouldn't have been deemed inherently inappropriate by most the way the sexualized Succubi or Satanic Asmodeus were, however innocently it was done. Writers like Tracy Hickman who is himself devoutly religious had no objection to depicting vampires and mummies and other monsters of movie horror in his works, nor are would his works like I3: Pyramid or I6: Ravenloft likely have drawn negative attention or skepticism from the broader religious community had they not been called into question by association.
      Thank you for that well-articulated explanation of the perspective of some parents and religious leaders in the 1980s. I also experienced everything you write about as a teenager in the 80s; in college, in fact, I had to formally petition and argue for the right to include D&D as part of a school-sanctioned gaming club. But as a parent today, I have a more nuanced and forgiving understanding of the situation.

      I thought it was obvious that you weren't arguing for the correctness of the 1980s moral panic, but rather for some level of understanding of (and sympathy for) the people involved. You accomplished that goal well. It makes me sad that some people don't understand the difference between showing empathy and showing agreement.
    1. lowkey13's Avatar
      lowkey13 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Celebrim View Post
      I'm just addressing the idea that I'm making statements based on hearsay, which was the main thrust of your challenge to me.
      Let's see exactly what I quoted.

      Originally Posted by Celebrim

      Nor from one perspective were the parents entirely wrong in there concerns, to the extent that I can personally attest to several people I know developing (usually passing) interests in the occult or paganism following experience with D&D. I've even heard (but not confirmed) that in the 90's one neo-Pagan druidic group added to its membership form, in answer to the question, "How did you first become interested in Druidism?" a multiple choice answer, "By playing D&D or other RPGs"? While I haven't confirmed that story, based on my personal anecdotes it's a very believable story. So regardless of the intent, from the perspective of the religious, even the innocent association with the religious ideas that they found objectionable were in fact religiously objectionable.
      (emphasis as in original)

      So, let's see. I quoted the exact part (and only the exact part) of your story where you're repeating unconfirmed stories that. The exact way that most urban legends gets spread.

      That is the (non-legal) definition of hearsay, by the way. "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor"

      Of course, "unconfirmed stories" are not more true when they are in accord with what we want to be true.

      Good? Good.



      That the suicide of my first cousin was connected by his family to his playing D&D is not something you are in a position to gainsay.
      You know what? It is. Because:
      1. Multiple reputable authorities, including but not limited to the CDC and Health and Welfare Canada have found no link between D&D and individuals ending their own life; to the extent that it has been studied, individuals who play TTRPGs have a lower incidence of self harm, attempts to end their lives, and successfully taking of one's own life.

      2. The taking of one's life is a serious issue in the mental health community; it trivializes the discussion of it to try to to say that something (like D&D) caused it. What do we know?
      a. It's almost always underlying mental illness (depression, psychosis, after effect of traumatic stress). On those occasions when it isn't, it's because of a few other, non-standard factors, including impulse (drugs/alcohol), mistake (um... oxygen deprivation), attention (assuming they won't actually die), or a reasoned decision (incl. terminal illness).
      b. But yeah, it's almost always mental illness.
      c. Nevertheless, people want to find reasons .. someone to blame. That's why we hear the old canards of "It was the Rock Music" or "It was the D&D" or "It was the TV show" or "It was the EMO stuff" and so on. For D&D, this is a story as old as ... well, the original moral panic. See also, BADD.

      But yeah, I am pretty disgusted with something that both demonizes D&D (ahem) and trivializes the very real issues faced by people who struggle with mental illness and the challenges of helping those who attempt to end their own lives by saying, "Yeah, the D&D made them do it."
    1. lowkey13's Avatar
      lowkey13 -
      Quote Originally Posted by billd91 View Post
      Honestly, I doubt a more nuanced treatment of religions and demons would have mattered much. Any form of witchcraft or magic would probably have been enough to provoke a response once D&D got popular enough with kids. Just look at the anti-Harry Potter hysteria. The stories incorporate some strong and positive moral messages, yet they are the object of a senseless moral panic among some groups because of their inclusion of magic.
      I think some people here forget just how bad and stupid and unsupported the 80s moral panicS (notice the plural) were.

      And the whole, "Once you're a parent, you'll understand why you might be stupid" shouldn't cut it. If you lived through it (as I did) it should make you more cognizant of not repeating those mistakes, not more empathetic.
    1. Celebrim's Avatar
      Celebrim -
      Quote Originally Posted by Arma virumque View Post
      I thought it was obvious that you weren't arguing for the correctness of the 1980s moral panic, but rather for some level of understanding of (and sympathy for) the people involved. You accomplished that goal well. It makes me sad that some people don't understand the difference between showing empathy and showing agreement.
      Thank you. Sadly, such is our present culture, about which much could be said, but not to any avail.

      Speaking of people I don't agree with, I actually even have some empathy for Jack Chick, while at the same time I also think that he is a complete idiot. This should not be surprising. I find I have no trouble maintaining a great deal of empathy for myself, while also and at the same time thinking that I am a complete idiot.
    1. lowkey13's Avatar
      lowkey13 -
      By the way, before people forget, when we discuss these issues about moral panics in the 1980s, we have to remember two things about D&D-

      First, it wasn't "just" D&D. There were a number of other moral panics during that time, but D&D was swept up in the greater Satanic Abuse moral panic- you know, the whole thing that didn't exist and caused a lot of people to go to jail for no reason?

      Second, and more importantly, we should probably stop and have a little empathy for the actual victims of the D&D moral panic- you know, the people it was aimed at.

      The people who were playing it. Don't forget, this was the Reagan-era, moral majority 1980s. The people who played D&D were, for the most part, the marginalized parts of the community. The outcasts. These weren't the popular kids, the jocks- it was, for the most part, the nerds, the outcasts, those who had little to no power. Same with the adults. It wasn't the upper crust of society (at that time) playing.

      So when you had a concerted effort to tar D&D, most of which had little to do with the game itself (such as promoting such falsehoods as "when your character dies, the player will try to end his own life", or tying it into the clearly false Satanic Abuse scandals) it had the effect of forcing D&D underground in a lot of areas where religion had a great hold on public life.

      And people suffered because of this. Teachers and administrators who had been allowing D&D (or participating with their students) were hounded out of their positions. Ridiculous lawsuits had to be defended (at great expense) with so-called experts testifying that D&D promoted everything bad under the sun.

      This isn't about sympathy for a few worried parents. This is about terrible people spreading misinformation and lies that hurt other people; about people that abuse their positions of power and responsibility to the detriment of those who are marginalized.

      There is a colorable difference between someone saying, "I don't think this game (book, whatever) is in keeping with my religion, and I don't think it's appropriate for my family," as opposed to what we saw in the 1980s. And if you don't see that, I can't help you.
    Comments Leave Comment