Momo is Still Not Real (But Memes Are)

Donald Powell · Mar 4, 2019

Confessions of a Dungeon Master

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/uploads/2015/02/ConfessionsOfADungeonMaster1980.pdf

Ralif Redhammer · Mar 4, 2019

All I can think of when I hear about this Momo Challenge thing is the sweet and charming animated film, A Letter to Momo.

[video=youtube_share;k4KLGfBb_3M]https://youtu.be/k4KLGfBb_3M[/video]

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.

Celebrim · Mar 4, 2019

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.

HawaiiSteveO · Mar 4, 2019

Celebrim said:
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.

View attachment 105191

lowkey13 · Mar 4, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Staffan · Mar 4, 2019

The only Momo anyone should care about is the one from the novel.

Celebrim · Mar 4, 2019

lowkey13 said:
/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.

lowkey13 · Mar 4, 2019

*Deleted by user*

talien · Mar 4, 2019

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.