Book of Vile Darkness

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nathanael said:
All I can do: voice my opinion and hope that others will do the same.

Well, if the limit of your voice is on this message board, then I don't mean to sound offensive- but I doubt how sincere you are on the matter.

If it bothers you then snail and e-mail wotc and MC. Write a letter to dragon (which reachs people this board does not). Push other people who believe the same way as you do to do all of the above.

If you are not willing to make an effort, then I don't see the point in getting upset over the issue.

Respectfully submitted
FD
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BS. Sociopathy is not a healthy attitude.

You misunderstood, Psion. Sociopathy is not healthy, but deciding what you do in relation to what people might think of what you do is no more healthy. You end up doing nothing for fear of displeasing someone. I personally don't care what people think of the fact that I roleplaying, and if they make an issue of the fact that they don't like it, they can take a hike.

The people who matter to me (and there are many) would NEVER make me feel out of place because I game.

Blatant bifurcation. You don't have to (indeed, can't) adhere to all the expectations every group or individual lays on you. But that doesn't mean that you can't come to an peaceful relationship with the world around you and try to make it a better place for yourself, your fellow man, and would be gamers who would know the joys you have known without having unnecessary disdain cast upon them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm advocating neither anarchy nor blatant disregard for your fellow man. I'll try and get along with everyone if I can. But don't say that not publishing the BoVD makes the world a better place for "myself, my fellow man, and would-be gamers etc. etc." Because it won't.

I certainly do NOT disdain would-be gamers, or indeed anyone else except those who would judge something before knowing anything about it. But if gamers quit gaming just because they're afraid that some people might disapprove, maybe the hobby deserves to die out. There's something to be said for "doing your own thing", after all.

People are talking about the release of this book as though it were the coming Apocalypse. I'd bet dollars to dimes it won't make more than a few tiny ripples caused by indignant puritans who haven't even read it.

CoC is scary, and deals with madness; Monte Cook wrote that book, and no one's any more insane than they already were. Why would he suddenly write a book that's going sink everything he's worked for?! Think about it, people. The man ought to know what he's doing.
 

Wolfen Priest said:
If it starts to scare away soccer moms with fears of satanism and dark rituals, guess what? The hobby will lose gamers, period. Or else the people who take it up will become even more distanced from 'mainstream' society.
The D&D target audience is college undergraduates, not pre-teens. There is no danger of parental disapproval here.
 

I'm sorry to bring up this potential bit of flamebait, but this entire discussion against the publication of Book of Vile Darkness smacks too much of censorship for me to be comfortable with it.

There have been many books published in the past that have been controversial in nature and opposed by many groups due to "evil" content, from Catcher in the Rye to Harry Potter. Now, I'm not saying that the BoVD is great literature (as much as I respect Mr. Cook), but I think that it should be offered the same respect that ANY book has.

In addition, some of you seem to be implying that we should ban this gaming book so that gaming books will not be banned. No, the word "ban" hasn't actually been used, but the sentiment seems to be there. You would much prefer that this book not be published. That's not banning, but it's pretty close to it. I guess it's a "pre-ban." In any case, the circular nature of this argument should be obvious.

You might respond that we should sacrifice this one book so that the hobby will live on...cutting off the gangrenous limb so that the body itself will remain healthy. But I see no indication that the publication of the BoVD is in any way unhealthy for the hobby. At one point, White Wolf was in the spotlight over its Vampire game. In fact, I daresay that Vampire eclipsed D&D as the RPG bad seed when you consider the natural attention the "Vampire murders" gathered. But White Wolf kept on plugging along, publishing its controversial material unhindered by this scrutiny. In fact, they even have a line of books, the Black Dog imprint, devoted to material that I warrant will far eclipse that in the BoVD in terms of "evil" content. But White Wolf lived on. The hobby lived on.

There are similar examples concerning computer games. Quake was blamed for school shootings. Quake is still a popular computer game these days. Marilyn Manson was blamed for school shootings. He still sells albums and plays sold-out shows.

One book will not kill D&D or the gaming hobby. However, the attitude that we should just roll-over to cater to the ideas of a minority of people who might be offended by gaming just might strip the hobby of its soul.

I know I'm not the only one who remembers the "soccor mom" premise behind 2nd edition. Anyone up to fighting some tannari and baatezu?

Not me. I prefer to call things by what they are. Let me battle against vile demons and devils. The darker the evil, the brighter and more satisfying the vanquishing of it.
 
Last edited:

kenjib said:

Sauron created the one ring to enslave the owners of the other rings. The nine humans were turned into foul, demonic, wraiths through this corruption (PRC and/or template and rules on resisting the will of evil corruption). Gollum turned into a twisted and evil being for his covetousness over the one ring (new cursed magic item and a template). This all sounds like great material for the Book of Vile Darkness. Slavery, the corruption of the soul through lust for power and greed. How do you handle a magic item that corrupts the souls of those who use it, enslaving them to a dark lord? That tempts them to use it's power so that it can corrupt their souls and enslave them to it's will?

Why gee...it sounds like the Book of Vile Darkness might even have some rules that touch on these subjects! It's a perfect act of villainly for our bold and valiant heroes to rail against -- to paint the villain as truly vile, unrepentant, and thoroughly evil so that he can be soundly thrashed by the forces of good. The book of vile darkness might just be a great supplement for d20 roleplaying in Middle Earth.


I think you may be dead-on accurate with your assessment of what the Book of Vile Darkness will contain. This illustration using the Lord of the Rings is fantastic.

EDIT: I'm justvguessing, of course, but kenjib's assessment seems much more in keeping with what Monte has written in the past than some of the other speculations I've seen.
 
Last edited:

Yes, kenjib got it dead-on. And as for Monte Cook saying the book was hard to work on because of the subject matter, well, I'd think that writing about what kenjib described would begin to wear on anyone in the long run.

As for these so-called "soccermoms", are they a new type of demon in the Monster Manual 2? Or is that covered in the BoVD? :D
 

Wolfspider said:
I'm sorry to bring up this potential bit of flamebait, but this entire discussion against the publication of Book of Vile Darkness smacks too much of censorship for me to be comfortable with it.
I don't see how. Are you suggesting that anyone on this board has the power and authority to tell publishers what to publish and what not to publish and actually make it happen?

Let's not go crazy here. Someone saying they don't like the premise of a book and wishing it wasn't published, and expressing their opinion that it would be better off not published: that's not censorship. Some outside agency going in to WotC, shutting down their print shops, blotting out certain words or images -- all without the consent WotC -- now that's censorship.
 

Hakkenshi said:
...are they a new type of demon in the Monster Manual 2? Or is that covered in the BoVD? :D

You might want to look into the other BoVD. I refer to, of course, the B00|< of V4p1d D0rkn355!!!*

I heard the Epic Assassin and the Epic Accountant make appearances, as well. ;)


*Translation for the l33tspeak impaired: Book of Vapid Dorkness.
 
Last edited:

Wow, quick responses

I only made that post an hour or so ago, and I've been reprimanded three times already. Wow!

Firstly, to Mr. Dyal: I don't know much about Monte's work prior to 3E, I know he worked for Iron Crown; I have never read an IC product (my loss? I have no idea). Secondly Dr. Midnight was talking about Monte's "fascination" (my bad wordage midnight, see below) LATELY, so I only referenced the most recent materials he's produced.

I forget who mentioned this, but I did forget RttToEE. Don't own it, not a Greyhawk fan, just slipped my mind. Oops.

Dr. Midnight: I do owe you an apology for misquoting you. I read the entire thread, up to my post, straight and probably got your original statement mixed up with something I've read somewhere else on this board...or Monte's board...or maybe Jack Chick's board...who knows. However, I still think my point stands: claiming MC's is fascinated (which is really just obsession to more minute degree) with evil is just plain unfair. I write alot of short stories, and in almost everyone people have a meal, but I'm not obsessed with food. Silly analogy, I know, but I'm at work, and am tired. Anyways, I came off a little too harsh and I apologize.
 

Let's not go crazy here. Someone saying they don't like the premise of a book and wishing it wasn't published, and expressing their opinion that it would be better off not published: that's not censorship. Some outside agency going in to WotC, shutting down their print shops, blotting out certain words or images -- all without the consent WotC -- now that's censorship.

I don't know... The intent behind the message definitely is that the book should be barred from publication, which is technically censorship: a censor is someone who examines publications before printed release to suppress any parts on the grounds of obscenity, a threat to security, etc.

(That's almost word-for-word the definition in my Concise Oxford Dictionary)

So you're right to say that it's not ACTUALLY censorship, but the intent is there. This isn't even saying "I don't like the point of the book" (although some people have expressed that opinion, which is fine), it's saying "This sort of thing is offensive and doesn't belong on the market."
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top