BoVD Thoughts

[RobNJ]

I mostly agree with what you have to say, however:

"I cut off the head of the dead orc, deficate down his throat, and relieve myself on his corpse. (huh huh huh)". A campaign such as that merely panders to people who never matured past the age of 12.

Why is this even out of bounds? Since when is the simple gross-out a horrible, or even immature thing? A grossout isn't necessarily easy to do (different people have different tolerance levels), and it certainly isn't an indication that someone hasn't matured.

I happen to like dark gaming, a lot. I would enjoy an evil campaign if it didn't almost always result in the players killing one another's characters (note: this only seems to happen in D&D, where the goofy alignment system makes people think too literally--take a look at Vampire: The Masquerade, the "evil" people there often manage to get along). What I have a real problem with is people blithely branding me an evil, emotionally crippled, immature sociopath for enjoying reading and partaking in transgressive entertainment.

By the way, "dark" gaming is not so-last-decade. While D&D is the undeniable king in terms of role playing sales, there are plenty of dark video games, movies, comics and books out there that trade on the exact same sensebilities. I also think that D&D may have an unnatural pull on the audience, that its dominance is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is to say for most of the people in the world, role playing games = D&D, which may turn off people who would be interested in morally grey role playing games to the whole genre.

 

[Grazzt]

My reaction to the "sealed section" was -- wow, that's very tame. And I suspected it would be. On a dial that goes up to 11, this stuff is about two notches higher than D&D core "evil" in my opinion.

I agree with Eric here. The stuff in there, with the exception of perhaps one spell (Corpsebond) really didn't warrant a sealed section or even a "Mature Content" notice. Most of the "vileness" wasn't really that vile. It was more "shock" and "gross" and seemed to be handled rather immaturely (IMO).

Think Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th. While classics in a sense, they are more graphic and perhaps gross than vile or evil. For vileness or evilness think Hellraiser or perhaps the Exorcist.

And the prestige classes in the sealed section...why? Were they really that bad? Did they even belong in the sealed section? What in them makes them so "vile" that they have to be sealed from public view? Didnt we already have monstrous prestige classes a few months ago? Were they sealed?

It seems that it was nothing more than a marketing ploy (and apparently a good one) by WotC. I suspect that the BoVD isn't gonna be as "vile" as a lot of people want or expect.

Will I buy it? Sure. For the Demon and Devil stats. Will I use the stuff in there in my campaign? Doubt it. My campaign is dark and contains fine traces of vileness and evilness (but in a much more mature way than Monte Cook or WotC portrayed in the articles).

Now, as to whether this vileness stuff will be good or bad for the D&D game in general .... I think computer games and music lyrics are in the public eye a lot more than tabletop RPGs nowadays. I don't see this being a big deal. Does it help the D&D image? Probably not. I don't see it doing much of anything, especially as it's a non-core product. We won't see much if any trickle-down from BoVD to future products.

I agree with Eric here too. The BoVD being non-Core won't receive that much, if any support in future products. It seems, from all initial indications, to be a one shot product, perhaps even an experiment. And while it probably won't help the D&D image, I don't think it will really hurt it that much. Those in the world that see D&D as evil will still see it as evil. Does it add fuel to the "D&D is evil" fire? Maybe. But the peeps that want "fuel" already have it from the PHB (spells, magic) and MM (demons, devils, etc.).

 

[RobNJ]

Now, as to whether this vileness stuff will be good or bad for the D&D game in general .... I think computer games and music lyrics are in the public eye a lot more than tabletop RPGs nowadays.

Indeed. Dungeons & Dragons is irrelevent in today's world. Fussbudgets seeking a public target to demonstrate how forcefully they can declaim their own moral superiority have several much juicier multibillion dollar industries to line up in their crosshairs: music, movies, video games. Video games alone are nearly omnipresent in kids' lives today, and make thousands or tens of thousands of times the profit that the role playing game industry does.

With massive, slow moving, extremely visible targets like that, it's hardly worth the effort to dredge the sewage-laden swamps of 80s cultural memory for BADD's hairsprayed, middle-aged, bored housewives.

At this point, Dungeons and Dragons could produce a suppliment next week that was all the BADD-morons' dreams come true: something that had on page two, "If you follow this murderous ritual, you the reader will ascend to Beelzebub's right hand," and you know what would happen? Not a damned thing. No one cares about role playing anymore.

Dark gaming may or may not be so-last-decade, but actually believing that anyone cares about role playing games anymore is undeniably so-2-decades-ago.

 

[Darkness]

The Book of Vile Darkness...

Me, I'll buy it mainly for the demon lords, the rules for making pacts with them, and the "crunchy bits:" Spells, prestige classes, magic items...

The advice on evil campaigns will certainly be interesting, too, but I'm not sure how useful it will be to me.

See, on the one hand, my campaigns always had many "vile" parts; glossing over the baser parts of human (and, less common, nonhuman) nature just isn't compatible with my style - and neither is it compatible with my players' (note: we don't usually need much detail of really gruesome things, though; it's just that we don't pretend that they don't happen). Slavery, prostitution, torture, crime, atrocities, necromancy of the vilest kind, and, to a lesser extent (although only because I didn't have many rules for them and was too lazy to make some up myself ), drugs were always a part of my games. Also, I seldom prohibited my players from playing evil characters if they insisted on doing so.
I've never run a long-running campaign of evil characters, though; at the most, we created characters and played a one-shot game - few (if any) of which were appreciably vile or interesting. I dunno; so far, I've just never had the interest or sufficient inspiration to thoroughly plan a campaign featuring evil-aligned PCs... From my experiences in trying to envision such games and create such characters, though, I'm certain that these games need to be planned very carefully lest they become boring, random, end prematurely (because of intraparty violence or carelessness) and/or too unpredictable to plan ahead very much for.
Thus, a few tips on how to make such a campaign happen would certainly help to get me interested enough in running one. (Really, lack of interest and vision for such a game were my main reasons for not running one. Also, I would have to work hard to make it happen - which just isn't worth it if I don't really what I care about it anyway. Still, that idea of mine in which the PCs would have been members of the clergy of an important temple of a deity of death - Nerull or Myrkul or whatever, I can't remember at the moment... A swimming temple, that is: A ghost ship. And all other crew members are undead; only the PCs, and possibly some other young acolytes, are alive. And so, they get to go ashore for the temple as emissaries, spies, traders, or whatever is needed in relations with the living... )

But on the other hand, if the article isn't really good, it won't convince me to run an evil game any time soon. Plus, it better have guidelines on how to show to your players that evil PCs are to be played carefully and like people rather than howling madmen (unless that's what you want to do - which I don't). Anyway, I'm skeptical - and even if this part of the book is terrific, it's quite probable that I won't run an evil campaign anyway (really, if it was at all important to me, I could easily get all the inspiration that I need through research on my own)...

Still, even outside of nominally evil campaigns, it will be good to have rules for drugs, pacts with demons, etc.
You see, without temptation by evil, true heroism kind of lacks something. After all, it is adversity that makes heroism possible in the first place - and killing monsters is, by itself, not even nearly as important to being a hero as resisting compromising your spiritual well-being for short-term gain. Either of these conflicts becomes more heroic the higher the stakes are, though, of course...
And with the Book of Vile Darkness, it will hopefully now be as much a challenge to resist the inner (spiritual) demons as to fight the outer (physical) ones.

 

[maddman75]

I'll probably pick up the BoVD because I like Monte's work. I know that he makes good products.

As far as evil supplements, I've had AEG's Evil for quite some time - and that book is inteneded to run campaign with evil PCs, and has all kinds of vileness in it. Including allowing your PC to sell their soul for super powered feats.

We've ran a campaign with it, but few of the characters have become THAT evil. Most of the rest are more like hardened mercenaries. Our eventual plan is to get both the evil and good characters up to around 15th level, then have them come into conflict and see who comes out ahead.

Overall, this is much ado about nothing. Anything in the BoVD is pale compared to some of the other stuff out there.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Dragon 300's "vile" content was, as I said on one of the locked threads, pretty tame. Some of it creeped me out (a couple of the spells, specifically), but most of it just seemed, as Eric said, just a couple notches above regular D&D in evilness.

I have BoVD on pre-order. I doubt it'll be as "vile" as some fear it to be. I guess it's good that something is getting people fired up in regards to D&D, but I think it's ultimately just a tempest in a teapot.

I wonder if any of BoVD will ever make it into the SRD...?

 

[Golem Joe]

As the book hasn't been released, its hard for me to comment on the contents. All I have to go on is what Monte says is therein, and what the Dragon magazine article proports to contain. It's also perhaps that I'm approaching this with a slightly different perspective. I've been gaming regularly for over a decade now, and casually for two, and own a wide variety of darkly-themed games (Kult, Over the Edge, etc.). I hold a degree in English Lit. ::shrug:: That certainly colors my opinion on the matter.

Everyone who is pro-BoVD seems to view it as THE core treatment of villains. That may well turn out to be the case. However, Monte has said it will deal with matters of slavery, human sacrifice, the selling of one's soul, etc., providing game mechanics based around these. Unsavory matters, sure. Good topics for a book on villains? Yeah. There are many types of villains in the world of literature. Some are misguided, others overly ambitious, etc. I think a book covering villainy and associated topics is a good idea. I like what I've seen of Kenzer's Villain Handbook.

But the BoVD proports to be something else. It's not about villains but about evil -- abject unfiltered evil. Despicable deeds performed by imaginary foes for an in-game (mechanical) benefit: sell your soul and bump your spell Save DC up by 2 points/level, damage rates for torture instruments, and similar things. We aren't talking about villains, but actions. We aren't talking about motivations (ambition, lust, hate) but the means to that end.

Now what does a treatment of these things really add to the game? Did DMs not use human sacrifice as a plot device in their games prior to 2002? Sure they did! What about evil sorcerers who sold their souls for power and influence? You betcha! Rape, perhaps incest? Of course. So if that's the case, what does the BoVD really add besides a nice shiney book that standardizes the in-game benefits of all of the above?

Some people have said that the core books offer you everything you need to play a good campaign and the BoVD just offers the different end of the spectrum. Well if that's so why are their no rules for people who make a vow to a god? Must they always become a cleric or paladin? What about religious orders that adhere to stringent codes of conduct? Are these sorts of mechanics always attached to Prestige classes and if so, why not the contrary?

The point I'm trying to get at is the BoVD doesn't seem to add anything positive to the game. It cheapens the game in a certain, intangible fashion. In a game of heroic fantasy, the focus should be on that. It doesn't all have to be bright and sunny, but to devote an entire book to evil acts, not villains, just strikes me as kinda off. Even if, as Monte has said, its all kinda PG-13 teenage slasher movie fare, do we really need a book on it? Does the game really need a treatment on rape and torture? Even Kult, which is as dark as they come, doesn't do that. And even if it did, there are thematic qualities of Kult that are not (and I'd argue, should not) be shared with D&D.

The really sad part is I suspect many people will by this book specifically for 3e conversions to the demon princes and devil lords, and never use it for anything but. And while I've no doubt a few people will get a lot of use out of it, I have to wonder if the BoVD really makes a difference to their campaign? I wonder what impact it will have on campaigns in general -- particularly with new players -- over the next couple of years. Because once it's released, it will only be a matter of time before the moral equivilancy crowd manages to convince a horde of hapless DMs that some of the actions and mechanics are appropriate for chaotic neutral characters. (Not pointing any fingers here -- all of you know at least one of these players I'm betting.) Whose going to be the first d20 publisher to "out evil" the BoVD?

Maybe I'm just buying into WotC's hype, but that's my 2 coppers. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[Xarlen]

all the BADD-morons' dreams come true

Uh... Would that be the Bothered About Disposable Dragons BADD?

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Uh... Would that be the Bothered About Disposable Dragons BADD?

I believe it is Bothered Against Dungeons & Dragons they were referring to...

They were a group wanting to put warning labels on d&d books.

FD

Edit: And, while I did not care for the group- the women who was the center of it lost her son to suicide and herself died a few years back- I am not sure insulting her is in good taste.

 

[Xarlen]

Okay, Thanks Furn.

Me youngin'.