BoVD Thoughts

[Tsyr]

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?

Again, we return to the "monte pitched two books at WotC, but they rejected one of them" bit.

 

[psionotic]

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).

Note that Monte didn't write any of the vile spells in Dragon #300. That was James Jacobs. The 'vile' monster cultist PrCs were by Eric Cagle. Neither of these articles are necessarily indicative of what is in BoVD.

Monte did write the article about the four different types of campaigns. According to a post on his boards, however, he thought it was going to be located inside the sealed section. He also did not write it as a 'dare' to gaming groups to push the envelope. (As the issue 300 cover blurb about the article seemed to imply)

Here's his thoughts on the material and ensuing controversy, if anyone is interested:

http://pub58.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm4.showMessage?topicID=194.topic

 

[Gothmog]

I have to agree with Eric on a couple of points. Evil, presented in the core D&D books, isn't evil at all, its very cartoony. That is, the villians are absolute- completely and utterly evil. Many times, in published modules, sourcebooks, etc, villians are given no more motivation than "they are evil, so they want to conquer the world and inflict suffering", or "they are following the will of their god/demon and do as he instructs", or "they have lost a loved one/power/feel they have been wronged by the world, so they have cooked up this idea for vengeance". IMO, this isn't an evil motivation, its more of a cop-out so that we, as gamers, don't have to really consider the implications of true evil. This works great for a fairly lighthearted campaign where alignment is absolute, the PCs gallavant around righting wrongs, smiting the infidels.

What I am about to say may sound extreme, but I am not saying it intending to start a flame war, so bear with me. What most of us would consider truly vile evil is not something most "normal" people can come up with on their own. Sure, everyone is capable of doing evil, whether its betraying a friend for personal gain, sullying someone's reputation out of spite, or even killing for passion (not that I have ever done any of those things or condone them). What we would cal truly sick, deranged evil only really comes from the mind of someone who is mentally ill. I have extensive training in biology and psychology, and if you have ever been around someone who is truly mentall ill, its a rude awakening. Without going into the eitology or progression of mental illnesses, its enough to say that they lack the inhibitions, values, and morals that allow normal society to function (relatively) smoothly. I don't think any of us would argue that Jeffrey Dahmer is much more evil than someone like Cyric in the FR or Iuz in Greyhawk (at least as they are presented in books).

Having said that, to me, truly evil and memorable villains are those who are mentally ill in some way. Yes, they might be powerful, but they have at their core flaws and weaknesses that prevent them from being a part of normal society. They are often able to pass themselves off as normal for a while, and because of that they are all the more terrifying and abhorrent. If these disturbed people are that frightening to us, imagine how completely alien and vile something like a demon should be. In contrast, the enemy who hungers for power, money, etc and does evil in pursuit of this, is little more than a thug rather than a true villain (thats not to say that villians might not want money, power, etc either).

To me, the recent "mature" section in Dragon was laughable- it was still cartoony and went for the gross-out factor, without really provoking much thought into the nature of evil. In retrospect, there was nothing mature about it at all. I hope the BoVD does deal with, in a truly mature manner, the nature of evil, and implications of those actions rather than throw lots of spells, feats, and stats at us. IMO, it is hard to make a truly memorable and horrific villian without dealing with some aspects of human nature that make us uncomfortable. Hopefully, but dealing with this sort of thing in an adult manner, it will encourage people to think about the consequences of their actions (and their character's actions) and how they affect others.

Religious scholars have contemplated the nature of evil for thousands of years, so I don't see how one game book dealing with evil is any big deal at all. I really don't think the BoVD will make any difference in most people's perception of RPGs and D&D in particular- its just not a controversial topic anymore. IMO, the people who are screaming about how wrong it is to have things like the BoVD have no ground to stand on. If you don't like it, don't read it, and don't use it- your game won't suffer any without it.

I know a lot of people may be uncomfortable with what I have said here, and if I have offended anyone's sensibilities, I apologize. I was just hoping to provoke some thought and mature discussion on the nature of evil in D&D.

 

[hellbender]

While the sealed section of the Dragon was not scary or offensive, Monte Cook's article on How Far to Go was what should have been in the sealed section.

Pointing out an opinion on the boards has become fairly useless anymore, you are in the majority, or you are a freak on this issue. I will stick with being a freak, and keep my opinion to myself about the book, for fear of 'shoving my morality down someone's throat', which seems to be what happens if you disagree with this book. Buy it if you want, or don't, doesn't matter to me, I run my campaign the way I like, and you run yours the way you like.

I do find it funny that people feel that 'nobody cares about DnD anymore' and that any concern is just some 80's fad. It is not whether they are concerned or not (obviously there are groups that are, look around), but the extent to which they will carry out their protests. For crying out loud, look around on the internet for anti-DnD sites, Bother About Dungeons and Dragons is still operating.

hellbender

 

[Zappo]

Of the people who think the BoVD and/or the sealed Dragon section have been bad ideas, who thinks so because he foresees attacks from BADD and BADD-like groups, and who thinks so because he believes that the material is wrong in itself?

 

[hellbender]

Of the people who think the BoVD and/or the sealed Dragon section have been bad ideas, who thinks so because he foresees attacks from BADD and BADD-like groups, and who thinks so because he believes that the material is wrong in itself?

Good question. (Here comes my opinion I was going to keep to myself)Well, I honestly see it as bad because it will come under attack, if not on a large scale, then on a smaller scale. It is hard enough to get players as one gets older, and I can see this book being decried in churches and on websites. I don't really see any large war on DnD, but many small skirmishes. Any negative reflection upon our hobby loses players, which is more dangerous in the long run than anything else. I thought the game was about encouraging people to play, and although I like Monte Cook's work, I just hope the book is more tasteful than his article on evil in Dragon #300.

As to the material itself, it is up to the DM, I can agree with that, I don't want censorship, but I wonder why the need for a book like this in the first place. If you want to go darker and viler that is fine, but isn't it possibly to come up with these rules on your own as a DM? I personally find rape offensive and not a necessity in any role playing game, and I am glad I don't have players that find it an aspect of roleplaying, but I do understand that is the group and myself, and I respect other DM's interest in the material. The gross out stuff is not particularly out there to me, but I can see where many people would be (and will be) offended by this material.

Am I passing judgement on a book I haven't seen? Well, I did read the article by Cook in the current issue of Dragon regarding evil and if the author's extrapolation on evil is any indicator of the contents of the book, I think I am working on an educated guess here.

hellbender

 

[Zappo]

Good question. (Here comes my opinion I was going to keep to myself)Well, I honestly see it as bad because it will come under attack, if not on a large scale, then on a smaller scale. It is hard enough to get players as one gets older, and I can see this book being decried in churches and on websites. I don't really see any large war on DnD, but many small skirmishes. Any negative reflection upon our hobby loses players, which is more dangerous in the long run than anything else. I thought the game was about encouraging people to play, and although I like Monte Cook's work, I just hope the book is more tasteful than his article on evil in Dragon #300.

Still, D&D sales went up, and very up, during the dark days of BADD. Evil sells.

As to the material itself, it is up to the DM, I can agree with that, I don't want censorship, but I wonder why the need for a book like this in the first place. If you want to go darker and viler that is fine, but isn't it possibly to come up with these rules on your own as a DM? I personally find rape offensive and not a necessity in any role playing game, and I am glad I don't have players that find it an aspect of roleplaying, but I do understand that is the group and myself, and I respect other DM's interest in the material. The gross out stuff is not particularly out there to me, but I can see where many people would be (and will be) offended by this material.

I agree that the use of the material is up to the DM. As for the need, well of course people could come up with their own rules, but this applies to any roleplaying supplement.

Am I passing judgement on a book I haven't seen? Well, I did read the article by Cook in the current issue of Dragon regarding evil and if the author's extrapolation on evil is any indicator of the contents of the book, I think I am working on an educated guess here.

Heh. I haven't read either the book or the article, so I'm only debating on matters of principle.

 

[Buttercup]

Of the people who think the BoVD and/or the sealed Dragon section have been bad ideas, who thinks so because he foresees attacks from BADD and BADD-like groups, and who thinks so because he believes that the material is wrong in itself?

Thanks for asking this question. Let's call the two reasons to be against BoVD, A (it might cause us problems) and B (the material is wrong/immoral/stupid and shouldn't be published).

Now, I'm not trying to insult anyone with my comments, merely stating my opinions. The folks in camp A are motivated by genuine concern for the future of D&D, and many of them experienced some trauma in the bad old days. I think. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. I do see where they're coming from, but I haven't been able to personally muster up any concern on this front. First of all, I don't think D&D matters to the busybodies anymore. As Eric said, they're focused on music, videogames and TV. Second of all, even if I'm wrong, I don't care what those folks think. Now wait. That's not an inflamatory statement. It's just a fact about my reality. I'm an adult, with no children, a professional position, and a reasonable amount of disposable income. I'm not religious, but if I were I'd lean toward paganism. I spent my childhood and young adulthood being the smart girl that no one approved of because she asked too many hard questions and thought for herself. I learned early on that the approval of others didn't matter unless I wanted it to. I honestly don't care what religious conservatives think about me and my lifestyle. Their opinions have absolutely no impact on anything I do. I have a pinch of sympathy for teens whose parents don't understand them, having been there myself, but I survived it, and so will they. In one of the earliest threads on this topic, several folks became angry at a poster who said what I just said. I'd love to know why. Really. Because I don't understand why anyone should be so concerned about anonymous public opinion. I must be missing something.

Now, for camp B. I'll do my best to be polite about this. BoVD is being published in the US. The First Amendment guarantees WotC's right to publish it. Censorship is anti-american. Boycotting, on the other hand, is a time honored means of expressing yourself. There are many books I don't approve of, also music, television shows and movies. So I don't buy them. Heck, there are several national chains that I won't patronize because I don't like their politics. I recommend that anyone who thinks the BoVD is immoral just not buy it. If you're that offended, stop buying anything from WotC. But do not assume that your moral system or world view should be the default. And please do not forget the First Ammendment.

Let me close by saying that nothing above was intended as trolling or flame bait, and I hope it didn't come across that way.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Well, I was hoping for a lot more nudity and graphic content then delivered with the "SEALED" section. I want more sex, violence, and purely evil damnation in my game. I dont cater to young children, and I am a adult. My elves don't "frolic" in the woods, and my dwarves aren't like grumpy yet caring grandfathers. They are as vicious and savage as we humans have always been. I also don't really care what churches, priests, nor parents think, because they generally aren't the ones playing RPG's.

Sex, drugs, and rock n' roll....................

 

[Zappo]

Buttercup has expressed what are, less or more, my feelings too. Except that if I thought there was a real danger of BADDlike groups damaging D&D (which I don't), I would be concerned, not because I particularly care about how fundamentalists view my hobby, but because economical damage to publishers is a very bad thing for the hobby itself.

Anyway, save that, I think that those in group A shouldn't worry because mainstream (unfortunately) is ignoring us and even if they didn't, a slightly though not excessively notorious reputation could actually bump up sales.

As for those in group B, my humble opinion is that if one doesn't like a publication, he has the right not to buy it, and to express his feelings, and that's it. Freedom of press is still valid in any modern democracy.