[BoVD]Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...

[SemperJase]

At face value, your statements above don't sync up, putting your argument on a slippery slope.

If you are not hinting at censorship in the second quote above, just what are you saying then?

Censorship is a frequently misused term. It implies enforcement. For me to censor anything I would be making choices for you or taking your choices away.

I have not said that people cannot buy our use BoVD for their PCs. Saying people should not do something (not use evil PCs) as a result of their freewill is far different from saying people cannot do something as the result of the imposition of my will on them. It is entirely appropriate to encourage people to change their mind about an issue while in many cases it is not appropriate to forcibly make people conform (exceptions are real murder, rape, etc)

Originally posted by barsoomcore
I do not in any way consider my position to be morally superior.
I consider it correct. I consider myself correct. I consider you wrong.

I believe that correct is superior to incorrect, right is superior to wrong. You view your position as right/superior. I have no problem with that. Others did have a problem with me believing that my position is right and their was wrong. It seems a double standard to me.

For example, the person who put me on her ignore list is not upset about my position (other than a misinterpration she insists on), but moreso that I think my position is right. I'm confused about that one. I am not going to debate for a position I think is wrong.

 

[SemperJase]

a. a moral code of playing only good characters is superior
b. a superior moral code is better.
c you have the former moral code.
which can only lead to d. you think you are better.

if you are not saying it outright in these post, you are definetely implying it, and i think you are too smart to get by pretending that thsi shouldn't insult people. yes?

See my last.

I do believe that people should not be offended that I believe my position is right. Substitute "right" for superior.

I think they believe their moral position is superior to mine. If they did not believe that, they would not take the trouble to reply. That is what I want to engage. It does not offend me at all that people have a different opinion from mine which they inherently think is superior. It is an intergral part of debate.

But maybe this subthread should be for the meta-board.

 

[MissHappen]

Vileness

This has been a thread with great amounts of gravity. I keep getting pulled back to read it.

The way things have turned, I've got a little bit to add... first, for the record, I was not at all shocked at issue 300. The only thing that made me raise eyebrows was the demon-semen spell. I admitted to a certain trepidation about issue 300, but that was because I was afraid of a TnA gorefest. As it was, I didn't think the issue was all that bad.
About the upcoming Book... well, I'm interested, but not really any more than I am in any other gaming book. If it has material I'll use, then I'll probably buy it (particularly if the monsters are good, because I'm a monster junky... but anyway...). I don't think they'll really go anywhere nobody else has gone regardless... after all, consider some of White Wolf's 'Black Dog' material, along with some of the other titles mentioned in this forum from other companies.
It's a neutral issue for me.
Now, I'm a DM who runs a 'mature' game, and this often spikes in 'vile' directions. In fact, I've got a sort of reputation for disturbing players (although I should mention that being a woman with a penchant for acting seems to disturb many male gamers for no apparently good reason...), and my players would argue I never need help in making a believable, hate-able, just plain nasty villain.
But myself? I'm a nice person. I'm courteous, good sense of humor, not plagued by horrible dreams (not technically), etc. If using 'vile' material is a path to degradation, then by all counts I should be fairly nasty at this point. After all, I've been developing foulness for campaigns for years now.
No, I'll have to disagree. It's all in how you use it. Information of any kind is just neutral; it doesn't do anything at all unless you use it for something. Better that we have information, though; education is always far better than ignorance.

For myself? I enjoy having vileness in the game. It provides a grand linchpin for character development, alignment examination, philosophical debate, story hooks and plots, and so much more. It's excellent for contrast, and it can really scare and provoke players if properly presented.

But properly presenting vileness.... aesthetically pleasing vileness... that's a whole other thread, really.

-MsM

 

[barsoomcore]

I believe that correct is superior to incorrect, right is superior to wrong. You view your position as right/superior.

Use whatever definitions of "right" and "superior" you like. My objection was to you saying that I considered myself morally superior. I do not. One can be right without considering oneself morally superior. Now if by the term "morally superior" you actually meant "correct" then fine, we agree on terminology.

I have to point out that "superior" is a synonym with "better" -- so your original statement could be interpreted to mean that I think I am "better" than you. Which I most emphatically do not. I can think that I am right and you are wrong without holding any opinion at all as to which of us is "better".

I hope we're not descending to a semantic argument and I hope the above is not your only response to my concerns.

We're certainly keeping you busy! It's fun to be unpopular, isn't it?

 

[SemperJase]

I can think that I am right and you are wrong without holding any opinion at all as to which of us is "better".

I agree. I did not mean to say I was better. Someone else made that inference. I was not trying to characterize you, just to illustrate that each person has their own biases and thinks their position is right. That in itself is not sufficient reason to dismiss a debating point.

So let us give one final clarification. I am not superior to others on this board.

We're certainly keeping you busy! It's fun to be unpopular, isn't it?

No kidding. But really, I'm probably the most laid back guy you could meet. I do love discussion though.

 

[RobNJ]

Generally, the author is describing the actions of someone else and presents that as a conflict to be overcome. Now the person who writes rapist fantasies disturbs me. I don't find that person trustworthy.

Are you a writer? When I write I really internalize the POV character I'm writing (well, usually), and I think you'll find that this is fairly common.

Furthermore, you ignored the actor part of the question.

 

[RobNJ]

What kind of socialization is it teaching when you revel in torture, rape, and murder? Negative socialization. That is the impact that translates into the real world.

This is really a straw man, because the Book of Vile Darkness and Dragon 300 are no more intended to encourage people to role play villains than the DMG is by putting the Blackguard prestige class in it.

You keep talking like these products advocate playing villains, which they patently do not do (disclaimer: this is inargueable from Dragon 300 and I'm trusting Monte when he says he doesn't overly encourage it in the BoVD).

What these books are for is to make villains scarier. That's how 90% of people are probably going to use them. And if people use them to play PCs, well, they can already play villains with the core rules.

Please stop setting up unnecessarily steep cliffs to throw your tied and helpless victims over, 'k?

 

[RobNJ]

I am not suggesting that evil D&D characters and unsocial behavior are cause and effect respectively.

That is not true. You clearly intimated that someone who plays a rapist is not trustworthy to not be a rapist.

 

[RobNJ]

I understand you point. My difficulty with BoVD is that Dragon 300 does (and at this point I have to assume that the book itself will) suggest that PCs take feats from BoVD. (see the side bar on page 47.)

That doesn't mean that they will be villains. You don't know what these feats are. My guess is that Monte is probably referring to feats that are temptations that don't, at first, seem like anything all that bad. They're probably the milder feats. For example:

My PCs nearly became drug addicts. They found this drug that pumped up their stats and had no hangover or ill side effects. They saw no detriment in not taking the drug at first. Eventually, they figured out it would be a bad idea to do, but it's that kind of edgeplay and tension that I see being advocated in Monte's article in Dragon 300.

Even if there are outright evil feats characters could take, that doesn't necessarily make them villains. I could have a lot of fun with a hero that had sold his soul to a demon.

 

[Griswold]

Please stop setting up unnecessarily steep cliffs to throw your tied and helpless victims over, 'k?

outstanding!