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

[Utrecht]

Sure, your basic good vs. evil where the PCs play the good guys whose goal is to overcome evil. The fact that such a game can contain undead or violence does not exclude it from being a family game. Violence is used in real world situations everyday for good (cops shooting and killing criminals). When the situations used above are clearly defined as evil actions then the social, team-building, and moral lessons are valuable.

However,(and please correct me if I am wrong), I was under the impression that the BovD was not really intended for PCs - but more as a DM tool to enhace the depravity of the villains. Thereby keeping the morality play aspects of the game in tack.

i.e. the PCs still wear the white hats - the bad guys Black hats just got darker.....

edited for spelling and removing unrealtes parts of the quote

 

[rounser]

Hickman is John in this situation,...

Monte is Kirk.

I think your analogy is flawed beyond relevance. Kirk's new work didn't involve suggestions of necrophilia, nor was he putting it into a continuation of movies featuring Wayne's characters. Nor did Wayne have a history of defending the reputation of his movies as not being "vile" etc. etc...there's no comparison to be made here.

Besides, I read that that's not Monte Cook's work in Dragon mag. Based on reputation, I'm expecting Monte's work to be more pulp fantasy "Conan" vile than puerile shock factor vile, if you get catch my drift.

 

[SemperJase]

wow, i see cops shooting suspects as tragic, and believe most cops do too.

My point was that violence is not alway evil. Sometimes it is necessary.

your opinion seems to be stating "violence is o.k. when the RIGHT people do it" which is very foriegn to what i think most people mean when they use the term "family oriented"

Pretty much, yes. Violence (i.e. physical force) is OK when used to overcome evil. By contrast, violence is not OK when used in an evil manner (e.g. to rob a bank, committ murder) I do find that to be a valuable lesson.

Since children, especially boys, naturally play games that include fantasies of physical force (like cops & robbers), it is valuable to direct those fantasies to socially beneficial behavior. I want my boys to dream of being the hero and stopping the 'bad guys'. I want my friends to fantasize about being the hero and stopping the evil Baron rather than being the evil PC who wants to completely dominate other people.

 

[barsoomcore]

Hurray! Now I can make use of that cool heat-resistant suit I bought for sampling lava flows!

FLAME ON!

 

[herald]

I think your analogy is flawed beyond relevance. Kirk's new work didn't involve suggestions of necrophilia, nor was he putting it into a continuation of movies featuring Wayne's characters. Nor did Wayne have a history of defending the reputation of his movies as not being "vile" etc. etc...there's no comparison to be made here.

If you think that then perhaps are mising part of the point.

The movie about Vincent van Gogh actually addressed his struggles with dipression, (some might say insanity), and his self multilation in which he cut of his the top ear and his subsiquent sending of that body part to the woman he was maddly infatuated with. Van Gogh painted his famous self portrait at this time, his head still wrapped with bandages.

What Vincent van Gogh was doing was stalking. Plain and simple. I'd call it even "vile and sick". But we often clean up history.

And Monte isn't continuing any of Hickman's work. Hickman Wrote at best one decent module and the Dragonlance novel series. The Ravenloft Champaign was someone elses idea and work.

Monte hasn't touched any of Hickman's work. Hickman can't even hold his own against Monte as a game designer. (This is the way I feel) Monte has out produced him in so many ways it's not worth mentioning.

And as far as John Wayne having to defend his work. You just don't know what your talking about. The latter part of his career he was labled a racist, and bigot. His movies were panted as being insenstive and overly violent. He portrayed as a man who hated women and would treat them as equals when he worked with them.

But this is besides the point.

The real point is this. There are two sides to this story, each one is just as valid as the other. And if you don't agree with me, I really don't care.

 

[SemperJase]

However,(and please correct me if I am wrong), I was under the impression that the BovD was not really intended for PCs - but more as a DM tool to enhace the depravity of the villains. Thereby keeping the morality play aspects of the game in tack.

This is where Dragon #300 comes in. In a side bar to Monte Cook's "How far will you take it" article, he suggests that PC's can take BoVD feats in a vile campaign.

Of course we don't know what the introduction to BoVD itself says. I will be interested to find out how the book actually presents the information.

And Baroomscore:
Regarding your flame on comment, why? This thread has been the epitomy of calm rational debate to this point.

 

[Pyske]

Some random thoughts:

I have no problem with and no interest in BoVD. I will be voting with my dollars. On the other hand, I have no problem with people trying to convince me which way to use that dollar vote. Informed democracy, and all that. Generally, I find people who are reasonable about convincing me do a better job. References to terrorists, the end of an era, and moderator bias only undermine the effectiveness of this sort of advocacy for me.

I don't feel that game publishers nor moderators give up their right to an opinion when they take on their jobs. On the other hand, were I a mod, I might consider keeping 2 separate accounts, to keep some clarity between my personal and policy related comments. Just for my own convenience, to avoid this kind of issue / accusation.

. . . . . . . -- Eric

 

[rounser]

And Monte isn't continuing any of Hickman's work.

They both work on D&D.

Hickman Wrote at best one decent module and the Dragonlance novel series. The Ravenloft Champaign was someone elses idea and work.

Oh dear.

Monte hasn't touched any of Hickman's work. Hickman can't even hold his own against Monte as a game designer. (This is the way I feel) Monte has out produced him in so many ways it's not worth mentioning.

Oh dear oh dear.

You just don't know what your talking about.

That makes two of us.

 

[Zappo]

My point was that violence is not alway evil. Sometimes it is necessary.

IMO, violence is always evil; sometimes a necessary evil.

Edit: ...that is, IRL. In many RPGs, there are situations where violence can be considered good (eg, when you slaughter fiends, who are evil incarnate)

 

[JeffB]

BoVD..OK..Dragon 300...I can deal with..JOhnny Wilson..allright...

But when people start talkin' trash about John Wayne...it's time to whoop some serious A$$....

Who's first?