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

[Darklone]

Sheesh, dudes. Not to offend anyone but have you ever joined one of the many discussions about evil and adult content in FAIRY TALES?

It's a very interesting matter. People get skinned, grilled, eaten, whatever. Those are the stories parents read to their children.

I don't see much difference to D&D books.

It's both painting morals in black & white. IMHO, as long as you know what you are doing, and we are all adults here, aren't we, it's not a problem. It's about growing up and learning.

 

[Buttercup]

Now WotC needs to take into account what the older generation is going to say about the hobby.

Well, I suppose I'm the older generation then. I'm 46 and my husband is 50. We don't have kids. We spend a great deal of $ on D&D and D20. Why shouldn't WotC cater to us instead of 20 somethings with young children and little disposable income? Here's what we say about the hobby: "We don't care if it's suitable for children. We care if it's suitable for us. We want high production values, interesting and varied content, and sophistication. We purchase books because we think we will use the contents in our games, now or in the future."

I'm not trying to be inflamatory. I just want to point out that D&D players don't all have the same world view or demographic.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I agree with Darklone save in one respect. We're not all adults here. I have a 13-year old in one game I'm running. I'm adding more complication and moral ambiguity to the game now than I did before, but still nothing like what I'd unleash on Wulf&Co.

Fairy tales are gruesome stuff, though.

I don't know if I've done my official chip into the bucket yet. I'm most likely going to get it, but it's a DMs resource, not a player's resource, from what I've seen so far.

 

[herald]

In an discustion about censorship, I being told I'm pendantic and that I should avoid being what I have to say to the table for discustion.

I stand by what I said as validity to my original post.

To restate my point.

Your not likely to get one side or the other on this issue to meet.

At best you can hope for is to both sides to respect each other.

 

[Buttercup]

The debate is not about whether they can print vile content. It is if they should and if people should read it. My position is that they should not and people should not.

But you see, it is the shoulds and shouldn'ts in your argument that have been causing agitation all along. Some might ask why you are qualified to tell others (besides your own children) what they should and should not do. By definition, you are suggesting that your position is morally superior to that of the people on the other side of the argument.

I'm delighted that the discussion this time around has remained civil. I want it to stay that way. I just wanted to point out that your use of should and shouldn't are precisely what is getting my back up.

 

[JeffB]

In an discustion about censorship, I being told I'm pendantic and that I should avoid being what I have to say to the table for discustion.

I think Dinkel meant that regarding our little "side" argument.

Your not likely to get one side or the other on this issue to meet.

At best you can hope for is to both sides to respect each other.

Agreed. And I apologize to Herald, Dinkel, and the rest of the boards for getting the thread OT for a bit.

 

[Ashtal]

But you see, it is the shoulds and shouldn'ts in your argument that have been causing agitation all along. Some might ask why you are qualified to tell others (besides your own children) what they should and should not do. By definition, you are suggesting that your position is morally superior to that of the people on the other side of the argument.

I'm delighted that the discussion this time around has remained civil. I want it to stay that way. I just wanted to point out that your use of should and shouldn't are precisely what is getting my back up.

Exactly, and exactly, Buttercup.

What works for you, SemperJase, doesn't work across the board. That's why it's a personal preference, and why it will ultimately be settled by the consumer, not the advocate.

 

[BlackMoria]

Originally posted by SemperJase
The debate is not about whether they can print vile content. It is if they should and if people should read it. My position is that they should not and people should not.

The following comments are not directed at anyone in particular.

Try to define 'Vile' with any 10 people on these boards and you will not find a consensus. Now try it with 100 or 1000 people

I, for one, did not find the sealed section of Dragon 300 'vile' or more to the point, what I define as vile. Your definition may vary and therein lies the problem - there is no universality of definition of vile, since 'vile' is a matter of personal taste and is highly subjective.

I consider people who espouse the burning of Harry Potter books and who try to ban the books from libraries and schools as vile, according to my own definition of vile. Others would not and would take issue with me over that designation.

Too may people are taking the moral high ground on this topic, which is wrong. Morality is defined within the mind and conscience of each individual - it is not a absolute to be jammed down the throats of those who differ in opinion.

As I have stated before, Dragon was and is a 'house organ' for the D&D game and has been used since Issue 1 as a showcase for TSR and WOTC products. Look at all the 'theme' issues in the past year and it is absolutely no surprise that the theme issues of Dragon come out about the same time that a product pertaining to that theme is release. Epic issue - Epic Handbook. Drow issue - City of the Spider Queen and Salvatore's new book. Castle/Stronghold issue - The Stronghold Builder's Guide.

Sealed section of Dragon 300 - Book of Vile Darkness. Why are so many people surprised and dismayed? I am not.

How else was Dragon to showcase the new product - The Dance of the Suger Plum Faeries?

They did it the best way. They warned us in advance that it was coming and the section in question was sealed.

Now as an individual, you can either open the sealed section or not. If you did, and now you have taken offence, you have no moral high ground to stand upon - you were duly warned.

If you don't like the sealed section - cut it out of the magazine and throw it in the trash. But don't presume to impose your moral yardstick of what is 'vile' to a situation where 'individual' choice is the proper choice.

End Rant

 

[Mallus]

SemperJase, let me try and sway you...

...just a little. I respect that you want to play the game differently than I do.

I want to challenge your basic belief that its better to "pretend to be heroic". Can you except that playing evil might be cathartic to some? That finding a harmless avenue of expression for some ugly, antisocial impulses might be a positive experience for some people. Or do you think that any engagement with these nastier impulses has a detrimental effect on people?

Consider just how many people you wind up indicting {in my opinion double-plus-wrongly --damn, why did someone have to bust out the Newspeak??}. A lot of sane and balanced people enjoy horror and true crime fiction. And action movies which celebrate the amoral joy of power and violence, usually with the flimsiest of "moral" justification tacked on so they enjoy the mayhem with a clear consciense {but whose kidding who??}. And videogames --I can't tell how hooked the gentlest and nicest guy I know got on Grand Theft Auto 3 when I showed it to him. His wife got a kick out of it to. BTW, they're expecting their first child in Feb.

Consider that Iago and Richard the Thrid are popular roles for actors, though they make fairly poor role models. Consiser that narractive artists of all stripes create malcontents and monsters on a regular basis. There's a need for this. To create them, consumse them, even ididentify with them on some level --as well as be repulsed.

Consider that the folktales that became our Disneyfied fairytales are dark, dark affairs. And they were explicitly meant to instruct children, and scare the hell out them, and show them the monsters are for all intents and purposes, quite real. And the moral order of these stories are a lot less clear than in the later, Technicolor animated versions...

<soapbox starting to wobble...>

So far from being antisocial, this engament with nasty matters is actually a time-honored socializing tool. Or at least it can be.

Which isn't to say you should enjoy what you don't or play in a fashion that makes you uncomfortable. Different solutions for different people with different problems...

<soapbox splintering...>

But if you're serious about taking the exploration of the nastier side of the human conditon of the things we play with {games, literature, heck, musicals}, that pretty much renders them useless.

I'll stop now. Thanks for your time...

 

[Dr. NRG]

My compliments to the board for an insightful and civil conversation on a typically heated topic.

The heart of the matter, IMHO, lies in BlackMoria's following statement:

Morality is defined within the mind and conscience of each individual - it is not a absolute to be jammed down the throats of those who differ in opinion.

I believe many people would disagree with this statement. Consider the moral authorities widely identified by our society, and what their opinions on the above thesis would likely be...

I would venture to guess that many of those who oppose the release of the BOVD would take issue with the statement (or perhaps support an affirmative version of it -- say "morality is defined external to individuals, is an absolute, and people should adhere to the moral standard"). Unfortunately, the capacity of people to rationally discuss the topics we're approaching (primarily politics and religion) is so limited that they cannot really be brought up in public...

Ironically, we all play a game where morality IS absolute... is it chaotic to buy BOVD, is it evil? Is the book itself evil?

Dr. NRG