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

[Skarp Hedin]

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

Originally posted by SemperJase
I still believe that.

Peter Greene plays a rapist in Pulp Fiction. Ving Rhames plays a criminal and soon-to-be torturer. I'm sure we can agree that these actions are potentially vile (depending on one's definitition of vile of course) and that they are at the very least unacceptable social behavior.

So basically, my question is this: Does your belief that someone who plays a rapist is not trustworthy to not be a rapist hold true for actors as well? If not, why does it stop at D&D? If it stops somewhere other than D&D, where?

edit: spelling

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

*awaits answer to previous post with interest*

Being as I'm an actor.

 

[Zulkir]

I hope you are being ironic

For the record though, I will be passing on BoVD. I certainly will discourage players from using it as a resourse for PC feats as Dragon 300 suggests in the How far will you take it? article.

No, I am not be Ironic. You said:

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.

Taking your example, one can criticize previously mentioned John Wayne movies. They show murder, theft, lieing etc. But in context they are morality plays. Those things are clearly defined as bad and force is used to overcome evil.

So by this I assume that you are in favor of the DM presenting evil dispacable villains to be overcome by the heroic PC's. Unless I am desperately misunderstanding what you are saying.
Allow me to quote the opening of the BoVD:

Book of Vile Darkness Introduction


Before you put this book down in disgust, however, consider this: The darker the shadow of evil, the brighter the light of good. The more horrible the villain, the greater the hero. If you are interested in adding the truly horrific to your game as something for the palyer characters (PCs) to vanquish, then this book is for you.
(new heading)HIDE THIS BOOK
Book of Vile Darkness is for Dungeon Masters (DMs) only (my emphasis). Just as you would keep the contents of a published adventure to yourself, restrict access to this book as well.

So given your statement and given the position of the book (as opposed to what people are saying about the book, or are speculating about the book, or are writing about the book, or are afraid the book is about). Are you in favor of the Book of Vile Darkness?? And by this question I mean its existence - not that you are planning on buying it yourself.

AV

 

[herald]

I'm interested in the actor response since I'm one too.

 

[Barak]

Well.. From a psychological point of view, it appears to me that Semper is a behaviorist. By that I mean that he believes that for someone to grow, the best way is 1-If possible, disallow "incorrect" behavior in any form, 2-if not possible, punish "incorrect" behavior (I use the term punish lightly. It could simply be making sure that "incorrect" behavior is automatically followed by bad consequences). And, of course, on the flip side, reward "correct" behavior.

Now, a few things strikes me as wrong with that. At the start, it assumes that the DM has, in part, a role of "teacher". It is his role to insure the player learns RL values from the game. I, for one, wouldn't want to play with such a DM. The role of the DM, in my view, is to 1-create the world, 2-advance, through various mean, plotlines, 3-roleplay all the NPCs. He is, however, a -part- of the story being unfolded, and so are the players. Yes, in the end his part might be "greater" in a way, but he isn't in a -real- position of authority over the players due to that. Yes, he is also the arbitrator, the one who decides which material is and isn't used, but I view that -simply- as a balancing role, not as a moralistic one.

Secondly, to espouse such a view means that every action that would be viewed as "bad" in the real world should carry a bad consequence, if not be outright banned. Therefore, any action from the players to "correct" any wrong without proper authority should be frowned upon. A village is attacked by bandits? Contact the authority, do not act as a vigilante. A rogue wants to pickpocket a rich, greedy and evil merchant? He -must- be caught, otherwise it is assumed the player of said rogue will become a modern Robin Hood, which is, after all, illegal.

But much more then that. Although behaviorism is still taught by some psychology teachers, and some books are still written espousing it, it has, by and large, been rejected as a valid psychological view for humans. It does work very well on dogs and very small children. But from 8-9 years old onward, the human psyche is much more complicated then that, and such a simple view do not suffice. It is my contention that the simple use of "evil content" in a RPG, no matter how vile, will not, by itself, corrupt the players to espouse such content in their RL. Especially evident, of course, if such material is used solely for the NPCs in a campaign. The only caveat -might- be teachings that such concepts even exist. Yes, if Joe Smith didn't even know that necrophilia -existed-, and he was to read about it in a book, the chances of him becoming a necrophile -might- be bigger then before he read about it. But even that idea is somewhat sketchy, and, let's face it, I doubt the BoVD will introduce new vileness many of us hadn't heard of before.

As for the idea that the very -existence- of a line of such books should turn parents from introducing children into the hobby, it reeks of "throwing the baby with the bathwater". After all, there is many books out there that I wouldn't want my children to read. What is the best way to prevent them from reading those books? To not teach them to read. Well.. Too late for that, Thank God.

 

[SemperJase]

So basically, my question is this: Does your belief that someone who plays a rapist it not trustworthy to not be a rapist hold true for actors as well? If not, why does it stop at D&D? If it stops somewhere other than D&D, where?

What is the theme of the movie and the purpose of the portrayal? The theme that these actions are evil and they should be overcome? Then I see a valid reason for these portrayals. It is what the overall message is.

The actor may be portraying an evil action, yet he is participating in message that is beneficial to society. That is murder and rape are evil actions and those who commit them need to be removed from society.

Evil roleplaying games do not send the same message. There the goal is for the PC to commit evil actions and to avoid any consequences. I still say that is not beneficial to society.

 

[Griswold]

given the position of the book (as opposed to what people are saying about the book, or are speculating about the book, or are writing about the book, or are afraid the book is about). Are you in favor of the Book of Vile Darkness?? And by this question I mean its existence - not that you are planning on buying it yourself.

AV

I'm bothered by the existance of the satanic bible, the BoVD doesn't strike me as being that big of a deal, that may change once I read it though

Quick ? please.

BoVD is sitting at ~950 on the amazon charts right now, and is likely going to sell very well.

With that in mind, do you see D&D taking on a more "edgier" tone in the core rules and future suppliments, or is this just a "one-off" sort of book, and the flavor of it's content would not be revisted or alter the existing tone of the game in any event?

I think that may be a big concern among the devoted ( I know it is with me).

(hope that makes sense )

Thanks!

Gris.

 

[Piratecat]

Yes. It is self evident that murder and rape are evil without the need to act them out in fantasy.

SJ, it's been already pointed out that behind the "good triumphing over evil" theme, D&D is all about murder. That's its core structure: "kill things and take their stuff." Sure, most of the times those things are evil or neutral, but they're often intelligent, and murdering an evil person is still murder. Does this make D&D bad or evil itself? No, of course not. It's a tremendously fun game, delightful for setting up exciting adventures and difficult moral quandries in-game. The fundamental theme of "kill the enemy" has never made me want to go kill my officemate when they take my stapler.

So I think it's hypocritical to say "I don't like to play these types of evil characters, so they are BAD and no one should", instead of "I don't like to play these types of evil characters, so I won't." I respect other peoples' judgement enough that I don't think I can judge what's appropriate for their campaign.

3e is all about choices. You want to play a monster, or an evil character, and your DM lets you? Cool. I may not want to game with you, but what you do isn't going to affect my game in the least.

 

[SemperJase]

So given your statement and given the position of the book (as opposed to what people are saying about the book, or are speculating about the book, or are writing about the book, or are afraid the book is about). Are you in favor of the Book of Vile Darkness?? And by this question I mean its existence - not that you are planning on buying it yourself.
AV

I understand its use for NPCs. I'm not debating that use. I accept its existence. Again I am not saying that action should be taken to prevent its printing if that is what you are inferring. For my personal taste, I won't use the book as I find that level of graphicness( is that a word?) unnecessary for my campaign.

I am somewhat relieved that BoVD itself does not encourage use as PC material from what you say. Still, official D&D material does encourage that use. That is my concern.

 

[takyris]

From a social responsibility standpoint, I think it's reasonable to accept that if you put a feat out there, and it's an NPC feat, PCs will still try to take it.

Players not bastions of moral certainty. How many half-dragon PCs are there? How many Aasimar PCs? How would the players have known about these choices if they hadn't gotten the Monster Manual and DMG for themselves, or read the SRD? As a DM, one must fundamentally accept the possibility that the players are gonna read just about everything and try to use it themselves if they can. A header saying "For DMs only" isn't going to change that.

However, as for evil D&D games causing evil behavior in real life, that only happens if:

1) The player is a freakin' psycho to begin with

or

2) The player has had so much of their life messed up that their personality has collapsed and can be shaped by anything that gives them a sense of social acceptance

The latter is how the armed forces work -- or used to work, anyway. You were yelled at, exhausted all the time, worked half to death, until your old personality collapsed and you formed a new, obediance-driven personality to fit the armed forces' needs. This is also how cults work -- no food, little sleep, only way to get social acceptance is utter belief in the cult leader. You could call it brainwashing. It's not always bad -- the armed forces NEED people to be disciplined, trained to obey quickly and effectively, so they create that sort of personality in their trainees. It can be good OR bad.

But anyway, I guess my thought is that anyone who does something evil in real life because of what they did in a D&D game is someone who was going to go bad on something -- if not D&D, then death metal, gangs, neo-Nazis, whatever. The Book of Vile Darkness isn't going to push anyone over the edge who wasn't staring over it to begin with staring sweaty-eyed at a home-made collage of cut-out pictures of the 1st Edition Succubus, Nereid, Aphrodite, and for some reason, the Catlord, breathing heavily to themselves and wondering why that girl in math class won't talk to them.

By the way, I won't be getting the BoVD. My game has enough icky in it already, in terms of ugly monsters, and because I made them up myself, the players have no idea what's coming. I nearly had a TPK with an undead creature made from the skins of people who were skinned alive -- and this was after they were attacked by the skinless zombies of those victims. As for my villains, I learned everything I need to know about good villains from Shakespeare. I can do the tragically wrong hero figure who doesn't understand that he's gone over the edge, and I can do the loathesome parasite who revels in his villainy.

-Tacky