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

[volcivar]

Chill pill

Hello,

I must say that at first, my reaction to BoVD was cold. I couldn't see the need for it. And after reading Mr. hickman's post, I was beginning to lean to his way of thinking.

However, after reading many of the posts here and doing a bit of reflecting:

1. I play DnD to have fun, to kill the bad guys and let out a little steam,k to imagine I am someone I am not.

2. DnD is just a game.

3. If I read the BoVD and do not like it, I will not buy it. (I know a lot of people who will buy it)

4. People have been moralizing about DnD for a long time. Most, if not all, of thier aguments were proven, in time, to be invalid.

I am simply going to let the game be a game.

Some may see this point of view as simplistic. That's fine by me.


volcivar the humble

 

[William Ronald]

Originally posted by Zulkir:

Folks,

This is one of the more interesting and well discussed threads I have ever come across. I don't blame any of you if you don't believe me but really this *is* one of the things we hoped would come about because of this product.

There are things in the book that are evil acts by anyones standards, and their are things in the book that could be debatable (drug use for instance). It was always our intention to create a book that would create complex and interesting dilemnas for players and DMs. We always assumed that only mature adult players could include those sorts of things and maintain civility, thoughtfulness and empathy with each other.

Truthfully I don't find the BoVD that outrageous, but that is a personal perspective (some people will find it way over the top, others will shrug their shoulders and wonder what the big deal was). But I advocated the "Mature" label not so much for the "ickiness" of the content but more because we wanted mature thoughtful gamers to be the ones who would use this product and, hopefully, use it to spur players into thinking about issues of morality, ethic, situationalism vs. absolutism, good vs. evil, evil choices by good players and good choices by evil NPCs.

If this thread is any indication I am very pleased.

AV


__________________
Anthony Valterra
Category Manager TRPGs
Wizards of the Coast

Now, THIS is high praise for a thread!!

I think we have to individually choose what we want in our campaigns. As such, I like to have options.

Have I and my co-DMs had rather vile opponents at times? Yes, but we did not always feel a need to describe every act.

Also, one can learn something from studying portrayals of evil or even portraying an evil character. I have occassionally played evil characters in one shot adventures. I have tried to make them interesting. In one case, I made the character polite and civil to others. Mind you, he was a blood thirsty priest of Set, but believed diplomacy had its uses.

It is possible to portray a complex villain, without having it corrupt you. However, some actors who portray villainous characters have said that they do feel a need to take a break or leave the character back at the movie studio or playhouse. I am sure that Sir Anthony Hopkins has left Hannibal Lector at the sound stage, instead of bringing him back home. (Although maybe he did want to have a quiante and some fava beans with dinner? )

Moral dilemmas can add a lot to a game. Players will have to think how their characters would approach some of the difficult issues that we see in real life. As such, additional depth can be added to a character and a campaign.

 

[Hopping Vampire]

Well, at first i thought it was just america. But apparently sex and Violence sell everywhere. i am only 21, but i am sick of over glorified death. many of people dont know what its like to actually see someone die a very violent death, i have, and its not something to glorify.

 

[Piratecat]

Well, at first i thought it was just america. But apparently sex and Violence sell everywhere. i am only 21, but i am sick of over glorified death. many of people dont know what its like to actually see someone die a very violent death, i have, and its not something to glorify.

I agree with you, but how does this tie in to RPGs and the BoVD? I'm curious if in your game combat is abstracted out to bloodless levels.

 

[Sammael99]

I have to join in praising the participants. I could see things verging on the edge at times, but the thread always stayed within the limits of warm. Great stuff.

Trying to look at this with as little passion as I can :

a. Isn't it amazing that 15 people came in to try and convince one guy ? Wow ! Talk about drive !!!

b. I can't agree with Semper's views on real life, but to each his own. However, it is everyone's decision to make D&D relative or absolute, alignment wise. I like my RPGs relative, because I know my players like being confronted to moral dilemnas and I like watching them pitched against these a lot more than I like watching them pitched against the local orcs. But D&D gives you the option of making good and evil cardboard cut-out and always knowing that an opponent is inherently evil. Again, it's up to each group of players to decide how they like it.

c. As regards players playing evil characters and doing evil deeds in-game, I doubt if the release of the BoVD is going to change anything to that. It's not like these things don't happen already and this new supplement is gonna change anything...

d. I don't pay much heed to the playing evil as catharsis thing. I agree with some that playing is a way to let out some steam, but I doubt very much if it has much psychological effect beyond that. In fact, either way, I think gaming behaviour does not affect real-life behaviour much, if any. I have had one player in all my years of GMing whom I felt to be overly affected by the game (what I call "taking things too seriously"). We discussed it. He had real-life problems and was pushing escapism a bit far. If anything, I thought that discussion was beneficial and his playing style was more detached from then on. (He wasn't playing "evil-ly" btw, just way too involved.

e. I have occasionally engaged in a kind of "moral teaching" attitude in game. Very occasionally. In fact I can only remember one occurence. I was GMing a Vampire campaign set in pre-revolutionary Russia. The (Vampire) characters found out about a Methusela (a really old badass Vampire for those who don't know the game) who was preying on others of his kind. When he found out he'd been discovered, he led them on a cross-continental chase all the way to Egypt. While crossing the mountains leading to Turkey, the characters came upon a village full of butchered people, where all the vile perpetrations you can imagine had been performed. They naturally blamed the evil bad-ass guy and his retinue. In the next town they reached they found out their nemesis hadn't gone through that road. The Turkish army was responsible for having massacred yet another kurd village. The whole point for me in the game was to show that even though the Vampires are considered Evil, humans can be just as evil if not more without help.

f. Having played a lot more games than just D&D, I find it interesting that performing evil deeds (even under the guise of good intentions, as in Semper's Bordelands example) is directly related to character power in respect to the game setting. In a high mortality rate game where it's very difficult to be better than the next guy in combat, strangely enough, players start to think before they act and they do a lot less immediately evil stuff like killing and looting. I wonder what other GMs think of this, even though it may be a topic for another thread...

 

[Hopping Vampire]

I agree with you, but how does this tie in to RPGs and the BoVD? I'm curious if in your game combat is abstracted out to bloodless levels.

yeah, my combat is pretty pg 13 ish. think street fighter rather than Mortal Kombat. of course, my opinon is odd anyways, because John Woo happens to be my favorite director.

 

[Nightstorm]

Some thoughts and comments I've had regarding this issue.
1. The people at White Wolf have become stuck up "I dont care what you think" attitude type of writers. Which is sad as I remember the days( them there good old days!) when the writers were also the people that printed , shipped and man the desks at white wolf. Think you have apathy here? go to white wolf boards. For over three years WW has been stringing the changeling fans by the balls.
2.People are pissed off by BOVD. Well good for them. "I can say Bunny rabbits are cute" and I swear to you I'll get 20 responses for "yea you go girl" to " you vile bastard". THE FACT IS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO PRINT THIS BOOK/MAGZINES ETC. What will determine what goes in? SALES. Dont like it? DONT BUY IT. Nothing stops the presses more than low sales. If BOVD does poor, you will never see a book like that again. GOD BLESS OUR CAPITALISTIC COUNTRY.

 

[Ulrick]

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Vote with your pocket book.

---
Yet what I find a bit amusing is that there are already books out there dealing with these kind of "mature" themes. Just look at some of the books White Wolf has put out. "The Guide to the Sabbat" and "Infernalism: The Path of Screams" come to mind. Those are the two books I keep out of easy viewing from guests.

Then there's the D&D Guide to sex. (I can't remember its real name) that was put out years ago.

When I heard about Monte's "Secret Project" I became interested. When I heard that it was a BOVD, I thought "Oh. So what. Big deal. It's been done."



However, if it does contain stuff that I might be able to use, I'll probably buy it later on when I can get it for half price.

Ulrick

 

[tburdett]

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

Unless I'm mistaken, those gentlemen were paid a vast amount of money to memorize a script, assume a role, and act out a part that was created by a third party. They had very little to do with the content.

Performing these actions within the framework of D&D is entirely different. In that arena the content is ENTIRELY under the control of the player.

Do you really fail to see the difference?

 

[Ezrael]

Unless I'm mistaken, those gentlemen were paid a vast amount of money to memorize a script, assume a role, and act out a part that was created by a third party. They had very little to do with the content.

Unless they are illiterate, they read the script. They could have chosen not to perform those roles. Or is it only okay if you're being paid to do it? Money somehow abrogates us from being responsible for what we choose to do? That's a terrifying argument, in my eyes.

Performing these actions within the framework of D&D is entirely different. In that arena the content is ENTIRELY under the control of the player.

Do you really fail to see the difference?

I see a difference...we're not being paid to play D&D. Since I don't think being paid to perform a task excuses me from owning up to having done so, I fail to see why one is acceptable and one is not. For that matter, what of those who write such things? Is it okay that they do so merely because they are paid for their work?

I don't understand your argument. I personally don't see why playing in a campaign with such elements is somehow *less* moral because I'm not being compensated for it. I don't think the opposite, either...my lack of pay for my hobby doesn't make it of higher moral or ethical standing, but neither does it make it less. Actors are not robots, and they don't have to play roles they find unethical, just as gamers don't have to game in ways they find unpalatable. There's a choice involved. Excusing one from making it because they're paid to do so inches painfully close to the old 'I was only following orders' justification.

I play the games I play in because they work for me, with full knowledge (as full as anyone in an rpg with other people who may do something completely unexpected, anyway) of my choices. I don't feel immoral, and I wouldn't feel any more moral if I were being paid to do it.