[DRAGON #305] F-bomb dropped, Doc M fascinated.

[Olive]

Exactly. Many people who claim to be a "moral relativist" really aren't. They do, in fact, have an inherent sense of universal right and wrong, good and evil. Examples, such as the ones you provide, can often bring this out. IMHO they simply don't yet fully understand the implications of their rather extreme philosophical position. I am surprised (and disturbed) by the popularity of this viewpoint, however.

i think this is getting dangerously off topic and the only reason we haven't been warned is becasue of the mods participating...

but anyway, i think that you are misunderstanding a lot of people's positions. when people say that people deciding what is right and wrong for themselves is a good thing, then they mean is that people need to make some moral descions for themselves and that context plays a part.

only some people have taken the extreme position that there is no morality, and that you can do what you want at all times, and telling people that they are saying this is putting words in their mouths. imagine me saying that because you claim that morality isn't realtive then we should make all moral descisons based on a codified structure as written down 5,000 years ago. silly yes?

 

[Dinkeldog]

Just a quick warning. Relative and absolute morality borders on both political and religious grounds and should be avoided for the same reason that political and religious subjects are avoided. The thread's heat seems to be focused on that one subject, and I'd hate to have to shut it down.

 

[EricNoah]

Yep, yep ... what Dinkledog said. Let's try to keep this as on-topic as possible and avoid pooh-poohing each others' beliefs.

Oops, I said "pooh-pooh." My grandma doesn't like that...

BTW I did get my Dragon today and the Feast for Crows exerpt was great. I'm really looking forward to the book.

Also it occurs to me that Dragon's staff may not have had a choice re: editing the work. I wonder if the book's publisher would have allowed that. If so, then Dragon's choice is between a) publishing an exclusive exerpt from one of the most anticipated fantasy books this year, including naughty words, or b) not publishing it at all.

 

[tburdett]

Upon further review, and after much consideration, I would just like to say, Eric started it!

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Also it occurs to me that Dragon's staff may not have had a choice re: editing the work. I wonder if the book's publisher would have allowed that. If so, then Dragon's choice is between a) publishing an exclusive exerpt from one of the most anticipated fantasy books this year, including naughty words, or b) not publishing it at all.

Sounds like a good question. Publish it or not.

Points in favor.

1. Popular author means you may sell more mags this month.

2. Might start a trend where other authors of this level want to get their work into Dragon.

Points Against.

1. How does this help me game? Unlike Greenwood or Salvatore stuff its not in a game setting world.

2. Take away space that can hold game related stuff.

3. Offends people who think Dragon Mag should be for general audience and avoid such language.



Personally I don't like Martin's work so I could have done without it. To me it is wasted space. Then again as another poster said I never read the fiction material in Dragon.

 

[EricNoah]

Points Against.

1. How does this help me game? Unlike Greenwood or Salvatore stuff its not in a game setting world.

Ah, just wait until next month's Dragon, though. And there are many who would like even more (a full-blown campaign setting) based on this work.

2. Take away space that can hold game related stuff.

Agreed; the fiction in Dragon has never been a draw for me. This story is practially the only exception. And this story is maybe twice as long as the typical Dragon fiction fare.

3. Offends people who think Dragon Mag should be for general audience and avoid such language.

Yep, and also one could add to the "con" side of the argument that it also sets a precident for future use of such language.

Personally I don't like Martin's work so I could have done without it. To me it is wasted space. Then again as another poster said I never read the fiction material in Dragon.

Ah, well then you may want to AVOID next month's Dragon.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Also it occurs to me that Dragon's staff may not have had a choice re: editing the work. I wonder if the book's publisher would have allowed that. If so, then Dragon's choice is between a) publishing an exclusive exerpt from one of the most anticipated fantasy books this year, including naughty words, or b) not publishing it at all.

They may not have had a choice about editing it, but they did have another choice. Publish it but warn the readers what it contains. I'm sure the publisher did not insist that if a warning about language was included that they would not allow it to be published.

 

[EricNoah]

They may not have had a choice about editing it, but they did have another choice. Publish it but warn the readers what it contains.

Yep, good point.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

No can do Eric. I have a subscription.

Yeah the precedent is another Con, though to some they may think of it as a pro. It shows that Dragon is being more mature and no longer kiddie oriented.


BTW, did you read any of the snail mail stuff in this Dragon? I normally don't but this time I read some of it and while some was normal I was surprised at the number of either fake or total 12 year old munchkin letters they posted.

The one about the kid who obssesses about DnD or the other about the kid who "won" Tomb of Horrors" with his Half-Troll Death Knight just made me cringe.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

indeed. but that cuts both ways. if one doesn't like dragon, then why is one reading the thread?

Granted, but the issue is important to me. I would like to see Dragon be a magazine I will again purchase.

And I am not suggesting people who are on the other side of the issue then me are annoying.

SD