Dungeon magazine says maybe more vile. Huzzah!

[Gothmog]

Well, I'll add my voice for the pro-vile side of the debate, and point out a few things to consider.

1) What is really so terrible and vile in the BoVD? Specific examples please people. There is a lot of fuss over this book, yet from the comments of the vocal critics, I don't get the impression they have really read it in depth. Sure, its dark and more gritty, a little of it is gross, but so are the stories of Howard, and Lovecraft deals with some more mature themes in his works (cults, madness, depraved backwoods hillbillies, inbreeding, etc). The fact is that much the info in the BoVD is based of REAL WORLD myth and folkore. Do those of you who object to the vile content object to real world mythology (Greek and Hindu spring to mind immediately) for their depictions of rape, murder, sacrifice and other atrocities? And what about movies and TV? Do you get outraged that movies like Silence of the Lambs exists, or tv shows like CSI or Profiler? They are far more mainstream than D&D could ever dream of being, and they are seen by far more children.

2) I'm betting that almost everyone who is objecting to the BoVD already has more vile and evil components in their games than is contained in any "vile" article. Have you ever considered that the wholesale slaughter of a tribe of orcs just because they are "evil" or for their treasure is an incredibly deviant and despicalbe act? Yet "good" adventurers do it every day, and in most games, they are praised for doing this. Explain to me exactly how this is less morally evil than necrophilia, sacrifice, torture, or rape. PLEASE NOTE: I am not condoning any of these actions, I just fail to see the logic in being so upset about some actions while genocide and murder for profit are seen as ok.

3) Those of us who like the BoVD use it to enhance the story, not for some immature thrill ride. Some people need more from their villains than a two-dimensional comic book bad guy. Such villains simply aren't compelling and are often laughable goons. I have personally used ithe BoVD several times: once when the paladin and cleric in my group exorcised a demon from a little boy who had allowed it to possess him so he could get back at kids who had been mean to him. Another example- a "good" preist who was a masochist would torture "heretics", forcing them to give confessions of terrible sins, only to be put to death later. He did this in order to enhance his own position in the church as a pious man- and the characters had to deal with the considerable political and religious power this man held. Those of you who see any use of the BoVD and vile content as "boobies, nipple clamps, and EEEVIL" are simply mistaken.

4) Those of you who feel alienated by one article or adventure every few months really need to put things in perspective. You do realize you are a minority, albeit a vocal one? If you don't like it, DON"T READ IT OR USE IT! I have a massive dislike for drow and the Forgotten Realms, and I never use such material in my games, but I am mature enough to realize others do like this, so I keep my opinions to myself and simply don't use it! At least be mature enough to agree to disagree with others, and not try to force your morality or vision of what D&D is down the throats of other people. Now that WotC has published the BoVD and may have other titles in this series, it deserves support, just like any other release. Granted, if I had kids, I probably wouldn't want them to look at this stuff alone, but if you are a parent and your kid wants the BoVD, isn't it better that you go over it with him/her than the child looking at it alone and maybe getting the wrong idea? Responsibility rests with the parent, not with the publisher for the behavior of your children.

5) As others have said, I really hope D&D doesn't become mainstream. I think it would be disastrous for the game, both rules-wise and in terms of group play. Anyway, I don't think this is even a danger in the slightest. Most people are just too plain lazy to expend the mental energy to imagine and take an active role in their entertainment- they want to be spoon-fed mindless crap (reality shows anyone?). And last time I checked, being a geek or nerd wasn't a bad thing except to the vacuous "hip" crowd.

I guess it comes down to a matter of personal taste. If you don't enjoy vile material, then don't use it. But don't force your opinions on others who might enjoy said material.

 

[Psion]

Well, I'll add my voice for the pro-vile side of the debate, and point out a few things to consider.

1) What is really so terrible and vile in the BoVD?

As I have already said: Lichloved and some art.

The rest I really don't have an issue with. I honestly found the skinscribes article more offensive.

And here is the rub here: it's not so much the existence of these types of mechanics, but the approach. There exist mechanics for half-orcs and half-fiends. These do not offend me, but a DM could make the logical conclusion that such creatures are the result of a rape. But the text doesn't have to spell out an act of rape and the DM is free to make different interperetations.

No such luck with lichloved. According to the feat, the character has sexual relations with the undead. It could just have easily had a flavor description that was not gross.

Sure, its dark and more gritty, a little of it is gross, but so are the stories of Howard, and Lovecraft deals with some more mature themes in his works (cults, madness, depraved backwoods hillbillies, inbreeding, etc).

Cults, madness, drugs, and so forth don't bug me... in lovecraft or in the BoVD. I really don't think most of the BoVD is offensive, or, for that matter, unusual for fantasy.

[qutoe]The fact is that much the info in the BoVD is based of REAL WORLD myth and folkore.[/quote]

Relevance?

Do those of you who object to the vile content object to real world mythology (Greek and Hindu spring to mind immediately)

Try Egyptian. But just because Egyptian mythology has images of masturbating gods doesn't mean I want or should accept such images in my game.

2) I'm betting that almost everyone who is objecting to the BoVD already has more vile and evil components in their games than is contained in any "vile" article.

1) I don't object to MOST of the BoVD or the existence of a mature game line. What I do object to is Dungeon and Dragon, which are specific magazines subscribed to by a general audience, getting polluted with "edgy" material.

2) Nosir, there is nothing as patently disgusting or lowbrow in my game as corpsebond or searing seed.

Have you ever considered that the wholesale slaughter of a tribe of orcs just because they are "evil" or for their treasure is an incredibly deviant and despicalbe act?

Oh, good freaking lord. Are you so desperate to defend your stance that you pull out the old chestnut that D&D bashers do?

Even the BoVD doesn't play the "orcs are misunderstood" card. In fact, it spells out pretty clearly that D&D is a game where evil beings really are evil and really are a threat.

Yet "good" adventurers do it every day, and in most games, they are praised for doing this. Explain to me exactly how this is less morally evil than necrophilia, sacrifice, torture, or rape. PLEASE NOTE: I am not condoning any of these actions, I just fail to see the logic in being so upset about some actions while genocide and murder for profit are seen as ok.

The idea of fighting orcs does not offend me. If it did, I wouldn't be playing D&D. I am not obliged, by any means, to not be offended by hentaiesque spells just because I can wrap my head around the moral realism of the D&D metaverse.

3) Those of us who like the BoVD use it to enhance the story, not for some immature thrill ride. Some people need more from their villains than a two-dimensional comic book bad guy.

I agree. I use the BoVD and like many of the resources therein. I just wish I didn't have to wade through blood and boobies artwork to use it.

That said, I would point out that people who were looking for "three dimensional villains" derided BoVD for being "panzy" and continuing to subscribe to the D&D black-and-white worldview. Which suited me just fine, I must add.

Those of you who see any use of the BoVD and vile content as "boobies, nipple clamps, and EEEVIL" are simply mistaken.

Ah, but I disagree, at least in part. Much of it is good material. But some of it is low brow (nipple-clamp of exquisite pain, anyone) and if you honestly think that the artwork isn't "boobies, nipple clamps, and EEEVIL," you are in denial.

4) Those of you who feel alienated by one article or adventure every few months really need to put things in perspective. You do realize you are a minority, albeit a vocal one?

Are we now? You do, of course, have demographics to back this up, right?

I think that those that DEMAND vile are a minority, probably a smaller one.

At least be mature enough to agree to disagree with others, and not try to force your morality or vision of what D&D is down the throats of other people.

How hypocritical is that. If you don't want vileness in your magazine, just suck it up?

Sure, print BoVD and similar books; I simply won't buy it if I think it is over the line. But when you begin to put "edgy" material in the general venue... which includes Dungeon and Dragon... it is YOU who are forcing your morality down my throat.

5) As others have said, I really hope D&D doesn't become mainstream. I think it would be disastrous for the game, both rules-wise and in terms of group play.

That, I can agree with.

But by the same token, I don't want to have to be embarrased about my hobby, just because a few people just gotta have boobies and gore on the covers.

I guess it comes down to a matter of personal taste. If you don't enjoy vile material, then don't use it. But don't force your opinions on others who might enjoy said material.

Agreed. And if you are putting vile material in a magazine for the general audience, it is you who is forcing your material on me.

 

[Tiefling]

Agreed. And if you are putting vile material in a magazine for the general audience, it is you who is forcing your material on me.

Couldn't you just not read the articles? Especially if there were only a couple each year?

My question is how much are people willing to limit the material in order to satisfy some peoples' sensitivities? Would you remove the words "demon" and "devil?" How about getting rid of D&D's rich tradition of tomb-robbing? How far does it go?

 

[Default Name Player]

I'm just wondering, but since Dragon and Dungeon occasionally come sealed in a plastic baggie (not just for subscribers), what would people think if the "vile" material - which would probably appear once in awhile, and not "all vile all of the time" as some people are fearing it would be - came as a separate booklet WITH the magazine, but not PART of it?

Hence, the people who don't like vile material can throw it away, without having to tear up the mag.

People who like the material (or are unaffected either way, but willing to thumb through it) would have access to the material, albeit in a separate form (maybe have it come pre-hole punched so that people can collect the material in a binder?)

...or has all of this gone beyond just the accessibility of the material?

 

[Guillaume]

Couldn't you just not read the articles? Especially if there were only a couple each year?

My question is how much are people willing to limit the material in order to satisfy some peoples' sensitivities? Would you remove the words "demon" and "devil?" How about getting rid of D&D's rich tradition of tomb-robbing? How far does it go?

I must say that I agree with Psion assertion. I have nothing against the fact that Vile/Mature/Adult/R-Rated/whatever material is published. Heck, I even find it refreshing in the sense that it brings variety to the game. However, the BoVD did not interest me. For various reasons, among which the playability of the material in my imediate campaign and the artwork, I decided against buying it.

That said, I respect the fact that other people have bought, that other gamers are using the material. What I object to, like Psion, is that the material, which is aimed at a mature audience, is getting published in a magazine aimed at a general audience. I started reading first Dragon magazine then Dungeon at an age which would be commonly considered inappropriate for discussions of rape, torture, necrophilia, etc. In that respect, I think that these magazines should aim at keeping their rating at PG-13 if possible.

Where does the «censorship», since that is the aim of your intervention as I understand it Thiefling, where does the censorship end ? I think the target there is a moving one. The definition of appropriate material for a general audience changes over time. What was considered appropriate in the 1960s is very different from the stuff considered approriate in the 2000s.

That said, I do believe that right now, the material covered by the BoVD is not considered appropriate. Once more, It does not mean that it should not be pulished or supproted, just that Dungeon and Dragon magazines are not the venues for such publication and support as the aim of the magazines is to cater to the RPG community in general. Now if Paizo is changing this goal, that is another matter, but it is my impression that that is not the case.

As for the point that I could ignore the articles/adventures in the magazine, yes I could. I already do. It does not alter the fact that that particular edition has become innappropriate for young readers. Therefore, part of the present readership is being put aside in a time when we keep hearing that modifications to the publication is being done because the magazine is in financial difficulties and may not survive (ie fusion of Dungeon and Polyhedron). Tell me, would you plan on rebuilding a magazine be eliminating a part of your assured clientele in the hope of gaining a new one ? In French we have a saying : «Un tu l'as vaux mieux que deux tu l'auras.» Roughly translated it means : «One you've got is better than two you might haves.»

Guillaume

 

[Gothmog]

A few questions/clarifications Psion:

Psion: "Oh, good freaking lord. Are you so desperate to defend your stance that you pull out the old chestnut that D&D bashers do?

Even the BoVD doesn't play the "orcs are misunderstood" card. In fact, it spells out pretty clearly that D&D is a game where evil beings really are evil and really are a threat."

No- not desperate. Just wondering why selective morality applies to murder, but not rape, torture, etc. If evil is absolte in D&D (and that varies according to each DM), and if evil deserves to be punished/killed/destroyed, then is raping or torturing an evil creature ok? It seems to be by this logic. If not, there seems to be a huge contradiction in morality inherent in most games. In most game worlds, I would imagine that orcs would be seen as irrevocably evil and not redeemable- subhuman if you will. Human history has shown us that "subhumans" have been treated as animals, slaves, amusement devices, and objects of sadism with few cultural repurcussions. If it is ok to murder orcs for no reason or for profit, why is it not acceptable to degrade them in other ways? Psychology shows us that by degrading objects of hatred/fear, we dehumanize them and make it easier for us to commit atrocities against them. I'm not condoning this behavior at all, just wondering about the justification behind it all.

Psion "Ah, but I disagree, at least in part. Much of it is good material. But some of it is low brow (nipple-clamp of exquisite pain, anyone) and if you honestly think that the artwork isn't "boobies, nipple clamps, and EEEVIL," you are in denial.

True- some of the artwork is rather tasteless, but that doesn't mean that the material in the book or adventures based off it automatically are. Undoubtedly, some people will go the "boobies, nipple clamps, and EEVIL" route, but not everybody. For the record, I'm not terrbly fond of much of the artwork in the BoVD, but the ideas and game mechanics are solid and well done. I think the artwork would be much more evocative if it went with a more subtle, sinister feel- something like some of the WW books.

Psion: "Are we now? You do, of course, have demographics to back this up, right?
I think that those that DEMAND vile are a minority, probably a smaller one.
How hypocritical is that. If you don't want vileness in your magazine, just suck it up?
Sure, print BoVD and similar books; I simply won't buy it if I think it is over the line. But when you begin to put "edgy" material in the general venue... which includes Dungeon and Dragon... it is YOU who are forcing your morality down my throat."

You're probably right in saying that those that DEMAND vile content are fewer in number than those who vocally oppose it. But I don't think you are taking into account that there are a LOT of people who wouldn't lobby for it, but the vile content doesn't bother, and who would use it if it was presented.

It probably wouldn't be the best idea to put much vile content in Dungeon and Dragon, and certainly not in the core rules, but one article or adventure every few months is not extreme. If a song comes on your favorite radio station that you find offensive, do you become outraged that it is being forced upon you, or do you simply turn to a different station? Its much the same situation here. You can't keep everybody happy all of the time, but you can keep most of the people happy most of the time. I'd say Paizo needs to conduct more reseach into this to determine the level of support or protest to vile content, and move from there.

Not directed at anyone in particular, but sometimes I wonder if people just go looking for something to offend them, and raise a big stink when they find something. If THIS is your biggest and most pressing concern in life, you might want to consider re-evaluating your priorities.

 

[Tiefling]

I must say that I agree with Psion assertion. I have nothing against the fact that Vile/Mature/Adult/R-Rated/whatever material is published. Heck, I even find it refreshing in the sense that it brings variety to the game. However, the BoVD did not interest me. For various reasons, among which the playability of the material in my imediate campaign and the artwork, I decided against buying it.

Cool. I didn't buy it myself, partly because I stopped buying new stuff, and partly because the few useful items in the book appeared to be buried in a sea of useless titillation. But if Paizo and WotC will start publishing useful "vile" material, I say go for it.

That said, I respect the fact that other people have bought, that other gamers are using the material. What I object to, like Psion, is that the material, which is aimed at a mature audience, is getting published in a magazine aimed at a general audience. I started reading first Dragon magazine then Dungeon at an age which would be commonly considered inappropriate for discussions of rape, torture, necrophilia, etc. In that respect, I think that these magazines should aim at keeping their rating at PG-13 if possible.

I don't know what it's like in Canada, but in America our rating system is pretty skewed anyway, and I don't put much stock in it. Apparently anyone under 18 will react fine to bloodsplattering violence and gore, but the sight of a nipple will mutilate their soul.

Where does the «censorship», since that is the aim of your intervention as I understand it Thiefling, where does the censorship end ? I think the target there is a moving one. The definition of appropriate material for a general audience changes over time. What was considered appropriate in the 1960s is very different from the stuff considered approriate in the 2000s.

That said, I do believe that right now, the material covered by the BoVD is not considered appropriate. Once more, It does not mean that it should not be pulished or supproted, just that Dungeon and Dragon magazines are not the venues for such publication and support as the aim of the magazines is to cater to the RPG community in general. Now if Paizo is changing this goal, that is another matter, but it is my impression that that is not the case.

Well, if the opinions of ENWorlders are even a little bit representative of the D&D community as a whole, I think the RPG community in general will appreciate a few articles a year of more "mature" themes.

As for the point that I could ignore the articles/adventures in the magazine, yes I could. I already do. It does not alter the fact that that particular edition has become innappropriate for young readers.

Well, inappropriate for young readers from the view of Western society. Considering that I myself am a young reader, I'll give you one guess as to how much I care about those views.

Therefore, part of the present readership is being put aside in a time when we keep hearing that modifications to the publication is being done because the magazine is in financial difficulties and may not survive (ie fusion of Dungeon and Polyhedron). Tell me, would you plan on rebuilding a magazine be eliminating a part of your assured clientele in the hope of gaining a new one ? In French we have a saying : «Un tu l'as vaux mieux que deux tu l'auras.» Roughly translated it means : «One you've got is better than two you might haves.»

I'm operating under the assumption that Paizo understands their audience to a reasonable degree, and has made a decision based on that understanding. Perhaps my assumption is unfounded. We'll see.

No- not desperate. Just wondering why selective morality applies to murder, but not rape, torture, etc. If evil is absolte in D&D (and that varies according to each DM), and if evil deserves to be punished/killed/destroyed, then is raping or torturing an evil creature ok? It seems to be by this logic. If not, there seems to be a huge contradiction in morality inherent in most games. In most game worlds, I would imagine that orcs would be seen as irrevocably evil and not redeemable- subhuman if you will. Human history has shown us that "subhumans" have been treated as animals, slaves, amusement devices, and objects of sadism with few cultural repurcussions. If it is ok to murder orcs for no reason or for profit, why is it not acceptable to degrade them in other ways? Psychology shows us that by degrading objects of hatred/fear, we dehumanize them and make it easier for us to commit atrocities against them. I'm not condoning this behavior at all, just wondering about the justification behind it all.

I would guess that it's because in American society and, to a lesser degree, Western society in general, murder is relatively common while rape and torture are considerably more rare and therefore illicit a greater reaction. I could be wrong.

 

[Psion]

No- not desperate. Just wondering why selective morality applies to murder, but not rape, torture, etc.

Two points -

1) killing vs. murder. I find the use of the term murder in arguments like this very loaded. If the creature is described as evil in the game, it is not merely a label. It is a set of behaviors, one that leads the creature into conflict with otherwise peaceful creatures. So I don't think you should bandy about the term murder so gleefully.

Now, if your campaign is just a team jersey mentality type game where "evil" is just a label, and the orcs didn't have to do anything to deserve it, that is up to you, but it's certainly not the way I run my game. (In fact, in a recent adventure, the PCs rescued goblins, but that's another story.)

2) Welcome to western society where violence is regarded as less taboo entertainment than sex. Sorry, that's the way it is. The reasons for it run much deeper than this thread.

But part of it for me is familiarity. I have sex (geek stereotypes aside ). Its a very personal experience. It doesn't take much mental suggestion to taint my mental images in a way that revolt me.

I don't regularly engage in violence, so I am much more disengaged from the act. I think this is fairly common. At one time I tried to liven up combat by being more descriptive. When DMing for a group of players I consider quite a bit less conservative than me, I tried to come up with an interesting description for a killing hit by a spiked chain. I managed to revolt my players.

In short, I don't think it's the existence of violence or sex in a game that is a big issue. It's how graphically it is depicted. Some people are more sensitive to graphic depictions than others, and I think whether it's violence or sex, when it comes to a publication intended for a general audience, you need to be sensitive to the sensitivity of your audience.

At any rate, the rest of your reply is garbled, so I'll have to handle it in another post.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I'm operating under the assumption that Paizo understands their audience to a reasonable degree, and has made a decision based on that understanding. Perhaps my assumption is unfounded. We'll see.

I personally don't share your optimisim that Pazio understands/resects/or cares about its audience from the public responses they give to letters. I also am not convinced that they have done any real marketing studies. But as you said, perhaps I am wrong, we'll see.

 

[The Sigil]

Couldn't you just not read the articles? Especially if there were only a couple each year?

This does not properly address the question.

If the articles are "unlabelled," how will I know NOT to read them until... oops, it's too late, I am reading one and see material that is offensive.

Even if the articles ARE "labelled," I have children in my household that I, as a parent, feel should not be exposed to such material. Now what do I do? Cut the articles out? Hide the magazines? Does this not tell my kids I'm setting a double standard by subscribing to such material anyway?

Furthermore, what if I happen to want to support d20 gaming but NOT "Vile" d20 Gaming? Can I demand a partial refund from Paizo to say, "I'm protesting this?" No. I have to cancel the subscription in its entirety or I, by subscribing, am offering financial support to material that I have no desire to offer financial support to.

I think you are missing the point. The point is not, "I don't want to read this stuff," so much as "this stuff is inappropriate for my household and there is no simple way to reconcile that view with a continued subscription to Dragon."

My question is how much are people willing to limit the material in order to satisfy some peoples' sensitivities? Would you remove the words "demon" and "devil?" How about getting rid of D&D's rich tradition of tomb-robbing? How far does it go?

You're never going to be able to keep from treading on SOMEONE's sensitivities. However, as I see it, here is the main difference between what you are describing and what is currently classed as "Vile" material (at least by me).

"Demons" and "devils" are understood by D&D players to be artificial creations based upon myth. To the D&D player, they have no "real-world" analogue. This is the same with casting spells and other "occultish" things in D&D - the players understand that these things are not meant to represent anything "real." I personally do not believe that I (the player, not the character) can learn to cast Summon Monster IV or Fireball or slug it out with a Balor or meet a Succubus.

However, presenting rules for torture, sadomasochism, necrophilia, and so forth is presenting rules for things WITH a "real-world" analogue. Here is the difference. These things ARE meant to represent things that are "real." I personally do believe that I (the player, not the character) can torture, engage in acts of sadomasochism, and commit necrophilia (not that I WOULD but I CAN).

"But what about killing things?" In the BoVD, and in default D&D in general, there exists a concept of "absolute, irredeemable evil." In this context, killing things that are in point of fact evil is acceptable to me... one cannot reason with or convert "EVIL" one can only destroy it. It IS a simplistic view, but it is the one adopted to some extent in most fantasy literature. Why is it okay to kill hordes of orcs in Middle Earth? Because they are EVIL. Why is it okay to try to kill Jadis and her minions (I believe that was her name if I remember by Chronicles of Narnia right) in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe? Because she is EVIL. Nothing can change that. Evil is attempting to eradicate good. It becomes about survival.

"What about more morally ambiguous worlds where races aren't necessarily good or evil?" Usually when you play in those worlds, you tend to parlay, do you not?

"Yes, but violence is still evil!" Among the truly good, violence is the negotiating method of last resort... but it *is* a method. I think I'm a pretty "good" guy overall, but if someone points a gun at my family and tells me they are going to start squeezing the trigger and killing one family member per minute, you'd better believe I'll be trying like heck to incapacitate and/or kill him. However, I think the point that speaks more to this is the point made earlier - violence in D&D is abstracted - you're not whittling off limbs, you're whittling off hit points. There's no table that says, "he loses an eye" or otherwise describes things in grisly detail... it's abstracted to the point where it's "sanitized" - there's no blood, there's no entrails spilling out, there's just "you whomp on him for a while and he drops." Yes, a good storytelling DM will add flavor to a battle, but that's "outside" the system as written.

As far as tomb raiding goes, I don't think that's evil. Humans have this funny concept as far as property goes - we think we still have some right to determine its disposition after we are dead. Is that necessarily a natural view? I don't know. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me - when I'm dead, what use/care will I have for how my stuff is divvied up? Obviously in life, I'd like to see it benefit my kids, but that's why we draw up wills in life, and not in death. IMO, provided a will "moves possession" of stuff to another living entity, we should honor it... moving it to a "tomb" to be "buried with me so nobody else can have it" is kind of silly. Again, I think it's a non-issue here.

Finally, where do I draw the line? For me, it comes down to "does the 'yucky stuff' (as Piffany would put it) happen on-camera or off-camera?"
Half-orcs are presumably usually the products of rape. Do we have that explicitly stated in the core rulebooks? No. Is it implied? Yes. But that is "off camera." Describing a room with slinky lingerie used by a succubus or torture devices used by a mad cleric is okay - because the "yucky stuff" (the sex or the torture) happened off-camera, even if the implication is strong.

FWIW, here is an (incomplete) list of yucky stuff, IMO...

* Sexual acts of any sort past kissing (including hands to areas normally covered by a bathing suit). This includes rape, though I think rape is probably among the most abhorrent... more so than necrophilia (which is pretty disgusting) because it violates someone who can remember the violation. Also includes detailed discussion or depiction of primary sexual organs and possibly mammaries (I do tend to have a slightly European view of breasts, I guess, having lived there for a couple of years - used appropriately and sparingly I do not believe they are all that problematic).
* Physical torture (possibly including ritual sacrifice - saying "the evil high priest is preparing to sacrifice a virgin on the altar - what do you do" is okay, describing the knife cutting into her, etc. is not)
* Abuse - physical, mental, sexual, or otherwise - of innocents (specifically women and children).
* Any bodily fluid other than blood or (in certain cases) spittle. Even these can be yucky if used to excess
* Rewarding "evil acts" with power without also illustrating a secondary cost (everything ALWAYS has a price, right?)

I could add to the list, but I think already most of the stuff I find "yucky" and "not suitable for younger audiences." Interestingly (to me), drug use does NOT make the list - but it is with the caveat that the effects of drug use - including physical and or psychological dependency are ALSO portrayed. I *would* be willing to have an addict as an NPC in my games... but he would be portrayed with all the negative consequences of such a lifestyle as well.

Mostly, I just want to make sure that ALL the consequences of a particular act get equal "screen time," not that the "desirable ones" get a lot of run while the "drawbacks" are glossed over... which I worry happened in the BoVD... you got lots mechanical advantages for doing "evil stuff" with few mechanical drawbacks. In my world, at least, evil doesn't work that way - part of evil is selfishness and evil won't give you anything for free (though good, motivated by altruism, might).

Noticed my post is starting to ramble, so I'll stop now.

--The Sigil