Dungeon magazine says maybe more vile. Huzzah!

[The Sigil]

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.

I won't speak for Psion, but I will speak for me.

Why is murdering "evil" in such a context condoned? Because it is "kill or be killed." If you do not kill evil, it will kill you. If it kills you, good is overcome by evil and ceases to exist. Therefore to uphold the continued existence of good, it is necessary to exterminate evil. Since it is, in essence, self defense, it is no longer strictly "murder." Obviously, we distinguish between premeditated murder and self-defense... but whether or not "pre-emptive self-defense" can be considered separately from murder is another discussion. I happen to think that if you subscribe to the "black and white" evil and good morality, you can justify pre-emptive assaults on the grounds that "we know - we don't BELIEVE but we know as an indisputable point of fact - that they will at some point attack us. We therefore are acting in self-defense." Not to be confused with the Real World where we might question as to whether we "know they will attack us" - we just think they probably will. It's a simplistic mindset, to be sure, but B&W evil IS simplistic and can easily be brought to this conclusion, offering rational justification for those who step into a B&W mindset.

Rape is NOT condoned. Rape is a violation of another sentient being. You cannot rape an evil race and have it be a good act. IMO, even with a B&W mentality, you do not rape - this is not "exterminating evil before it exterminates you" and therefore does not qualify as "self-defense" as argued for in the above paragraphs.

Torture is a trickier question. It gets into "does the end justify the means?" Are you interrogating a prisoner to advance your war with his kind? I personally play torture as an evil act - because it does not directly advance the "exterminate evil before it exterminates you" cause and must be rationalized into the realm of "Self-defense" by such arguments as "by getting information, we allow ourselves to exterminate more evil." If you do not get the information from your prisoner, you have to fall back on the "it might have worked" - and this is not sufficient rationalization to provide justification IMO.

Thus, killing "evil" creatures is justifiable because it is in direct self-defense (if they are evil, it is known that they will for certain attack you eventually). Rape and torture are not, because there is no certainty that these actions are definitely in "self-defense" (even "pre-emptive SD"). Does that make sense? Again, it is a simplistic view of good and evil, but allowed under the B&W interpretation.

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.

Since you conceded the point that those who DEMAND vile content are less than those who DEMAND NO vile content, let us use an example. These numbers are pulled out of the air, but serve illustratively.

2% demand NO vile content
1% demand VILE content
97% don't care one way or the other.

Printing VILE content:
Satisfies 98% of your fan base (the 97% "don't care" and the 1% demanding it)
Annoys 2% of your fan base (the 2% "No vile")

Printing NO VILE content:
Satisfies 99% of your fan base (th 97% "don't care" and the 2% demanding none)
Annoys 1% of your fan base (the 1% "we demand vile")

Given the above, how does it make business sense to print vile content? Doing so satisfies less of your fan base than if you omitted it and annoys more of your fan base. The percentages annoyed either way are small, but in a strictly business sense, if you subscribe to the theory that those who demand NONE outnumber those who demand VILE, it doesn't matter that the vast majority "doesn't care" - you're losing by printing vile.

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.

Bad example. First off, I don't pay for the radio station. Also, I can't "turn" to another Dragon... there are not multiple choices. A better example is, "you get exactly one radio station in your area of the country. Furthermore, you have to pay to listen to it. When it plays something you don't like, do you just turn it off and shrug or do you feel outraged that they're using your money to send you stuff you don't want?"

Though, FWIW, I have taken my Dragon subscription money and used it to subscribe to the ENWorld Player's Journal instead - the closest thing I can find to a replacement.

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.

Here, I agree with you whole-heartedly.

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.

Most people will find this shocking, but I was *looking forward* to the BoVD when I first heard about it. As more details became available, my enthusiasm dimmed, because I was worried that it was going in a direction that I personally feel is unneeded in gaming. When I saw it in my store, I was offended. So it's not like I was looking to complain about it from the start... it's a product that "earned" my ire (if you can call it that) - it didn't "start out" with strikes against it in my eyes.

--The Sigil

 

[kenjib]

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.

Rape is far, far, far more common than murder in the United States. Check up on some statistics regarding the percentage of women that have been raped. This is well documented stuff.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm

Rape is around ten times as common, and furthermore these are only reported incidents. Homicide is almost always reported whereas rape is very frequently not reported at all.

Torture is also common, but institutionalized and denied.

The issues have more to do with catholicism and sexual politics dating back to the Roman Empire than they do with crime.

 

[kenjib]

Another point to consider regarding rape and torture of evil creatures is that under ideals of chivalry and honor in warfare, which is intertwined with the medieval notions of righteous morality that D&D is based on, these actions are considered dishonorable, and wrong. It is usually committing excessive suffering for pleasure or revenge rather than the preservation of civilization, moral authority, and life. In addition, it is considered playing dirty, rather than honorable conflict. These kinds of moral issuess continue to our present day in the Geneva Convention, for example, which is an extention of rules civilized warfare that have existed in Western civilization (and been ignored) long before the U.N. was a twinkling in the Enlightenment's eye.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

No offense, but "the medieval notions of righteous morality that D&D is based on" was all for torturing evil (in that anyone of another religion than your own was evil), enslavement, pursecution, and so forth.

As for the earlier point of "labeled articles", MC introduced a decent rating system in Dragon when BoVD was released; I'd say that if Paizo including this rating (or similar) on an article-by-article basis, that would certainly solve that issue, since the rating would be adjacent to the title.

 

[Tiefling]

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.

Why would they be unlabelled?

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?

Perhaps you could politely ask them not to read your magazines.

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.

Dragon has material that I have no use for. I don't ask them for a refund.

And don't go pulling the old, "One is offensive, the other isn't" card. It makes absolutely no difference. None. By saying that you would offer financial support for it if it's merely useless, but not if it's offensive, you are, by definition, saying that others shouldn't use the material. You are telling others how to play their game.

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."

If it's inappropriate for you and your children, don't read it.

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).

So what?

Rape is far, far, far more common than murder in the United States. Check up on some statistics regarding the percentage of women that have been raped. This is well documented stuff.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm

Rape is around ten times as common, and furthermore these are only reported incidents. Homicide is almost always reported whereas rape is very frequently not reported at all.

Torture is also common, but institutionalized and denied.

The issues have more to do with catholicism and sexual politics dating back to the Roman Empire than they do with crime.

Shucks. Well, I guess right when I said that I could have guessed wrong. It was off the top of my head.

 

[PatrickLawinger]

Wow, "vile" vs "non-vile" whatever in the hell you guys are defining into these categories is certainly creating an uproar.

I don't care if WotC creates "vile" material for specific books. If it sells, go for it. I do care if Dungeon and Dragon use "vile" (by my definition, see below) material. Why? I have an extremely bright 7-year old boy that loves to see and read some of the books I read and is interested in what his papa does (I write some d20 material). I used to let him read Dragon and Dungeon if he wanted to. I have no problems letting him read the PHB, most of my d20 material, the DMG, MM, MM2, etc.

Lately, I don't even leave Dungeon or Dragon out. Lately,some of the articles, commentary, artwork, and even letters to the editor are simply inappropriate for a 7 year-old, no matter how bright he might be.

Do I care if Dungeon and Dragon "go vile?" Not particularily. Both magazines have slowly been getting less and less useful to me. If they add more "vile" material the usefulness will simply go down to the point that I simply won't renew. I am generally unimpressed with both magazines the past few months. Dungeon might be coming around, but I haven't used anything from Dragon for months.

"Vile." What is "vile?" All of you have such varied definitions. I am not a "prude" but I see discussions of rape, dismemberment, use of "living intestines" as spell components, and the like as simply beyond any reasonable use in a game. This is supposed to be a game about fantasies and a break from "real-life." If this is what you fantasize about then someone has a problem. Can the "bad-guys" do these things? Sure, but who needs a detailed description? Good god, who needs artwork depicting tortured, live human being with his intestines spilled all over the floor?

These comments come from somebody that recently completed work on a revision of City State of the Invincible Overlord for Necromancer Games. That revision includes rules for slavery, interrogation, and torture. These things might be considered "vile" by many people, but I don't consider them so "vile" that they can't be a reasonable part of a game, specially in a lawful evil city.

The context of your group is going to determine lots of things. I happen to be a father with small children. Our last gaming session had a total of 6 children running around in my house. I don't need cursing, discussion of rape, descriptions of dismemberment, etc. in a family environment. Sorry, don't want it, don't need it, don't have any interest in it whatsoever.

If you want it, fine. I am happy to let you buy whatever books you want (I thought BoVD had horrid rules gaffs, but who cares). If your demand for this material gets Dungeon and Dragon to include various "vile" themes, great, good for you. Those magazines will simply lose me as a subscriber. Personally, I would prefer the material stays out of the magazine rack.

My opinions are my own, they do not reflect the opinions of any company or person I have worked for.

 

[SemperJase]

And don't go pulling the old, "One is offensive, the other isn't" card. It makes absolutely no difference. None. By saying that you would offer financial support for it if it's merely useless, but not if it's offensive, you are, by definition, saying that others shouldn't use the material. You are telling others how to play their game.

This line of thinking is a stretch. Extending your argument says that because I did NOT buy BoVD, I'm telling you how to play the game. No one in this conversation has told anyone how to play the game. No one has told you not to buy BoVD or not to use it.
Your statement infers that I should continue to support I publication I ethically disagree with.

In that case you are forcing your ethics on me.

I do not want to support a publication I do not agree with. That decision places no obligation on you to stop buying the magazine or playing the game your way.

 

[boschdevil]

Dragon has material that I have no use for. I don't ask them for a refund.

And don't go pulling the old, "One is offensive, the other isn't" card. It makes absolutely no difference. None. By saying that you would offer financial support for it if it's merely useless, but not if it's offensive, you are, by definition, saying that others shouldn't use the material. You are telling others how to play their game.

There's a big difference in having material that you may not use for (like warrior classes for faeries) and material that eithers offends you or warrants your concern that it may get into the hands of your child (like Vile material).

Thye're not telling you how to play your game. What they are saying is if people really gotta have the Vile material, and the Vile material is in so much demand, make another magazine like "Black Dragon" (a name that someone came up with recently in this thread) and just leave it out of Dungeon and Dragon. That way young gamers can still get their gaming fix without parents worrying about whether the publication may have Vile material inside. Also, gaming stores can monitor the selling of the Vile material and who actually buys the material. After all, we do want to have this situation handled responsibility, right. The more I think of there being a magazine dedicated to Vile material rather than throw it in Dungeon and Dragon, the more I like it.

 

[tburdett]

I stopped buying Dragon due to the inclusion of the 'vile' material and the profanity, and now it looks like I may have to stop buying Dungeon as well.

When I stopped buying Dragon I made it clear to the players in my campaign that nothing from Dragon would be used in any game that I ran. As I am the only DM for seven of those eight players, seven other people no longer buy the magazine either.

I have three young daughters and I do not bring anything into our home that I would have to hide from them. That is really the only message that I can send.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

All over one little issue? Over material that consisted of less than half of the total pages..? In one issue out of over 300?!

No offense, but I certainly don't want anyone that uptight determining the material Paizo, or anybody else, publishes. I thank you for choosing not to buy these publications anymore; It liberates them more than hurts them.