Dungeon magazine says maybe more vile. Huzzah!

[SemperJase]

Here's how I see it. I'm operating on the assumption that if you find something offensive, you think that it is morally/ethically flawed in some way. Thinking that some material is morally or ethically flawed kind of suggests that people who use it are similarly flawed, but your opinion of the morality of something is a gut reaction, not a reasoned one, so I won't hold it against you.

Your reasoning creates the dilema that no one can have an moral stance for fear that it would offend someone who doesn't share that moral view.

It does not have to be that way. I do not require you share my moral views and am disappointed you require me to lower my moral standard.

For instance, I know people who believe that it is not moral to drink ANY alcohol. I on the other hand used to enjoy the occaisional rum and coke (before health issues restricted my alcohol intake). While I do not share their view, I am not offended by those acquaintences who hold that view. In addition, I assure you, I am not offended by how you play your game even though I may not want to play in it.

Incidentally, my opinion of morality is very reasoned and not merely a gut reaction. This is not the forum to discuss my entire reasoning, so you will have to take my word for that.

 

[tburdett]

Originally posted by Bendris Noulg
And that you find it offensive strikes me as very close-minded; But what worth's an opinion of someone that stopped buying their product over something so petty as an article made to support one product in a single issue? Honestly, I wouldn't be worried about regaining your business either. Being that they stated originally that they weren't going to print more, and yet you didn't buy further issues, means that you've already washed your hands in regards to having a legitament stance about the future direction of the magazine: What they publish, mature content or not, will not change whether or not you purchase more, so your complaint has no relevance since your purchase is already void to them.

You seem to be talking to me, but quoting someone else, so I'll respond. It was the attitude and posture that they used when replying to people who complained about the material that made it easy for me to write off the magazine.

Now, if you had taken it on their word that they wouldn't, then bought more issues based on that belief, only to have them turn around and print more mature content, than you'd have a leg to stand on.

Ah, but they did. After the 'vile' issue they published two issues, back to back, that contained profanity. No, they have made their intentions, with regard to the magazine, very overt and clear. As I said before, however, that is no longer a concern of mine.

And don't feel like I'm picking on you; I stopped buying Dragon when it stopped being an RP-aid and become more akin to a guide-book for power gamers. But I certainly didn't whine and cry about making myself insignificant to their sales projections, which, consequently, is exactly what you seem to be doing.

I do not worry about being picked on. I have my opinion and you have yours. If we do not agree, we can discuss it in a civil manner and perhaps reach agreement, and if not agreement, perhaps understanding.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

You seem to be talking to me, but quoting someone else, so I'll respond.

Yeah, I was... While there are only of the few "no icky vile" posters, the constant repitition of complains is getting confusing...

It was the attitude and posture that they used when replying to people who complained about the material that made it easy for me to write off the magazine.

Yeah, I was... But if you didn't buy any later issues, how would you know what that posture was?

Consequently, their posture couldn't have been that bad if they stated that they weren't going to print further material.

Ah, but they did. After the 'vile' issue they published two issues, back to back, that contained profanity. No, they have made their intentions, with regard to the magazine, very overt and clear. As I said before, however, that is no longer a concern of mine.

Well, I don't know what's on TV where you live, but I've become accustomed to hearing a wide array of five-letter words on Prime Time alone (I think we can all thank Eddy Murphy for bridging that gap back in his SNL days). I hardly find such words offensive. I'm all for worrying about the sensitivities of the common man; I just question how common over-sensitivity is?

I do not worry about being picked on. I have my opinion and you have yours. If we do not agree, we can discuss it in a civil manner and perhaps reach agreement, and if not agreement, perhaps understanding.

Well, good... I had an issue recently with someone feeling "singled out" by merit of being responded to directly, so just covering my [rump].

 

[Tiefling]

Your reasoning creates the dilema that no one can have an moral stance for fear that it would offend someone who doesn't share that moral view.

It does not have to be that way. I do not require you share my moral views and am disappointed you require me to lower my moral standard.

I know. That's why I didn't pursue that bit.

Incidentally, my opinion of morality is very reasoned and not merely a gut reaction. This is not the forum to discuss my entire reasoning, so you will have to take my word for that.

Sure, a lot of it, but on a certain, fundamental level it can't be logically justified. You know, on the level of something like, "Harming others is wrong." Morality is based on one or more assumptions somewhere along the line. At least, I haven't seen anything otherwise .

Anyway, it's unimportant to the rest of my post.

 

[kenjib]

Now, if you had taken it on their word that they wouldn't, then bought more issues based on that belief, only to have them turn around and print more mature content, than you'd have a leg to stand on.

That wasn't the only content. There has been a trend toward increased graphic content. The halfing disembowlment and the profanity from G R Martin are other examples.

There is a poll that shows that mature content (particularly Vile content) gets a bit of support when one can pop in, click "Yes", and leave without having to defend themselves from folks that would try to label them as immature perverts with a thing for "boobies". And that poll says you're a minority; A loud one that continue to repeat the same close-minded views again and again.

The only thing that poll demonstrates is that people don't mind if someone, somewhere, publishes something vile. I, myself, voted yes to that poll. It doesn't mean I personally want it in Dragon/Dungeon Magazine. It also doesn't mean that I like the material in a seperate product line. All it means in my case is that I believe in freedom of press. From reading the thread, I notice that other people voted the same way for the same reasons.

 

[kenjib]

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.

No offense taken at all. You have a very good point and I believe that I stand corrected! I do notice that people insert such prohibitions often into modern reconstructions of chivalry though -- which was my error as well. Very interesting. I guess it's probably a modern moral construct after all.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

The only thing that poll demonstrates is that people don't mind if someone, somewhere, publishes something vile. I, myself, voted yes to that poll. It doesn't mean I personally want it in Dragon/Dungeon Magazine. It also doesn't mean that I like the material in a seperate product line. All it means in my case is that I believe in freedom of press. From reading the thread, I notice that other people voted the same way for the same reasons.

Okay, I can see that, although I think a "line" of products would be a good thing. This, of course, assumes the statement made by AV about "Vertigo Mature" is true; Vileness has its place in such a line, but it would only be a small piece. I think that's why I embraced the BoVD to the extent that I did, being that it covered a part of the stuff I already include, allowing me to work more on the stuff that isn't covered yet (indeed, except for Prestige Classes, which I always make campaign-specific with but one exception, I've been able to focus on elements that are quite anti-vile, yet assuredly "mature").

I guess it's probably a modern moral construct after all.

Hmmm... Modern, no. Although far more fashionable now (in most cultures) than it has been in times past. For instance, Viking Thanes (slaves) were given to have certain rights based on dignity and self-respect, a concept that vanished in northern Europe after their decline (mostly because truly despisable people like murderers and rapists were put to the sword). The mistake is an understandable one, though, since I believe most gamers (coming from the aforementions modern cultures) try to express these same concepts in our games. The difference lies in magic, of course: What would have happened if Torquemada suddenly found himself able to detect evil, and only he registered?

There's a certain comfort level in D&D with a black and white morality, since a simple spell can identify the foes of righteousness in the blink of an eye. I personally prefer games more in the gray, and even the "anti-hero" concept sees quite a bit of time at my table. Then again, the "true" villains often stand out to even the Evil PCs in my games (mostly because they're "vile" ).

 

[kenjib]

Okay, I can see that, although I think a "line" of products would be a good thing. This, of course, assumes the statement made by AV about "Vertigo Mature" is true; Vileness has its place in such a line, but it would only be a small piece. I think that's why I embraced the BoVD to the extent that I did, being that it covered a part of the stuff I already include, allowing me to work more on the stuff that isn't covered yet (indeed, except for Prestige Classes, which I always make campaign-specific with but one exception, I've been able to focus on elements that are quite anti-vile, yet assuredly "mature").

Oops! I meant to say that I personally, wouldn't necessarily patronize such a product line -- if the BoVD is an indicator of what's to come, at least. I have absolutely no problems with WotC or any other publisher putting out such a line of products distinct from the core resources.

...What would have happened if Torquemada suddenly found himself able to detect evil, and only he registered?

There's a certain comfort level in D&D with a black and white morality, since a simple spell can identify the foes of righteousness in the blink of an eye. I personally prefer games more in the gray, and even the "anti-hero" concept sees quite a bit of time at my table. Then again, the "true" villains often stand out to even the Evil PCs in my games (mostly because they're "vile" ).

I share a lot of your interests. I am not a fan of the alignment system as it has the potential of oversimplifying things, as your Torquemada example illustrates. I also like cultish themes, damnation, and palpable evil as well, but as a rare thing.

 

[tburdett]

Yeah, I was... While there are only of the few "no icky vile" posters, the constant repitition of complains is getting confusing...

Yeah, I was... But if you didn't buy any later issues, how would you know what that posture was?

Consequently, their posture couldn't have been that bad if they stated that they weren't going to print further material.

Well, I don't know what's on TV where you live, but I've become accustomed to hearing a wide array of five-letter words on Prime Time alone (I think we can all thank Eddy Murphy for bridging that gap back in his SNL days). I hardly find such words offensive. I'm all for worrying about the sensitivities of the common man; I just question how common over-sensitivity is?

Well, good... I had an issue recently with someone feeling "singled out" by merit of being responded to directly, so just covering my [rump].

Their damage control was not limited to the pages of their magazine. Their position to not include 'vile' stuff was only arrived at after they apparently received a deluge of mail complaining about it.

I do not watch any daytime or primetime television. The only TV show that I watch with any regularity is Conquest on the History Channel. It's on late Sunday night, or early Monday morning depending on your point of view.

It is not sensitivity, it is preference. I prefer to not watch shows that contain that material. I do not stand outside of the TV station and demand that the show is taken off of the air, I do just change the channel.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

The only TV show that I watch with any regularity is Conquest on the History Channel.

Pilfering historical gaming material, eh?

At least I'm in good company.

It is not sensitivity, it is preference. I prefer to not watch shows that contain that material. I do not stand outside of the TV station and demand that the show is taken off of the air, I do just change the channel.

But do you go back to the channel when something else (more appealing to your tastes) comes on, or do you ignore that channel completely in the future?