Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 840712" data-attributes="member: 172">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.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.</blockquote>Relevance?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.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.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.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.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.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.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? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />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.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.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.[/QUOTE]

Verification