(Long) Evil vs. Vile vs. Mature - are they the same?

[Psion]

Re: Re: Re: (Long) Evil vs. Vile vs. Mature - are they the same?

Books like BoVD are written to explain something that those who are ready for it do not need explained.

Don't get me wrong. I am not passing judgement on BoVD. I don't have it yet, and I have seen Monte take stands against truly repugnant material in the past, and his statements about the book do not make it sound that bad. I'll decide whether it goes to far when I see it.

But the first article in the "sealed section" of the dragon goes too far, IMO.

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: (Long) Evil vs. Vile vs. Mature - are they the same?

I could not agree more. That's exactly what I was trying to say in the article. That's why I made "mature" and "vile" two different categories.

I kind of suspected as much. Else why make them different categories at all, neh?

Here's where we disagree. I don't think that there is a "best evil." I think that's up to individual DMs. Is Darth Vader better than Baron Harkonnen just because the Baron is not only evil, but pretty gross as well? I'm sure you'd say yes. I'd say, not necessarily.

I guess I should qualify that... to me the "best" evil is the one the PCs have the hardest time resisting (in terms of resisting joining themselves with the evil, not in the sense of armed resistance and being overwhelmed by force). It's easy to rebel against Darth Vader. It's easy to rebel against Harkonnen. Rebelling against Senator Palpatine, OTOH...

I guess the best example of "evil" I can think of would be something along the lines of 1984 - the system is insidious because it finds those who want to do good and is not content to crush them - it prefers instead to "convert" them.

To me, the best evil is the type that severely tempts the PCs to "convert." Usually that means putting on a nice face first and only revealing the vile stuff once they're past the point of no return.

Another point of disagreement, unless we're no longer talking about my article.

Sorry, wasn't clear - by this point I was no longer talking about the article, but rather the quote from Gamingreport wherein evil seems to be made equivalent to gross. Sorry if that was confusing.

I didn't lump it all together. In fact, I did exactly the opposite. I gave evil four categories. Can you have lighthearted evil? Absolutely. Standard evil? Mature? Vile? Yes to all. All different types. Not all for everyone, and not all for everyone on every general topic. Pretty much the point of the article. I'm not even sure how you could read it and come away feeling the need to make the point "Certainly "vile" does not indicate "mature."" Maybe someone else tried to say that it does, but as the author of the article and of the book, I certainly don't think it does.

Again, sorry if I was unclear - I was trying to draw the distinctions between your article and the article at Gamingreport (wherein the distinctions seem to be blurred and/or erased). I liked the way you broke things down in your article (even if, as mentioned elsewhere, it was mostly stuff I had thought about/dealt with long ago as a DM). I was trying to point out that Hickman and Wilson seem to have lost the distinction you made.

I know this part of "we" certainly doesn't.

Another reason I am glad to hear that you had a major hand in BoVD - it's the only reason I hold out hope that the finished product won't be as "pandering" as some here (including me from time to time) seem to think.

--The Sigil

 

[RobNJ]

(snip)

Is that axe ground enough for you yet or do you wanna take a few more weeks on it?

 

[Monte At Home]

Sigil,

Sorry I misunderstood parts of your post. I thought you were still talking about my article. I see now where I got confused.

I can't speak for anyone else's work or posts or anything like that.

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: (Long) Evil vs. Vile vs. Mature - are they the same?

Is that axe ground enough for you yet or do you wanna take a few more weeks on it?

Pardon my lack of appreciation for your "constructive criticism" but I was trying to take a look at "why do I think what I think" for all to see. If you're not interested, that's fine - but I thought it was a legitimate attempt to try to untangle what I find inappropriate and why... and part of the posting process included that discovery.

I don't know what axe you seem to have to grind against me, but I would appreciate at least a passing glance at some of my points. Or if you'd rather not do that, just put me on your ignore list and be done with it.

--The Sigil

 

[barsoomcore]

Re: Re: Re: (Long) Evil vs. Vile vs. Mature - are they the same?

To me, the best evil is the type that severely tempts the PCs to "convert." Usually that means putting on a nice face first and only revealing the vile stuff once they're past the point of no return.

I notice that there's still a need for the vile, though, Sigil. I guess I've been assuming that you are opposed to the notion that evil has to be vile. I don't think you are, inasmuch as evil is ALWAYS vile, whether physically or morally. Vile isn't always evil -- intestines aren't evil but they are certainly vile.

Would it be correct to say that what you're opposed to is the explicit portrayal of the vile? Accepted that yes, down in his dungeon the bad guy is doing truly vile things, but how much of that do we really need to show? Is that the question you're asking here?

I think it's gotten a bit confused with notions of poor marketing, immature gamers and Monte's impending knighthood.

To speak more philosophically, I have to say that your rhyme:

"Sin is a monster of so frightful a mien
That to be hated needs but to be seen
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face
We first pity, then endure, then embrace?"

conflates evil with sin, and rejection with hatred. I don't have to hate evil in order to reject it. And I don't have to consider something a sin in order to consider it evil. Heck, I don't have to consider something evil in order to reject it.

Did I cover all the possibilities there? There's a difference between rejecting something because it's a sin and rejecting it because it's unhealthy, causes unhappiness and interferes with my ability to love. None of the latter require me to hate the item in question, nor do they lose their potency by familiarity. Indeed, the more intimately I understand such things, the more completely I will reject them.

Just to keep offering an alternate philosophy.

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: Re: Re: (Long) Evil vs. Vile vs. Mature - are they the same?

I notice that there's still a need for the vile, though, Sigil. I guess I've been assuming that you are opposed to the notion that evil has to be vile. I don't think you are, inasmuch as evil is ALWAYS vile, whether physically or morally. Vile isn't always evil -- intestines aren't evil but they are certainly vile.

Would it be correct to say that what you're opposed to is the explicit portrayal of the vile? Accepted that yes, down in his dungeon the bad guy is doing truly vile things, but how much of that do we really need to show? Is that the question you're asking here?

I think that is the essence of the question I'm asking, yes. Is it really that much more effective to describe depravity in detail rather than just have it occur "off-stage?" I personally don't think so - some of the most effective horror movies ever didn't show splatter to horrify (e.g., Psycho - never do you see the knife in contact with skin in the "shower scene" - never do you see wounds on the body - you hear screaming, you see a face in terror, and you see blood flowing down the drain - but the really disgusting stuff is left to the imagination).

IMO, the answer is, "no, you don't have to show every little detail to make the point - and in fact, sometimes it's more effective if you don't." The imagination can be worse than reality.

Just to keep offering an alternate philosophy.

Thanks for the thoughts. I am still pondering the rest of your post.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

Sorry I misunderstood parts of your post. I thought you were still talking about my article. I see now where I got confused.

I ramble. Quite understandable that people get lost.

--The Sigil

 

[barsoomcore]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (Long) Evil vs. Vile vs. Mature - are they the same?

Is it really that much more effective to describe depravity in detail rather than just have it occur "off-stage?" I personally don't think so - some of the most effective horror movies ever didn't show splatter to horrify (e.g., Psycho - never do you see the knife in contact with skin in the "shower scene" - never do you see wounds on the body - you hear screaming, you see a face in terror, and you see blood flowing down the drain - but the really disgusting stuff is left to the imagination).

It really is pure and simple a matter of personal taste. You're right, some of the most effective horror films don't show truly explicit violence -- but any list of the 10 scariest films of all time is going to include both Alien and Night of the Living Dead, and both of those include truly stomach-turning scenes.

I suspect the answer really is -- you have to show enough to get the imagination of the audience to the level you want it, and then you have to hide enough so that their imagination takes off far above what you could ever do it by showing. I bet (and I've just had this thought so I can't say for sure) that you could argue virtually every effective scary film does just that -- it sets up the audience by introducing an element so graphic that it takes them beyond what they were expecting (I count the shower scene in Psycho very much in this vein) and then hold back and let suspense build the imaginative fear in the audience's mind.

How much is just enough is going to be different for everyone, of course.

IMO, the answer is, "no, you don't have to show every little detail to make the point - and in fact, sometimes it's more effective if you don't." The imagination can be worse than reality.

Agreed. A basic definition of pornography as opposed to art is that pornography literally shows you everything all the time. There's no selection of detail. Art is all about selecting particular details and presenting them. The details themselves may be every bit as graphic as a pornographic image, but the presentation of one detail as opposed to others is what allows the intellectual leap to art.

So yeah, of course you can't show every detail and of course hiding details is often the best trick. But not always, not reliably and not in any sort of easily dictated system. So you're always going to be running too far in one direction or another.

Does that make sense?

 

[Umbran]

Re: Re: Re: (Long) Evil vs. Vile vs. Mature - are they the same?

Books like BoVD are written to explain something that those who are ready for it do not need explained.

Ah, but you see, here you display a certain lack of understanding of why we have published gaming materials.

Rarely, if ever, does a competent GM need a published product, in that given a bit of time, they can come up with something themselves. There's no need for Deities and Demigods - a DM can think up his own way to handle gods. Nor does he need published adventures - he can create his own dungeons, or setting book - she can build her own world, etc.

Published works are there to give a little inspiration, to save time and creative effort. It is often simply more efficient to let someone else come up with a well-thought-out rules system, or coherent setting, or the like. Instead of doing all that work ourselves, we use a published product, and that frees up much of our time to work on the details of our own games. It's a busy world. Most of us simply don'yt have the time to do everything ourselves.

Also, it's a rare creative work that cannot gain a little vigor from hybridization. Exposure to someone else's work can give new life to your own.

So, let's not talk about what gamers need. It never has been a question of need. It's a question of what we want, and what is useful.