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

[The Sigil]

I don't know if it's been enough time to broach this again, but I want to try to do so in the most non-inflammatory way I know how...

I find it interesting that the Dragon 300 by Monte Cook article identified four styles of gaming:

1.) Lighthearted
2.) Standard
3.) Mature
4.) Vile

And you know, I think Monte's names were right on. I want to hit on the difference between "Mature" and "Vile."

Mature (from Dictionary.com):
1a.) Having reached full natural growth or development: a mature cell.
1b.) Having reached a desired or final condition; ripe: a mature cheese.
2.) Of, relating to, or characteristic of full development, either mental or physical: mature for her age.
3a.) Suitable or intended for adults: mature subject matter.
3b.) Composed of adults: a mature audience.
4.) Worked out fully by the mind; considered: a mature plan of action.
5.) Having reached the limit of its time; due: a mature bond.
6.) No longer subject to great expansion or development. Used of an industry, a market, or a product.

Vile (from Dictionary.com):
1.) Loathsome; disgusting: vile language.
2.) Unpleasant or objectionable: vile weather. See Synonyms at offensive.
3.) Contemptibly low in worth or account; second-rate.
3a.) Of mean or low condition.
3b.) Miserably poor and degrading; wretched: a vile existence.
4.) Morally depraved; ignoble or wicked: a vile conspiracy.

I would suggest that the "Mature" alluded to in "Mature Gaming" is probably 3a/3b. In other words, a mature game is one "suitable" or "intended for" adults.

What kinds of things are "suitable" for adults? I would suggest that this includes those things that are "suitable" for children, plus more stuff of course.

In D&D, we have stuff that is suitable for children - good vs. evil. Fantastic and whimsical creatures. Castles and heraldry and knights in shining armor. All of these are classic children's themes.

I liken this to being a tourist of a country versus living there for a while - as a tourist, you tend to see (or be shown) all the pretty things - the "highlights" if you will - without catching a glimpse of the "dirty underbelly" of a city or nation. People try to focus your attention on the good stuff, glossing over the bad that you see in an attempt to divert your attention from it. This creates artificial highs and lows, I suppose. This, to me, represents "light-hearted" gaming.

The stuff that starts being more suitable for adults than children are things like disease-ridden slums, prostitution and its attendant vices, morally corrupt governments, and so forth. If you look hard enough, or you live in the city for a while, you see these things. It's all stuff that is out in the open and visible - the difference is we tend to try to gloss over it for children and point out the highlights instead. This only shows the "good side" and not the warts.

This is where the stuff "suitable for and/or intended for" adults starts coming into play, IMO. Instead of good and evil, you get shades of gray. Heroes aren't always heroic - sometimes they struggle with vices. Villains aren't always killing babies and stomping on kitties - they may have people they care for and love. Life is not quite so shiny. Some of the innocence *is* lost, but this is where we get to experience the true richness of life. We see it in the triumphs over self. We see it in the hope amid destitution. We see it in a good man allowing his vices to destroy him. This, to me, represents "standard" gaming. Again, though, there is some measure of restraint here, because this only depicts stuff that is done out in the open. This shows man in a light where both his warts and his best features are visible. We can do a lot of learning about ourselves here.

When we start going behind closed doors, we start to see the "mature" side of gaming. Rather than seeing the prostitute on the street, we see her suffering physical violence at the hands of a pimp. Rather than seeing the leper huddled in his robes, begging for money while keeping himself hidden, we also see the skin falling off of him. We see the abuse of innocents. We start seeing some of the truly dark parts of human behavior. This starts to get into "mature" gaming - the realization that our private life is at best only as good as our public life - and usually worse. This is where those not emotionally ready for such realizations can be disturbed (or those who are RL victims can have their wounds opened). That's why we start treading carefully here - this is mankind at its worst, with very little of its best. The one worry about being here too long without exposing ourselves to "standard" or "lighthearted" is that we can forget man's nobility, since we rarely see it here - indeed, this is almost the opposite of "light-hearted" as we are glossing over the good and highlighting the bad.

Where does "vile" come into this?

My answer: it really doesn't. "Vile" is not "super-mature" - vile is "gross, disgusting, contemptible, and/or depraved." There's a difference. While something mature may be disgusting, something disgusting may not be mature. And it's certainly not necessarily evil.

The best evil, in fact, is not the vomitous mass (that's vile). The best evil has a nice three-piece suit, slicked-back hair, and a smile on its handsome face. True evil is not openly vile, because it knows that people are disgusted and repulsed by vileness. Instead of trying to appear vile, it attempts to appear desirable - so as to lure more people into its clutches.

My gripe with Dragon #300 is the same as it is with Tracy - they have both lumped "vile" in with "evil." Vile is not necessarily evil. Evil is not necessarily vile. Those who choose to do things that are vile are likely motivated by evil, but that's different entirely. Certainly "vile" does not indicate "mature."

Little kids are used to dealing with vile things on a daily basis - after all, they're the ones digging in their own diapers. They're the ones eating worms. They're the ones watching the dog play with its vomit. Blood and maggots are not evil - just vile. And they're not really mature - they're "standard" - kids deal with blood every day (scrapes).

It's when you get into "acts of vile darkness" where vile and evil intersect. IMO, Necrophilia fits the bill. Abusing children fits the bill. These things are what fall into the "mature" category - not because they're evil, and not because they're vile, but because they are done behind closed doors and are "repulsive evil."

From Johnny Wilson at GamingReport.com:
Even a well-known former writer for Dragon and Dungeon has lamented the inclusion of such horrific and disgusting elements within our pages, crying out with crocodile tears for an era of innocence that became so mundane, so unchallenging that the publisher of the world's greatest role-playing game had to be sold to a competitor.

I do NOT wish to bring up the whole Hickman issue again - but I want to point out that I think both Dragon and Hickman are missing the point. Hickman seemed upset that material he deems "repulsive" is coming into D&D - and he branded it "evil." Wilson, OTOH, calls evil without repulsive stuff "mundane and unchallenging." Again, I feel that "attractive evil" is much more challenging than "repulsive evil."

That's just my opinion, but it seems interesting that Wilson immediately says, in effect, "if it isn't repulsive, it's mundane." I don't know whether I agree with it or not. LOTR is far from mundane - and yet I find little repulsive in it. Les Miserables is far from mundane - and yet I find little repulsive in it. How does the little rhyme go?

"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?"

I suggest to Mr. Wilson that repeated exposure to "repulsive" material will eventually make IT mundane, too. Then where do we go? Do we publish ever-greater depravity in an attempt to keep ourselves from becoming "mundane?" That's a pretty weak strategy, IMO. Also, I could be wrong, but I thought the reason Dancey gave for the demise of D&D was not a lack of "edge" but rather "market fragmentation due to product oversaturation." Which is it?

I guess I just don't accept that you have to put out "vile" content to avoid being "mundane." Because I feel that if you continue to put out "vile" content, eventually you cause it to become mundane.

Indeed, that era was so banal that other role-playing systems stole gamers away from Dungeons & Dragons with systems and backgrounds that were significantly grittier than the self-censored D&D world.

You know, maybe I'm the only one, but I didn't leave D&D because "it wasn't edgy enough." I left D&D because of power creep and because they pushed into product lines I had no interest in. I left D&D not because, "you know, this just isn't evil enough" but because, "you know, these rules are self-contradictory and silly - and why are they making FR NPCs demigods, anyway?" I left because "the game is becoming based on the novels, rather than vice versa." Never did it enter my mind that, "you know what would be great? If D&D were more vile like these other systems."

My own friends have asked me the age-old question, Was this coverage really necessary? with the same rhetorical implication that they used to ask me about violence in video games. They believe the coverage wasn't necessary and that violence in video games (and movies, television, comic books and books) isnít necessary.

(I will now cut out the terrorist metaphor employed by Mr. Wilson in the interest of keeping this thread open.)

If there is a value to publishing a guide to the atrocities and perversions that put the VILE in EVIL, this is it: Evil CAN be defeated! A corollary to that which is played out many times in D&D campaigns and fantasy literature is that Evil is never really as strong as it looks.

Again, I will simply point out that the fallacy is that EVIL==VILE and VILE==EVIL.

Yet, we insist that the ability to go out on a limb in subject matter keeps the hobby fresh and alive. If nothing else, it gets us talking about values, belief systems and shared social context. Such a dialogue cannot answer all the questions, but it keeps us thinking and growing. I, for one, do not long to return to the days of the comics code. I'm glad we can get a wider variety of styles and subject matter than in the days when publishers were afraid to go outside the lines, even for an issue or two."

I disagree that this keeps the hobby "fresh and alive." It may even damage the hobby as some with sensibilities are offended and turned off. Is the influx of those "attracted" by the new material greater than the outflux of those "repulsed" by it? I don't know.

I do agree that at least we do get to discuss these issues, and discussion - and the attendant thought that must be put into such discussion - is good for all of us. I personally would prefer the comics code's return - but that's because I have young children and want to protect them - maybe more than I should. And if I'm somehow morally reprehensible to some for wanting to shelter my kids as long as I can, I can live with that. I know I'll have to discuss these issues at some point - I'm no fool - I just don't want them to stumble across them before they are emotionally and intellectually ready to handle them.

I guess the point of all this rambling is:

Why do we consider "really evil" to automatically mean "vile?" Why do we consider "mature" to automatically mean "vile?" Why can't my villains be "really evil" without being vile? Have we confused the terms and made things more black and white than they are (i.e., vile==evil, evil==vile, mature==vile, therefore only "mature" can really handle "evil" properly)? Can we handle evil thoroughly without going into the realm of the mature and/or vile? (I think the answer is no.) Can we handle evil sufficiently well without going into the realm of the mature and/or vile? I would suggest that the answer is "yes."

It is for this reason that I say, "I do not feel such content is warranted in Dragon based on the fact that I feel evil can be handled sufficiently well without it." I understand that there are those who want a thorough treatment of evil - and for them, these articles are a "good thing" (pun not intended). For me, however, "sufficiently well" is a good enough treatment. I want to retain a little innocence - after all, IMO when we lose our innocence completely, we have lost hope.

--The Sigil

 

[the Jester]

Great essay!

I agree that evil==vile==mature; however, I don't mind seeing vile material published. The issue of whether it should be in Dragon or Dungeon is a different one, and I understand the point of view of those who object based on the fact that kids might have subscriptions, and that parents prolly don't filter every issue that comes in the mail... and they might want to filter some of this stuff out (in the mature section of Dragon 300, that is).

I find it extremely telling that most kids are more willing (in my experience) to get into the "vile" stuff than adults. As an adult, I became a tutor of a kid of about 11 years old, who subsequently begged for the chance to get into my dnd game until (with his parents' permission) I relented and let him in. I then had a difficult decision to make: do I tone down my game for his sake, and disappoint my more adult (mature) players? I didn't have time to run two games, that's for sure! In the end, I decided to see how it would go with my game as it was, including convoluted morale dilemmas, mentions of the horrors of war, torture, human sacrifice, etc.- and the kid loved it! In fact, he invited his twin brother and best friend to join the game without consulting me. When this happened, I reluctantly went along with it, and told him not to try that crap again- I don't wanna be the creepy older guy always hanging out with little boys- and it still went well. In fact, I ended up tutoring the best friend too.

Now, all three of those kids are around 18 years old. The twins don't live around me anymore, and the other guy still games with my friends and I sometimes. None of them are any the worse for wear for having played in what is arguable a "vile" game (in that there is a lot of vile, explicit stuff that happens). In fact, I'd say they all learned some valuable lessons about independence, playing nice with others, etc. from our gaming sessions.

Another thing: it seems to me that the people most likely to play "vile" games OUTSIDE of rpgs are kids. I remember as a child how fascinated everyone was with the disgusting, the offensive, the profane. I remember drawing nasty pictures of blood and death. I remember wondering what leprosy looked like, staring for hours (okay, slight hyperbole) at the pics in the highway patrol mags of people smeared across the highway cuz they drank and drove. I remember wanting to see the splatter films that bore me today. I remember reading books whose only redeeming feature (if you want to call it that) was explicit depictions of horrible acts. I know that most of my peers did it too.

Nowadays, the splatter stuff doesn't appeal nearly as much as a good horror flick that scares me. Alien appeals to me now as much as it did then, but it isn't the monster out of the chest part so much as the being a helpless incubator part. As I've grown more mature my taste for the vile has tapered off. But sometimes, if you're going to explore the mature you have to have the vile. What, is the alien going to politely knock on your esophogus and ask you politely to let it out?

No real point here- just wanted to share some personal reflections on the topic.

 

[barsoomcore]

A very well-thought post, Sig. I don't agree with you on lots of points but a good statement of the issues at hand and your feelings about them. I just wanted to hit this one point:

I want to retain a little innocence - after all, IMO when we lose our innocence completely, we have lost hope.

There are schools of thought that suggest that only by losing hope can we find REAL reasons to live our lives. Only by abandoning our innocence can we restore it.

Just to say that there are answers to that problem that don't depend on not looking at certain things.

 

[rackabello]

Very well considered post, Sigil. I think you make an excellent distinction between 'mature' and 'vile' gaming. I would agree that it isn't necessarily the subject matter that makes the style of play vile, but the way that it is handled. For my own taste, even the vilest (i.e. most disgusting or depraved) evils known in human history could be dealt with in a 'mature' game, so long as they weren't simply gratuitous gross-out trappings. Do vile acts drive the story, or are they merely used to shock?

It was interesting to me that many of the respondents in the "Rating your D&D game" poll seemed to imply that they incorporated horrific acts but generally didn't revel in the specifics.

 

[Desdichado]

I wonder. This breakdown of light-hearted, standard, mature and vile -- doesn't that kinda assume a theoretical, philosophical and moral thrust to games that probably aren't really there 90-95% of the time? Does the standard, "back to the dungeon" (man, how I hate that whole focus!) game really delve into this type of thing at all? I wonder. And is the description of violence and possibly sex the only thing that we should be concerned about when trying to assess the appropriateness of the game?

I think there's too many assumptions there. I think ranking the game is kinda silly -- you know your own group, you know what you're comfortable with, if you're considering something that may push that boundary, find out about it ahead of time. That's really the only thing the article needed to say.

 

[CrazyMage]

Well put, Sigil.

The "gentlemen's clubs" advertised as "sophisticated" in the local paper are neither. I have to wonder about much of the so-called "mature" content of games as well.

And there are plenty of people in this world who would be much happier with their original innocence, rather than having to live without it. Hope without basis is deceptive and dangerous; hope with a firm foundation is a wonderful thing.

 

[herald]

My take on the whole article is that DM's can take under advisory as to how to mold a game to suit his players. At the very least, it can open up a discussion with the game master and the players as to what they want in a game.

 

[The Serge]

I'm glad to see the manner in which Paizo is defending their decision to offer something a bit beyond the grain for the readers of DRAGON Magazine. While I don't agree with every aspect of their position, particularly the point about their decision being market driven, I do agree with the fact that they do need to, on occasion, present material that pushes the envelope and remembers who their target audience is.

I think the problem here has always been more about the manner in which Paizo decided to publicize and market this issue. It's similar to the way in which WotC has been marketing the Book of Vile Darkness. The marketing has been sensationalized. Both parties used certain words and/or images to draw the attention of an audience. Unfortunately, in this case, the audience seems to be dominated by the uninitiated (who are unaware of the goals of D&D) or the ultra-sensitive (those who remember how misinterpretations of the past adversely impacted the game). Personally, I'm of the opinion that both sides are the very vocal minority.

I don't think either DRAGON Magazine 300 or the upcoming Book of Vile Darkness the critics think they are. I don't think most critics have any business in critiquing the subject matter of either text since, in most cases, they never saw the material before opening their mouths. For those who have read the material from the magazine, I would ask them to consider the source of their frustration. If their concern is based upon the manner in which the material has been presented (the questionable... but amusing marketing and sealed content), then perhaps their justified. If they're mad about the actual content, which is no different in substance from recent issues, but a bit more detailed, then they are victims of their own paranoia.

Finally, if people are worried about drawing on younger audiences, there are many other things out there that concern me more about their interest (or lack thereof) in D&D and other table-top rpgs. I see games like Grand Theft Auto, which is blatantly marketed to adolescent and older males (look at what time these commercials appear on MTV) far more threatening to D&D than so-called "vile" content (which equates more to gross in my assessment). There are many other threats to D&D beyond so-called "vile content." Furthermore, without older players, who buy all the books, accessories, models, novels, and so on, there are no younger players. More than most hobbies, D&D requires a sort of tutor/trainer relationship. A kid can pick up the nuances of a video game in a minute. She can grab a comic and read it just like that. Most kids aren't going to have a map or figs. Most can't afford every book. And most will need and look up to a role-model to help them figure out a relatively complex game. If anything, I'm more concerned about D&D loosing its adult audience.

In the end, I think people have overreacted to this entire thing. I commend Paizo and hope they do more of these issues. I hope they offer some mature content that features the good-guys, and mature material that challenges our concepts of neutrality. It can be done. It just takes someone with the courage to do it.

 

[Psion]

You know, maybe I'm the only one, but I didn't leave D&D because "it wasn't edgy enough." I left D&D because of power creep and because they pushed into product lines I had no interest in. I left D&D not because, "you know, this just isn't evil enough" but because, "you know, these rules are self-contradictory and silly - and why are they making FR NPCs demigods, anyway?" I left because "the game is becoming based on the novels, rather than vice versa." Never did it enter my mind that, "you know what would be great? If D&D were more vile like these other systems."

I so agree. I implore anyone else who happens to feel this way to send a letter to the editor of Dragon to let them know this.

Thoughtfulness, intelligence, and creativity are ingredients that will push the D&D game into the future. Invoking necrophilia and tentacle porn will just get you lumped in the b-movie shock-horror flicks and hentai, and all the esteem that comes with that.

 

[Monte At Home]

"Vile" is not "super-mature" - vile is "gross, disgusting, contemptible, and/or depraved." There's a difference. While something mature may be disgusting, something disgusting may not be mature. And it's certainly not necessarily evil.

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.

The best evil, in fact, is not the vomitous mass (that's vile). The best evil has a nice three-piece suit, slicked-back hair, and a smile on its handsome face. True evil is not openly vile, because it knows that people are disgusted and repulsed by vileness. Instead of trying to appear vile, it attempts to appear desirable - so as to lure more people into its clutches.

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.

My gripe with Dragon #300 is the same as it is with Tracy - they have both lumped "vile" in with "evil." Vile is not necessarily evil. Evil is not necessarily vile. Those who choose to do things that are vile are likely motivated by evil, but that's different entirely. Certainly "vile" does not indicate "mature."

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

Why do we consider "really evil" to automatically mean "vile?" Why do we consider "mature" to automatically mean "vile?"

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