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

[Psion]

It really is pure and simple a matter of personal taste.

You are right, with the important caveat that for many who do not want this sort of material, having it wrapped up in your subscription every month is a bit more disturbing than the issue of whether there is Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms material in it. I find the references extremely tacky, and what's more, out of place. As someone mentioned in another thread, it would be like getting a playboy spread in your issue of time.

As Monte points out in his article, you have to be very sensitive to the sensibilities of the players when touching upon mature or "vile" content. I think the same applies to subscribers, most of whom aren't expecting Dragon to compare to "Fantasmagora" in content. I think this is definitely an axis on which you need to avoid material that might be offensive.

In the end, the fate of BoVD bothers me much less than the fate of Dragon. If I find that BoVD has material on the same order as "Corpsebond" and "Searing Seed," I can choose to avoid buying it. Dragon, on the other hand, I already purchased expecting a certain level of professionalism, and instead got what I consider to be a gross appeal to shock-movie sensibilities. Again to invoke a quote from elsewhere, someone took a dump in my happy place.

 

[barsoomcore]

You are right, with the important caveat that for many who do not want this sort of material, having it wrapped up in your subscription every month is a bit more disturbing

*shrug*

No offense, Psion, but we're not actually discussion Dragon magazine's editorial policies. The topic is the relationship between evil, vile and mature. What you're stating isn't a caveat to my argument, it's a disconnected statement of opinion on Dragon magazine.

And I'm actually enjoying a discussion that is examining the differences between these terms without turning into a session of people declaiming their reactions to Dragon's current content. There's plenty of threads already on that topic.

Again, I truly don't mean any offense and I hope I'm not providing any. I'm interested in the relationship between vile, evil, mature and scary (new one!) and am a little keen to see that argument not get swallowed up in another round of people making their points of view known.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

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

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.

As any photographer could tell you, the difference between pornography and art is that art is black and white, while porn is in color.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

As someone mentioned in another thread, it would be like getting a playboy spread in your issue of time.

Or worse, like getting some bothersome articles in the middle of a playboy! Grr. Stupid articles.

 

[Darkness]

Public service announcement

Attention, please:

I split off the flames and other unnecessary stuff here, and made a new thread out of it.

So please be civil from now on, everybody. And if you are tempted to post something rude, go elsewhere.

- Darkness

 

[the Jester]

Thanks, Darkness! Even though my post that got moved was just a "play nice" I appreciate your doing so.

 

[drquestion]

Hello, everyone. This is an interesting topic that you've raised Sigil.

If I may (and I apologize if someone has already said this - I came to this thread kind of late and, although I looked over the posts, I didn't read each of them closely), I'd like to attempt to augment Sigil's distinction between "vile" and "mature" by drawing a distinction between "vile" acts and "vile" people.

Torture, for example, is pretty much unambiguously a vile act, something that all of us would consider to be contrary to our ethics. On the other hand, people who are not necessarily vile or evil people will, under certain circumstances, torture others. So, one hallmark of a "mature" game is that vile acts are not necessarily committed by vile people.

In addition, even those people whom we would consider to be "vile" are not acting in such a manner at all times. Unless he suffers from some kind of psychological malady, a person, even one who is completely immoral, is unlikely to commit any seriously vile or evil act without a very good reason, and without some mechanism of either escaping the blame for or justifying his act. This is simply because no society is likely to tolerate people acting in an extremely anti-social manner. Even a ruler is likely to face revolt if he wantonly murders people for no particular reason. So, I would say that a second hallmark of a mature game is that even vile people act in a largely rational manner, unless they are completely unhinged.

drquestion

 

[Silverthrone]

If you have a problem with something I did, e-mail me; taking it to the boards is against EN World policy.
Anyway: Try increasing your reading comprehension; I pointed out quite clearly that I didn't only move flames, but other useless stuff as well.

- Darkness

 

[Tonguez]

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

Vile isn't always evil -- intestines aren't evil but they are certainly vile..

Actually I consider intestines to be quite delicious, especially done in a light curry with onions and a rice base - Yummy

Anyway I'm with Sigil on this one and think his essay was expressed very well.

When I include 'vile' in my games I tend to suggest or allow the results to be seen (like Psycho's "blood running down the plug hole" or the suggestion of the the child winching as the priest caressed her face) the need to potray or worse experience such vileness is imho unneccesary.

Maturity comes with having to deal with dilemma, and confront the effects of Depravity

Evil that is subtle is far more enticing than the evil that is viable (which imho simply makes it yet another monster to kill)

Does that make any sense?

 

[Horacio]

I like evil in my games. True evil, scary evil, slick evil.
I like mature content in my game, the hidden underbelly of society and so on.

But I don't like vile. And I think Sigil explained perfectly why.
Vile != evil. Evil != vile.

But I don't understand why people complain about WotC publishing such a book. They don't say evil==vile, it's a book about Evil AND vile. I don't like it, I don't buy it. But why such a controversy?