New review of the Book of Erotic Fantasy

[Gellion]

I was joking about the Elf Pr0n comment i made earlier. Although i sill probably will not be able to get the book.

 

[Gregor]

Would you mind getting down from the cross? The rest of us need the wood.

*writes this line down to use at a later date*

 

[Henry]

BOEF - My favorite topic to see come up.

Let's please be civil in our opinions.

With that in mind, I don't see anything wrong with someone voicing their opinions on the book, whether that the work is tasteful and useful, to "it's the greatest thing ever!" to "I can't stand it," to "I wish it hadn't happened." Every one of the above is valid in my opinion.

What IS distasteful is insulting the artists, the models, the writers, and Valar, Inc. for putting in their time and effort, or insulting other posters for their beliefs or opinions on the work.

If the fur starts to fly, rest assured, this thread gets closed.

SAME as Book of Vile Darkness. SAME as WotC layoffs.

 

[heirodule]

If even the Lawful Good alignment doesn't prohibit sex outside of marriage, what's the point of characterizing sexual mores with alignment?

I think it reflects more the author's sexual preferences (free sex is good, duh) than any real reflection on the nature of alignment and sex.

And let me anticipate an objection, that chastity might be promoted by a particular religion that holds to LG. Ok, fine. We might assume that the religion will state that "sex outside of marriage is evil".

"Oh yeah", says the radical priest, "I cast detect evil on those fornicators over there and i didn't get any evil".

God: "Well, its disorderly, then"

"Nope, detect chaos isn't active either"

God: "umm. you shut up now"

An excellent case could be made that the lawful part of lawful good would particularly disallow fornication as being harmfull to society and institutions like marriage. But since Anthony "Vile Darkness" Valterra is coming from his Chaotic Neutral perspective on sex, he only addresses the LG alignement from the perpective of a "personal alignement", rather than seeing the Paladin as part of a group.

Fascinating, really.

 

[Henry]

With that said, I'll throw my hat into the ring as being one who KNOWS the type of content in the book, having the 32-page preview from Gencon.

Its material does contain a frank, open discussion about what sexual topics would be like, if they were covered in a D&D game. Use is made of magic, creatures, spells, items, etc. for purposes both beneficial and debased, just like a good or evil person in that world would do. New creatures both outsider and not, are introduced with common themes from fantasy work. New prestige classes are introduced for concepts from chastity to "the other end of the spectrum."

If you plan to use detailed sexual themes in your d20 RPG's, this work is tailor made for you; it covers almost all bases.

If you are a "fade to black" type of DM or player, this work will likely NOT be for you and your group.

I am 99.9999% certain that my group will not be using it, and likely will never do so. At most, the group might find a Pleasure Golem in the corner of one debased wizard's lair, but that'll be about it.

But I hope Valar finds the market it's shooting for, and that that market is profitable to them.

 

[Arnwyn]

Sexual themes in my D&D game?

Hell no. I'm steering clear of this one like the plague.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

....

Bravo, ArthurQ, bravo. I agree pretty much 100 percent. I don't find the picture that were posted her to be pornographic at all. There is a big difference between pornographic and erotic; much like there is a difference between sexy and trashy, or R rated movies with sex scenes and XXX rated movies. I'm not going to get into a discussion about the difference here. Grandma would not appreciate it, most likely. I'd call these pictures perhaps semi-erotic, but really, I think they are just pretty.

As for the book content itself, I am interested in seeing it, and when the day comes that I have extra cash to spend, I might go in search of it. Right now, there are just too many other RPG things I want to get first because they pertain to games I am in, and a game I plan to run. None of the groups I game with now have sexual content, or even really romantic content. I don't think the guys I play with would feel comfortable, and since everybody's comfort level is the most important thing to all involved, *we* probably will never use this book. But I'd still like to take a look at it.

Now, if it is a terrible book and not well written for what it is, then by all means, people, rip it apart. I can't say because I haven't read it. But if you are slamming the book just because you have a problem with sexual content in general, then that is just not right, nor fair, to those of us who don't have a problem with it. I don't particularly care for the "drama" genre in film , but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around telling people that Seabiscuit or The Hours is a terrible movie because I am sure that as dramas, they are probably great. They just aren't my thing.

I might, somewhere down the road, want to add those elements in a game and I think the book seems interesting. Although, one thing I don't quite understand is since sexuality and romance are such personal things to characters (ie. character specific...each individual has their own desires, needs and levels of sexuality), would it really be class and race specific?

Anyway...just my two cents. Back to work with me now...

 

[TiQuinn]

If you want to defend the book and make a post about why to buy this book do so... If not I would be happy if you whould spare us the lecture.

I second that.

 

[BSF]

I guess I can see the whole range of viewpoints on this. It is a loaded subject and one that I approached with trepidation. Especially with the initial press release. But, I have also checked out the site and I am a bit enthused about it.

I mean, c'mon, spells like Kiss of Life and Lifebond are neat. And, they are spells that I can see my bard wanting to use. Especially Kiss of Life! He is deeply in love with another PC and if she falls in combat, he would probably try to use the spell. Admittedly, there is a good chance that she would not want to return, but he would still try. I can see it being a very moving moment. Some people might shy away from it because there is the chance that the caster will lose a level, but I see that as a nice hook. I actually think the modifiers to the Fort Save should be reduced. But, that would make it less appealing to other gamers. *shrug*

I could comment on other things, but I am short on time right now.

I don't have the preview, so I can't judge the book overall. Some of the content is definitely not something I would use. Some of it looks like it has weak mechanics that will need to be reworked. The artwork is not that impressive IMO, but I certainly can see where others will enjoy it. All-in-all, it doesn't look any more or less appealing than a lot of d20 supplements out there.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I just wish that the pro-BOEF folks wouldn't automatically assume that the anti-BOEF folks are immature prudes (at best) or jack-booted right-wing censors (at worst).

How about accepting the fact that some folks think the whole idea is just friggin' GOOFY.

There's a time and a place for sex, and the gamin' table ain't it.

Wulf