[POLL] Vile or not?
- Thread starter MerakSpielman
- Start date
Flexor the Mighty! said:
I'd like to say I agree with Flexor and add this caveat: It depends on the product. Book of Vile Darkness, publish all you want. I won't buy but I know a lot of folks who will and won't deny some people really like that style of gaming. Putting vile (of the nipple clamp variety) into the PHB, Dragon Mag or other general audience/mainstream or "core" products I vote a resounding no.
Henry
Autoexreginated
I voted "yes" due to the ambiguity of the poll. I do not believe that WotC nor any other company should cease publication of material dealing with dark subject matter - were this the case, Necromancer Games might as well be included, because their adventure materials hearken to a time when all AD&D material was of a darker tone, dealing with sacrifice, dark rites, and demons and devils preying on the weak.
However, I also believe that material covering more "mature" themes (for lack of better terminology) should be marked as including such, much the same way that computer games are now marked. It gives discerning parents a better way to mark such materials. But "vile or not" is too ambiguous to be answered fully.
However, I also believe that material covering more "mature" themes (for lack of better terminology) should be marked as including such, much the same way that computer games are now marked. It gives discerning parents a better way to mark such materials. But "vile or not" is too ambiguous to be answered fully.
Maerdwyn
First Post
I can't vote "no" because I think there is a place for "vile" content - that is, those who want to play that style of game should be able to buy it.
However, since I don'twant to buy it or run that style of game, I'd rather see it published in seperate products, outside the core books and supplements aimed at the entire D&D community.
Vile content in the BOVD, or a particular campaign setting: fine, so long as it's marked as such, and everyone knows what they are buying or not buying.
Vile content in Dragon or (to make up a hypothetical example), the new "Complete" character class series: not so cool, IMHO
However, since I don'twant to buy it or run that style of game, I'd rather see it published in seperate products, outside the core books and supplements aimed at the entire D&D community.
Vile content in the BOVD, or a particular campaign setting: fine, so long as it's marked as such, and everyone knows what they are buying or not buying.
Vile content in Dragon or (to make up a hypothetical example), the new "Complete" character class series: not so cool, IMHO
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
Psion
Adventurer
arnwyn said:
Just so. The mere production of vile product I am perfectly free to not buy is not a problem. Having it pervade the product lines would be a problem.
That said, my stance is much harder on Dungeon and Dragon. Those magazines are subscribed to by a general audience, and they should fail conservative there to service as wide an audience as possible.
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
The poll is too ambiguous.
Do I personally want to see Vile content? No.
Should it be published SOMEWHERE? Yes - everyone has the right to get what they want.
Should it be published in the Core Rules/Dragon/Dungeon? No.
There *is* a place for Vile material. But "mainstream" D&D material is not that place. While I found the BoVD tacky, tasteless, and unnecessary, there appears to be a market for it - so go ahead and publish it - those of us who don't want it won't buy it. But mixing Vile material with "mainstream/core" stuff like the Core Rulebooks or Dragon/Dungeon gives those who don't want Vile material nowhere to go to avoid it.
Kind of like a "smoking" or a "non-smoking" room at a hotel. Have rooms that are designated as "smoking" and "non-smoking" and everyone gets to indulge their preference. If you don't separate them, everything eventually defaults to "smoking" and "non-smokers" get offended - because they have nowhere to go to be free of the smoke.
So, similarly, have "mainstream/core/family-friendly" material and "vile" material separate - then those who want vile have a place to go, but those of us who don't have somewhere we can go where we can be free of it.
IMO, YMMV, all that stuff.
--The Sigil
Do I personally want to see Vile content? No.
Should it be published SOMEWHERE? Yes - everyone has the right to get what they want.
Should it be published in the Core Rules/Dragon/Dungeon? No.
There *is* a place for Vile material. But "mainstream" D&D material is not that place. While I found the BoVD tacky, tasteless, and unnecessary, there appears to be a market for it - so go ahead and publish it - those of us who don't want it won't buy it. But mixing Vile material with "mainstream/core" stuff like the Core Rulebooks or Dragon/Dungeon gives those who don't want Vile material nowhere to go to avoid it.
Kind of like a "smoking" or a "non-smoking" room at a hotel. Have rooms that are designated as "smoking" and "non-smoking" and everyone gets to indulge their preference. If you don't separate them, everything eventually defaults to "smoking" and "non-smokers" get offended - because they have nowhere to go to be free of the smoke.
So, similarly, have "mainstream/core/family-friendly" material and "vile" material separate - then those who want vile have a place to go, but those of us who don't have somewhere we can go where we can be free of it.
IMO, YMMV, all that stuff.
--The Sigil
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
I have the same sort of problem with this poll that I have with online 'purity' tests.
The problem is that the people using the word 'purity' and the people using the word 'vile' don't only use them in one context, but instead confuse the issue by including a large number of things that shouldn't fall under the definition in the over arching rubric of 'vile' and 'impure'.
For instance, normally in a 'purity' test you lose a point of purity for having held the hand of a member of the opposite sex. Ok, how is that 'impure'? You also lose a point of 'purity' for various acts which are things not discussed in my opinion outside a married couple, but for which are certainly in that context (I assure you) not degrading to either party. And yet, you also lose the same 1 point for acts of rape, abuse, torture, self degradation, and so forth (including many topics which fall under the rubric of 'vile' and won't get mentioned here). How is this the same as holding hands?
The definition of 'purity' is not clearly defined in the minds of the test maker, and basically seems to mean the whole range of romantic and sexual behavior some of which most of us will agree is 'impure' in the sence of 'not good to engage in' and some of which most of us will agree is 'pure' in the sence of 'quite edifying to engage in'. I'm sure that everyone is aware that along the edges of social norms there are some grey areas where reasonable people will disagree what constitutes 'pure' and 'impure', but I'm also fairly certain that there are some behaviors at the extreme edges of the test almost no one is going to condone or condemn (or at least admit to condoning or condemning).
The same thing happens with 'vile'. Alot of the stuff in the BoVD was not particularly 'vile'. Some of it was just the normal level of evil that you'd expect most D&D players to deal with.
'Goo' is not vile. 'Gooey' is a childish definition of 'vile' given by someone who thankfully is innocent enough to not have much experience with real evil. Material that is just 'Ewww that is gross' is not vile, its just juvenile and frankly don't see why it needs a special topic. Maggots, green slime, mold, and so forth are not 'vile'. They are just 'gross', and perfectly fine in even a pre-teen's game. I don't need a book to tell me how to play on my players squimishness, and while I could, I don't think my players would thank me for emphasizing that to the point that they had to run to the bathroom to empty there stomachs of pizza and Mt. Dew. I don't see how that is good for any game.
Some things which are truly 'vile', say treachery, torture, slavery, and murder can be dealt with sensibly but for the most part these things don't need alot of rules and anyone mature enough to include such topics in his games probably is aware enough to have realistic treachery, torture, slavery, and murder without getting alot of advice on it.
Some fantasy things meant to be 'vile', say 'black speach' or 'vile damage' aren't really all that vile at all, they are just made up 'evil villian stuff'. Bring such things on. The don't do any harm to anyone.
But at some level, 'vile' is just plain 'vile' and I don't think anyone needs to publish a D&D supplement containing references to things that are really vile. Anyone experienced enough to be aware of such things, and who wishes to include them in his game probably is going to be able to do so.
So, more 'evil fantasy villian stuff'. More 'goo' if you just have too. But leave the vile stuff alone in published products, especially when mixed in with things that aren't really all that vile. Vile isn't a synonym for maturity, and a truly and exclusively vile product wouldn't sell that well. Nor do I wish to live in a world where it did.
The problem is that the people using the word 'purity' and the people using the word 'vile' don't only use them in one context, but instead confuse the issue by including a large number of things that shouldn't fall under the definition in the over arching rubric of 'vile' and 'impure'.
For instance, normally in a 'purity' test you lose a point of purity for having held the hand of a member of the opposite sex. Ok, how is that 'impure'? You also lose a point of 'purity' for various acts which are things not discussed in my opinion outside a married couple, but for which are certainly in that context (I assure you) not degrading to either party. And yet, you also lose the same 1 point for acts of rape, abuse, torture, self degradation, and so forth (including many topics which fall under the rubric of 'vile' and won't get mentioned here). How is this the same as holding hands?
The definition of 'purity' is not clearly defined in the minds of the test maker, and basically seems to mean the whole range of romantic and sexual behavior some of which most of us will agree is 'impure' in the sence of 'not good to engage in' and some of which most of us will agree is 'pure' in the sence of 'quite edifying to engage in'. I'm sure that everyone is aware that along the edges of social norms there are some grey areas where reasonable people will disagree what constitutes 'pure' and 'impure', but I'm also fairly certain that there are some behaviors at the extreme edges of the test almost no one is going to condone or condemn (or at least admit to condoning or condemning).
The same thing happens with 'vile'. Alot of the stuff in the BoVD was not particularly 'vile'. Some of it was just the normal level of evil that you'd expect most D&D players to deal with.
'Goo' is not vile. 'Gooey' is a childish definition of 'vile' given by someone who thankfully is innocent enough to not have much experience with real evil. Material that is just 'Ewww that is gross' is not vile, its just juvenile and frankly don't see why it needs a special topic. Maggots, green slime, mold, and so forth are not 'vile'. They are just 'gross', and perfectly fine in even a pre-teen's game. I don't need a book to tell me how to play on my players squimishness, and while I could, I don't think my players would thank me for emphasizing that to the point that they had to run to the bathroom to empty there stomachs of pizza and Mt. Dew. I don't see how that is good for any game.
Some things which are truly 'vile', say treachery, torture, slavery, and murder can be dealt with sensibly but for the most part these things don't need alot of rules and anyone mature enough to include such topics in his games probably is aware enough to have realistic treachery, torture, slavery, and murder without getting alot of advice on it.
Some fantasy things meant to be 'vile', say 'black speach' or 'vile damage' aren't really all that vile at all, they are just made up 'evil villian stuff'. Bring such things on. The don't do any harm to anyone.
But at some level, 'vile' is just plain 'vile' and I don't think anyone needs to publish a D&D supplement containing references to things that are really vile. Anyone experienced enough to be aware of such things, and who wishes to include them in his game probably is going to be able to do so.
So, more 'evil fantasy villian stuff'. More 'goo' if you just have too. But leave the vile stuff alone in published products, especially when mixed in with things that aren't really all that vile. Vile isn't a synonym for maturity, and a truly and exclusively vile product wouldn't sell that well. Nor do I wish to live in a world where it did.
Last edited:
People can publish whatever they want, but I think it would be best to keep vile content out of dragon and dungeon magazine as well as the core books. Personally, I like mature content but I don't like vile content. I would classify the BoVD and tie-ins in Dragon/Dungeon in the latter category.
EDIT: This seems to be a common position in this thread. It is also the most moderate position. Perhaps it's the best compromise?
EDIT: This seems to be a common position in this thread. It is also the most moderate position. Perhaps it's the best compromise?
Last edited:
Shard O'Glase
First Post
YES.
I want it labeled though, you know a mature label like movies, video games, and music.
Also I liekly wouldn't buy it, the BoVD jsut sucked IMO. Some of the ideas were ok, but most of the feats sucked, I guess evil is weak, the archfieds were wussies, the items/spells were mostly unispired shock value pieces, just bleh.
Some of the rules pieces and ideas were worthwhile though I can come up with much more vile stuff easily. But rules ofr sacrifices etc should be in the game as an option IMO.
I want it labeled though, you know a mature label like movies, video games, and music.
Also I liekly wouldn't buy it, the BoVD jsut sucked IMO. Some of the ideas were ok, but most of the feats sucked, I guess evil is weak, the archfieds were wussies, the items/spells were mostly unispired shock value pieces, just bleh.
Some of the rules pieces and ideas were worthwhile though I can come up with much more vile stuff easily. But rules ofr sacrifices etc should be in the game as an option IMO.
Similar Threads
