Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 837426" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.</blockquote>

Verification