Sealed Pages in Dragon--Contents inside!

[Furn_Darkside]

It's not only pornographic, it's thoroughly disgusting!

It is also stupid, and if Corpsebond is a standard for the BoVD- I will pass. Splatterpunk is lazy writing.

However- until it goes beyond a preview article for one book, then I would not suggest it is the "way" d&d is going.

Do I think children or their parents will be upset about this?

*shrug* Time will tell, but if they don't complain about crap like "American Pie" and such- then I don't want to hear it about d&d.

FD

 

[Nathanael]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with both BC and Henry,(or B.A.D.D. in general, it seems). First of all, what television programmes are you watching? Even Buffy the Vampire Slayer never get's anywhere close to the material described in those spells, and that is probably the strongest content on broadcast television.

And I'm not simply talking about the far right religious zealots, here. For some reason, some think that those are the only people who would find this material objectionable. Not so. What do you think I am? I'm a moderate, who watches BTVS, reads Harry Potter, and plays D&D. And there are many others like me in the gaming community. My entire group is made up of people who, while differing greatly in tolerances and political opinion, all agree that this material is best left to the individual to come up with on his own, not to publish in a magazine or book with the D&D imprint on it.

There will be concern when a parent who has heard opinions about 'D&D' from her zealot friends but chose to ignore them as zealotry, sees the large 'mature content' label and looks inside of her child's subscription issue...

 

[barsoomcore]

Nathanael, I think we've had this conversation and I don't see much point in continuing the debate. I understand your concern. I don't share it, but I understand it.

Now, let's get down to details.

Is 'copulating with a corpse' a standard action? Or is it move-equivalent, so you could copulate with two corpses in a single round? Does it provoke an attack of opportunity?

 

[Henry]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with both BC and Henry,(or B.A.D.D. in general, it seems). First of all, what television programmes are you watching? Even Buffy the Vampire Slayer never get's anywhere close to the material described in those spells, and that is probably the strongest content on broadcast television.

Buffy has been having sex with corpses since Season Two. It's actually her preferred 'thing.'

Also, The whole "evil baby explodes from your stomach" thing has been around since the "Alien" series of movies, from 1980 onward. Furthermore, I would surmise that this is the origin of this spell, or perhaps the 2nd Warlock movie.

I'll stop here, because this is a very well-worn issue. I respectfully disagree with your opinion that this is a major downturn for D&D, and that it will cause a small public uproar. The future will prove us right, wrong, or perhaps both.

 

[Aitch Eye]

It is also stupid, and if Corpsebond is a standard for the BoVD- I will pass. Splatterpunk is lazy writing.

However- until it goes beyond a preview article for one book, then I would not suggest it is the "way" d&d is going.

FD

Actually, while the article did mention stuff from BoVD (it refers to some of the drug rules), I don't think it should be considered an actual preview as such. It was written by James Jacobs.

 

[heirodule]

Things you can do with maggots...

5. Spell: Rain of Maggots. Like meteor swarm, but keep your mouth covered.

8. Spell: Maggoty Finger of Death. Like Finger of Death, but creatures affected are consumed from within by maggots.

What we need is a metamagic feat:

Energy Substitution: Maggots

That could lead to

Energy substitution: spiders
Energy substitution: slime
Energy substitution: pus
Energy substitution: feces
Energy substitution: butterflies

etc.

 

[barsoomcore]

I'm going for

Energy Substitution: George W. Bush

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Actually, while the article did mention stuff from BoVD (it refers to some of the drug rules), I don't think it should be considered an actual preview as such. It was written by James Jacobs.

Well- it is there to build up hype for the BoVD.

Perhaps "preview" was not the best word, but the purpose of the article is not in doubt.

FD

 

[kenjib]

Actually, while the article did mention stuff from BoVD (it refers to some of the drug rules), I don't think it should be considered an actual preview as such. It was written by James Jacobs.

Interesting point. I wonder if the BoVD will have things like necrophilia and spell-rape in it as well. Well Monte said that there wasn't rape, but here in the Dragon Magazine issue there are already two instances of it via spells (one is borderline, granted). I've been defending the book in the past, but I'm starting to wonder now. I'll wait and see. Perhaps the actual book will be a little different? I'm thoroughly liberal but this kind of content is just not interesting to me. It just isn't my thing to roleplay sexual violation, even with villains. Plus I've got kids in my house all the time and I don't want this kind of material sitting around the house. It's kind of a shame because I am looking forward to some of the other expected content.

I'm not so sure about how I feel regarding it being under the D&D line. If these two spells are any indicator, it probably would have been better released as a third party d20 product, but it's no big deal to me.

Well, I guess I'll wait and see!

 

[Aitch Eye]

Well- it is there to build up hype for the BoVD.

Perhaps "preview" was not the best word, but the purpose of the article is not in doubt.

FD

True, but you suggested that it might be representative of the material in BoVD; however, it's not described as being an expansion to the book, has a different author, and different editors. While it may be that it is representative, it's not really clear that the article says much about the content of the book.