Tracy Hickman's view of the Dragon #300 sealed section

[Mercule]

Tracy's post does concern me, though, since apparently we do have some self-confessed ultra-conservative gamers (Furn here, for example), who might be alienated by the issuance of products like BoVD. To those, all I can say is: Don't buy it. I myself will, and will use the information therein to illustrate the "tragic cautionary tale" of those who fall to evil. It's a means of reinforcing certain kinds of morality, not eroding them.

Being of the ultra-conservative ilk myself, I wouldn't worry about BoVD alienating too many of us. I often (though not always) like the antagonists I use as DM to be blantantly evil. This is especially true in a game like D&D where the PCs will most likely willfully slay their opponent.

I plan on buying the BoVD for several reasons. The two biggest of which are:

1) My understanding is that it contains 3E stats for Archdevils and Demon Princes. I love using such beings (Demogorgon is my personal favorite) as the ultimate threat because they are unquestionably, supernaturally evil. They also are opponents of such magnitude that thwarting them is very impressive and rewarding for the PCs.

2) There are fine lines between Horrific Evil and camp and schlocky gore. I hope this book has quite a bit of discussion on how to portray the former while avoiding the latter two. I've been DMing for 20 years and I still feel the need for an essay or two on that topic.

I do have to say that the whole thing could turn out to be hideous debacle that would turn me off and offend. Based on track record, though, I trust Monte in this matter (at least as much as anyone else).

 

[buzz]

I just want to point something out:

What about the Comic Book Code that prohibited anyone writing for D&D from indulging in such excrement?

and

It then goes on to completely dismantle, point by point, the same comic book code that we all worked so hard to protect for a quarter of a century.

I'm assuming that Hickman is referring here to the Comics Code Authority created by noted crackpot Dr. Frederick Wertham and imposed upon the comic-publishing industry in the mid-1950's. You can read the actual code here:
http://www.comics.dm.net/codetext.htm

First off, the Code was based on Wertham's unsupported "reserach" that comic books contributed to the delinquency of minors and needed to be "cleaned up", if allowed to exist at all. The government of the US bought into his hysteria, and the comics publishing industry had its creativity crushed under their iron boot. Thankfully, most comic book publishers no longer pay attention to this code. It is antiquated and ridiculously restrictive.

As far as I know, D&D products have never been required to adhere to this code, and if Hickman had even a clue about the code, would know that almost *no D&D product ever produced* would meet any of its ridiculous standards.

That, and nobody "fought" for the code; it was imposed on an unwilling comiccs industry by government pollyannas.

Hickman needs to look beyond his own products. I imagine he's never played Call of Cthulhu.

Don’t you know that Goths and the whole post-modern cynicism is so-last-decade?

I can agree wiht this. WotC is coming pretty late in the game for "edgy" gaming material.

But it still doens't change the fact that, if Hickman is so outraged by this, it makes me wonder whether he's read any game books not authored by his own hand in the last ten years. Half of the content in the sealed section was a continuation of a topic that appeared in a previous, "unsealed" issue (monster cultists), not to mention the "all-Drow" issue which was just about as "vile."

I seem to remeber respresentatives from Dragon/WotC mentioning on ENWorld (or at least it was reported here) that the sealed section was really just a marketing gimmick. It wasn't really because tere was content "harmful to minors" or anything.

And, to reply to Chris Culey, no one knows whether or not there will be a "Book of Exalted Deeds." Cook said it was not outside the realm of possibility. Not to mention, *all* the D&D books focus on the game being about good triumphing over evil. That there's *one* book published that's about the perspective of the villains shouldn't get any rational adult's panties in a bind.

And who knows how the actual BoVD will treat the subject? It seems very much to be marketed as a DM resource. Given Cook's tasteful, ration treatment of the subject in the "How Vile?" article, I can't imagine that BoVD is going to be about pandering to the needs of gore fans.

Look, despite Hickman's unfounded claims that D&D is a "family game", the real truth is that the main audience of D&D are adults in the 20-30 range. Adults sometimes deal with the unsavory topics that the BoVD supposedly addresses. Given the high quality of Monte Cook's work so far, I think it's safe to assume that the book will take a *genuinely mature* attitude towards these subjects.

Anyway, if Hickman is the mature, reasonable Mormon he claims to be, he should post an apology for his massive overreaction to Dragon #300. By flying into hysterics, he's being just as bad as all the BADD nabobs that made D&D's life so difficult in the 1980's.

And more importantly, if he doesn't like the BoVD, HE SHOULDN'T BUY IT.

 

[dpdx]

Nice Straw Man!!

I'm not ashamed to say it--I agree with Tracy Hickman in regard to the supposedly "mature" content of the sealed section of Dragon Magazine. It's despicable and it should not have been included. It's also a cheap marketing ploy but that doesn't make it any less vile or despicable. It also doesn't justify its printing. I suppose in the eyes of half the posters here, that makes me
"hateful", "bigoted", "narrowminded", a "religious zealot", and numerous other ad-homonim substitutes...

No, but it indicates that you are telling me (and others) not only what, but also how to think.

At the risk of being vile and dark myself, I will merely tell you that you do not have that right.

 

[Talaysen]

*Sigh* Ok - clarification

I don't know if nemm and Henry were referring to my comments, but just to be clear - I wasn't trying to bash anyone. I was raised Mormon, and while I chose to leave the Church, I still respect it. I have plenty of friends who are Mormon and they're good people.

But those friends of mine wouldn't like the Book of Vile Darkness, and a lot of Mormons wouldn't. It's just...how they'd be raised. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with them or with the BoVD, it's just that they're probably incompatible. And speaking as someone who had a lot of contact with Mormons from Utah, I can tell you that if you could define, geographically, those folks who had a problem with the BoVD, you'd probably find a whole heckuva lot of them in Utah. It's the geographical center of the church, so it's to be expected.

I'll say it again: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. It's a religion as valid as any other. If anything I said came off as "bashing," I sincerely apologize.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Nice Straw Man!!

No, but it indicates that you are telling me (and others) not only what, but also how to think.

At the risk of being vile and dark myself, I will merely tell you that you do not have that right.

And what you are writing differs from that... how again?

 

[buzz]

Hickman may also want to take note of this article at rpg.net as evidence that even *his* morally pure work could possibly inspire "vile" behavior:

I wanked to the Art of Dragonlance as a kid. I mean, just look at the legs on all the women in the old Elmore covers for the Chronicles. That was heady stuff for a twelve-year old kid. This has probably mutated my sexuality beyond repair, but I don't think I'm alone. Growing older, I have started to suspect I was a victim of conscious marketing choices.

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/nogood13sep02.html

 

[Mercule]

Re: Immaturity

Keep your morals to yourself. Everyone else has plenty of their own--like FREE SPEECH, for one.

Well, now. If that isn't the pinnacle of hypocrisy!

 

[Metalsmith]

D20 TERRORISM
Yesterday I found a terrorist attack in my mailbox.

On a Troll score of 1-10 10 being the best. I give it a 1. I expected better from someone who writes for a living.

Metalsmith

 

[Talaysen]

The Comics Code

Thought it might be useful to put this in context too.

A few decades ago there were some hearings - yes, as in Congressional, if memory serves - on the subject of comic books and their effect on America's sweet, innocent youth. (*snort* *snort* *guffaw*) These were inspired by a movement against comics led most notably by a psychologist named Frederick Wertham. (Among other things Wertham was associated with a clinic that "rehabilitated" homosexual men, as I recall. It was a different era.)

The Comics Code Authority was an industry thing formed in an effort to stave off government regulation. Essentially, if you didn't have the CCA stamp on your books, stores would not sell them. The CCA forced a lot of crap onto comic books - the horror comics were gutted (and, to be fair, they had been getting kind of gruesome), but on top of that, perfectly innocent scenes had to be altered. For example, in one issue of "Plastic Man," according to the original version, PM's sidekick ended up drinking the villain, who was made of water and had been confined in a pitcher. The CCA insisted that they change the dialogue so that it seemed as though he had dumped the villain down the drain and cleaned the pitcher, even though the image of the sidekick holding the pitcher up to his mouth remained intact. As the delightfully droll caption accompanying this anecdote notes, thanks to the CCA's vigilance, no child who read that issue of Plastic Man ever became a cannibal.

Eventually - I think in the 1980s - the comic book companies realized that they could tell the CCA to go jump in a lake and sell books through direct marketing. And now, of course, though some books still bear the CCA seal of approval, most comic shops will sell just about anything.

The CCA was NOT a good thing overall. It served, for a time, to prevent government interference in the efforts of creators, but it interfered itself, stifling and even destroying many wonderful tales.

(And you should also read buzz's post, above.)

 

[Ghostwind]

Well, I have sat here and read every post from Tracy's intial "rant" to the latest. Tracy is certainly entitled to his opinion and I am willing to bet that if the magazine had arrived in his mailbox on any other day than it did, this whole thread would not be near as active (or reactive for that matter). One of the facts about living in this nation is you have a right to express your opinion just as people have a right to disagree with it and express theirs. No one here denies that.

Now the whole 9/11 thing aside, which really has no bearing on the Dragon issue itself other than the timing of the mail, Monte Cook himself has said on more than one occassion that the BoVD is not truly a "mature" book. He has likened it to the same sort of content you see in Marvel Comic's Marvel Knights line. Does this mean it is so graphic and mature that you must be over 18 to even buy it? Nope. Wotc isn't willing to go that far. What they've done is cleverly put together a strategy to make the book appeal to gamers who are actively looking for ways to give a darker feel to their games. Face it folks, evil sells. Look at the success of White Wolf's Vampire or Werewolf lines. Wotc is simply trying to tap into that appeal yet not produce any content that is actually truly vile.

Anyone want to take a guess at how many more copies of Dragon 300 were just guaranteed by Mr. Hickman's letter? What probably would have been an issue that sold slightly higher than normal has most likely assured a huge sales increase due to the controversy. Gotta love marketing...

To actively condemn Tracy for his views is wrong and in poor taste. I do not agree with the manner in which he has made his point, but I still respect it. His personal beliefs in no way diminishes his skill or talents as a writer. Contrary to what some people may believe, it is possible to separate your personal convictions from your professional career. People have to do it all the time in the workplace. When Tracy is writing, he must create memorable villains in order to emphasize the forces of good. This means alluding to acts of vileness in order to make the good shine better. To say that he is a hypocrite because his writings reflect the very thing he condemns is also the wrong thing to do.

Tracy is one voice in a large industry of professionals who are often at odds with how they perceive the direction in which the industry should pursue and also with each other. His views are strictly that, his views. Accept that and then make your own rational decision about BoVD. If you like it, buy it. If not, then don't...