Darrin Drader
Explorer
Elder-Basilisk said:
Drats! My efforts to poison the well foiled again.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Tracy Hickman's view of the Dragon #300 sealed section
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
- Status
Drats! My efforts to poison the well foiled again.
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Well, Mr. Hickman is quite entitled to his views. I don't think that his 9/11 analogies and such were really a good approach, for it seems tenuous at best, in so far as equating "terrorist attitudes" and "villain attitudes." More importantly however, what is with the whole sub-thread going on of Christian-bashing, or conservative-bashing? Even if it is subtle, the snide little venom and contempt is easily discerned. It seems that it is popular that everyone in society--no matter how stupid, or vile, has the righteous right of free-speech--except conservatives or Christians. Because someone desires to have some level of moral consciousness in game products doesn't make them a narrow-minded extremist--Christian or otherwise.
Many people here seem to be over-reacting every bit as much as they claim Mr. Hickman did. It's just an opinion piece on a magazine. So what? Get another cup of coffee, and read the newspaper or move on to something else. Whether you agree with Mr. Hickman's article, in whole or in part, fine. But it doesn't seem to be something to get all worked up over, you know?
Just some thoughts.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well, Mr. Hickman is quite entitled to his views. I don't think that his 9/11 analogies and such were really a good approach, for it seems tenuous at best, in so far as equating "terrorist attitudes" and "villain attitudes." More importantly however, what is with the whole sub-thread going on of Christian-bashing, or conservative-bashing? Even if it is subtle, the snide little venom and contempt is easily discerned. It seems that it is popular that everyone in society--no matter how stupid, or vile, has the righteous right of free-speech--except conservatives or Christians. Because someone desires to have some level of moral consciousness in game products doesn't make them a narrow-minded extremist--Christian or otherwise.
Many people here seem to be over-reacting every bit as much as they claim Mr. Hickman did. It's just an opinion piece on a magazine. So what? Get another cup of coffee, and read the newspaper or move on to something else. Whether you agree with Mr. Hickman's article, in whole or in part, fine. But it doesn't seem to be something to get all worked up over, you know?
Just some thoughts.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
RabidWombat
First Post
Someone mentioned earlier something about Tracy defending his Christian beliefs on his web site was an indication that he somehow feels that D&D is wrong (sorry about the paraphrase). I can't and will not speak for Tracy but I don't think this is a valid point.
The reason I say this is that there have been so many false things said in the Christian community about D&D, that you get a little defensive about it. This doesn't indicate any feelings of guilt in playing D&D and is probable more of a reactionary response (much like his rant in my opinion).
I know that when 2nd edition came out I was disapointed to see devils and demons removed, because to me it was compromising to people would never ever play or buy a D&D product. While restricting those who do.
All I can say is if you don't want BoVD or Dragon #300, don't buy it and that will say more than any rant will. Just my 2 cents.
The reason I say this is that there have been so many false things said in the Christian community about D&D, that you get a little defensive about it. This doesn't indicate any feelings of guilt in playing D&D and is probable more of a reactionary response (much like his rant in my opinion).
I know that when 2nd edition came out I was disapointed to see devils and demons removed, because to me it was compromising to people would never ever play or buy a D&D product. While restricting those who do.
All I can say is if you don't want BoVD or Dragon #300, don't buy it and that will say more than any rant will. Just my 2 cents.
Airwolf
First Post
Sad Sad Sad
Three things make me sad after reading the TH article and the replies.
A. WotC is publishing the BoVD, which they have every right to do.
B. TH responding in such a manner, which he has every right to do.
C. The attacks my many from this board on TH and his religion. IMNSHO even mentioning his religion is a form of attack and should have caused the mods to close this thread, which they have every right not to.
Both B and C remind me of that really crazy guy, what's his name? .... Oh yeah, Jack Chick.
My form of protest will be to not buy the BoVD.
Long live the flames!
Three things make me sad after reading the TH article and the replies.
A. WotC is publishing the BoVD, which they have every right to do.
B. TH responding in such a manner, which he has every right to do.
C. The attacks my many from this board on TH and his religion. IMNSHO even mentioning his religion is a form of attack and should have caused the mods to close this thread, which they have every right not to.
Both B and C remind me of that really crazy guy, what's his name? .... Oh yeah, Jack Chick.
My form of protest will be to not buy the BoVD.
Long live the flames!
What????
People have been playing evil games for years. These same people have been doing the same thing that the BOVD probably
describes as evil. Your kids can still plat the game. Just monitor
them as you would anything they do. Or play with them.
It is a bit of a gimmick though. I think that the book is more
about running evil than being evil though. DM's are using
their Evil NPC's to do very nasty vile things.
Why would your heros venture forth to stop evil if the only thing
EVIL did was try to cheat a town out of their tax money. They rape,pillage,kill,and rape! They like the rape. The local lawyers and constables can handle that crap.
There are many forms of evil. There is The Son Of Sam, then there is Ted Turner. Burrrrrr.
People have been playing evil games for years. These same people have been doing the same thing that the BOVD probably
describes as evil. Your kids can still plat the game. Just monitor
them as you would anything they do. Or play with them.
It is a bit of a gimmick though. I think that the book is more
about running evil than being evil though. DM's are using
their Evil NPC's to do very nasty vile things.
Why would your heros venture forth to stop evil if the only thing
EVIL did was try to cheat a town out of their tax money. They rape,pillage,kill,and rape! They like the rape. The local lawyers and constables can handle that crap.
There are many forms of evil. There is The Son Of Sam, then there is Ted Turner. Burrrrrr.
qstor
Adventurer
I tend to agree with him. Like Tracy I agree that the standard of conduct that TSR followed in the 1980's and early 90's was a good thing. I don't think they needed to call the book "the Book of Vile Darkness" I will probably buy it. Yet only for the demon and devil lords stats. These should be been provided in another products maybe an full epic level MM. The main reason I agree with him is that I think the CHristian Right will come out again in full force when they see this book. I am not some right wing nut that thinks all mentions of devils and demons needs to be removed from the game.
Rather I think they should be called Demons and Devils but don't flash out in bright lights...Mature content. Book of Vile Darkness, sex, drugs, prostitution! Even sex with a corpse.
The RPGA still follows the standards of conduct. As a member, I fully support that. The Living Greyhawk module River of Blood orginally had mention of child rape. I think that Erik Mona is one of the best writers that WOTC has. But I think he went overboard with that. I run a standard game as mentioned in Dragon #300 p.45. I think that if players and DM's want to run a mature game or Vile game feel free by all means go for it. But I think that there are enough real life sources to draw on without having WOTC publish new ones. Go out and get the Satanist bible!
*dons abestos suit and ducks for cover*
Mike
Rather I think they should be called Demons and Devils but don't flash out in bright lights...Mature content. Book of Vile Darkness, sex, drugs, prostitution! Even sex with a corpse.
The RPGA still follows the standards of conduct. As a member, I fully support that. The Living Greyhawk module River of Blood orginally had mention of child rape. I think that Erik Mona is one of the best writers that WOTC has. But I think he went overboard with that. I run a standard game as mentioned in Dragon #300 p.45. I think that if players and DM's want to run a mature game or Vile game feel free by all means go for it. But I think that there are enough real life sources to draw on without having WOTC publish new ones. Go out and get the Satanist bible!
*dons abestos suit and ducks for cover*
Mike
Joseph Elric Smith
First Post
No we don't. Wow I never realized he was a LDS member also. Well Now I am sure people will go back to thinking we are whackos again.
I do think he repsonce was a bit over the top, if you dont; like something then don;t buy it, and or tell others why you dis like it, but don;t try to practice censor ship
ken
I do think he repsonce was a bit over the top, if you dont; like something then don;t buy it, and or tell others why you dis like it, but don;t try to practice censor ship
ken
Henry said:
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice Straw Man!!
Obviously, you believe that censorship - including self-censorship - is "truly immoral." In other words, you value freedom of expression above sensibility - including your own sensibilities. I'm not entirely sure that's feasible - I think my own sensibilities naturally censor me.
I liken this to secondhand cigarette smoke. Well, if I don't want to get all the crap present in cigarette smoke into my lungs, I shouldn't smoke cigarettes. Fine... until you say, "now you must eat in a room where cigarette smoking is allowed." The burden placed upon me to filter the air in the room to avoid getting secondhand smoke is enormous. Where does my right to choose not to breathe smoke begin and end? Where does my right to choose to smoke begin and end?
In the same manner as secondhand smoke, placing "adult content" for the user to "filter" in magazines creates an undue (IMO) burden on the user who does not wish to have the content. In fact, the filtering process itself REQUIRES me to expose myself to content I have no desire to expose myself to. Do you see the contradiction inherent here? You essentially say that your right to read such content trumps my right not to have to read such content (even if only to filter it).
Where does my right to filter the content that gets to me begin and end? Where does your right to have any content you want begin and end? It's a tough, tough line to define.
IMO, if WotC/Dragon wants to do "adult" stuff, fine... just put it in another magazine. I can read Time without worrying that I'll find stuff suitable for Playboy - this in no way restricts freedom of speech of either Time or Playboy.
The problem, IMO, is, that unlike other venues, where there are "conservative" and "liberal" magazines - allowing conservatives to choose "filtered" versions and liberals to choose "unfiltered" versions, we don't have that in the RPG industry. We have one magazine. If it's "unfiltered" we offend the conservatives. If it's "filtered" we offend the liberals. If it's "mostly filtered" we offend the ultra-liberals and the ultra-conservatives. That, IMO, is the smallest group that can be offended.
IMO, Dragon needs to be "mostly-filtered," not "totally filtered." But I think they do a disservice to more of their readership when they give us "unfiltered" material. But I also see that there is no easy way out unless another publication for "more (im)mature" stuff comes out.
[QUOTE}As for the principles behind the inclusion, I guess it's for money. I respect that. It is their objective as a business, their duty to shareholders, and if evil sells it ultimately is because the consumers buy it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Agree. Though if it is evil, I suppose that is an indictment against their conusmers. Is it also an indictment against them for having no scruples and pursuing the lowest common denominator? Maybe.
Thanks for your thoughtful response - look forward to more (from you and others)!
--The Sigil
Here, I disagree. I think my original question is valid. Is Dragon an "adult" magazine? No. Why then include "adult content?"Zappo said:
Obviously, you believe that censorship - including self-censorship - is "truly immoral." In other words, you value freedom of expression above sensibility - including your own sensibilities. I'm not entirely sure that's feasible - I think my own sensibilities naturally censor me.
I liken this to secondhand cigarette smoke. Well, if I don't want to get all the crap present in cigarette smoke into my lungs, I shouldn't smoke cigarettes. Fine... until you say, "now you must eat in a room where cigarette smoking is allowed." The burden placed upon me to filter the air in the room to avoid getting secondhand smoke is enormous. Where does my right to choose not to breathe smoke begin and end? Where does my right to choose to smoke begin and end?
In the same manner as secondhand smoke, placing "adult content" for the user to "filter" in magazines creates an undue (IMO) burden on the user who does not wish to have the content. In fact, the filtering process itself REQUIRES me to expose myself to content I have no desire to expose myself to. Do you see the contradiction inherent here? You essentially say that your right to read such content trumps my right not to have to read such content (even if only to filter it).
Where does my right to filter the content that gets to me begin and end? Where does your right to have any content you want begin and end? It's a tough, tough line to define.
IMO, if WotC/Dragon wants to do "adult" stuff, fine... just put it in another magazine. I can read Time without worrying that I'll find stuff suitable for Playboy - this in no way restricts freedom of speech of either Time or Playboy.
The problem, IMO, is, that unlike other venues, where there are "conservative" and "liberal" magazines - allowing conservatives to choose "filtered" versions and liberals to choose "unfiltered" versions, we don't have that in the RPG industry. We have one magazine. If it's "unfiltered" we offend the conservatives. If it's "filtered" we offend the liberals. If it's "mostly filtered" we offend the ultra-liberals and the ultra-conservatives. That, IMO, is the smallest group that can be offended.
IMO, Dragon needs to be "mostly-filtered," not "totally filtered." But I think they do a disservice to more of their readership when they give us "unfiltered" material. But I also see that there is no easy way out unless another publication for "more (im)mature" stuff comes out.
[QUOTE}As for the principles behind the inclusion, I guess it's for money. I respect that. It is their objective as a business, their duty to shareholders, and if evil sells it ultimately is because the consumers buy it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Agree. Though if it is evil, I suppose that is an indictment against their conusmers. Is it also an indictment against them for having no scruples and pursuing the lowest common denominator? Maybe.
Thanks for your thoughtful response - look forward to more (from you and others)!
--The Sigil
- Status
