Vile Darkness- Controversy and the past

[Psion]

No, but you want to, and that is itself far more offensive then make pretend necrophilia.

Obviously I beg to differ.

Did you hear me invoke either the First Amendment or the first ammendment?

Too bad for you, because its the only ground you have to stand on AFAIAC.

No. Not once. I told you you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to stifle creative freedom.

The "creative freedom" here belongs to Wizards, not you. They cound publish FATAL as a print product if they cared for it. They don't because they know that would not be a wise business move.

But I have the right to lobby for wizards for anything I want. Despite your attempts to browbeat me.

I'm talking about morals. I don't need the Constitution as a source of moral outrage.

Ah, but without the constitution, we have no grounds to agree at all. What you want is a source of moral outrage for me. Wizards does not HAVE to print the game you want, and for you to try to stop me from expressing that I don't want it IS an attempt to restrict expression. Since that is your central harping point, you contradict yourself.

I'm talking about your choice to advocate that Wizards not produce the content it wishes to. That choice is one without defense, and one which you should be ashamed of.

Wrong.

I am a paying customer and advocate of Wizards products. I have already said MANY times in this thread that I do not wish to nor could I prevent Wizards from printing anything they wish to.

But I can, morally and legally, make my desires as a customer known to them and make them consider what they WANT to print. Your attack is simply baseless. Wizards NEVER looses their freedom to print anything simply because I express that I wish them not to print something that I feel -- and a substantial portion of their audience feels -- is morally repugnant.

You're the same as those who try to prevent D&D from being published in any form.

That is nothing more or less that mudslinging.

I wrote:
I have a moral right to let WotC or any other publisher know that I consider certain sorts of material objectionable

No you don't. Not when your morals are wrong.[/b]

You, sir, are a hypocrite. You are telling me I should not stifle creative freedom but it the same discussion you tell me I do not have the right to express myself.

 

[Drew]

Might I point out that the whole EVIL stigma also increased D&D rulebook sales something like 400%. So, assuming that the controversy DOES return, you have a situation where sales are up, there are more players around, and a few whacko's are yelling about how evil you are. Sounds like a good tradeoff to me.

 

[Paka]

If RobNJ sounds angry it is because maybe he is. Maybe we all should be.

There are people who think that our hobby is wrong. They say it is spiritually dangerous without ever having played. They say we teach kids spells.

We can laugh about this all day long because there is something funny about this hobby of playing pretend and making up stories with friends as dangerous but it is true. They are out there and they want us to stop.

To publish the books of this hobby in order to appease them is ludicrous.

Why is it in our medium nothing is allowed to be adult? It is like saying that no movies or books or plays should be made for adults.

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: Re: Hey Psion...

The material in Dragon 300 was advertised months ahead of time,

Yet I subscribed over a year ahead of time.

put in a sealed section, and it wasn't very bad at all. And it was in a magazine that is mostly sold to adults.

So? It was still not meet the standards that I paid for it expecting.

What it's incumbant on you to do is not to attack and advocate for the silencing of speech you don't like.

Again, to this illogical line of reasoning.

Again, I cannot prevent Wizards from printing anything.

But I can and will make my wishes as a customer known.

 

[RobNJ]

I tend to disagree with people who have to put down someone should their opinions differ. Unfortunately, I see no 'reason' in Rob's arguments other than he believes anyone who disagrees with his personal preferences is censoring or attacking him on a personal level.

Then you have reading comprehension problems.

My point, again and again, has been that it is morally reprehensible to try or wish to prevent the expression of speech you don't like. It's very simple. It's very true.

You can be as disturbed or offended as you want to be by the depiction of anything. That's fine. But the minute you want to stop that idea from being distributed, you are in the wrong.

Well, if you want necrophilia in your game, then put it there. A GM can do anything that they want within the framework of the game. I do object to formal rules that codify and mainstream such activity.

And I object to people telling me that I can't buy the books I want to buy. I win.

As for the idea that only adults or college-aged people play this game,

You're either deliberately mischaracterizing what I've said or, again, you don't read so good. I said that it's mostly adults who play, not only.

do you intend to stay in that bubble? I'll lay claim that most people got there start with DnD when in middle or high school. In fact, DnD is WRITTEN for 10 year olds.

D&D is probably written to be understandable and entertaining to 13+ year old males.

I know a lot of kids who play the game. I would say that a lot more kids play the game than adults.

Say it all you want, you'd be wrong. Insisting on it just underlines your ignorance of the matter.

Why? Because most kids stop playing once they reach high school due to the 'geekness' associated with the game.

What are you basing this on? A little flicker of a thought inside your head?

To think that the BoVD will not have an effect on that market is to live in your own world.

No, it is to be firmly connected with reality. Six months after The Book of Vile Darkness has been published, everything will be the same as it is today. We'll have a thread talking about how horrible it is that Wizards of the Coast has dared to publish a gaming book about [insert stupid opinion here], and how it's the end of the hobby as we know it.

I'd prefer to keep this discussion intellectual, but you'd rather jump on the reactionary bandwagon and beat someone into submission by insulting them. Get a life.

Exactly how are you being intellectual? By making blanket claims about the industry that aren't true?

I have endeavored in this not to say, "You are X," but rather to characterize peoples' actions as appropriate. If I've done otherwise, it's a slip. But I'd like to see where I did otherwise.

As for the school that recently banned DnD. Cary, NC.

What documentation do you have of this?

 

[herald]

Psion there is a huge differance in saying:

"They should not print that that book because people might find it offensive."

and

"I wish WOTC would not print this material because it might offend some one."

The first is Censorship, the second is making your desire known.

If your point is to express what you wish. Fine.

If however, your point is to drum up some kind of ground swell to stop material that might offend, that censorship and its wrong.

 

[RobNJ]

In any event, I am done with the discussion as it was reduced to petty infighting, not the intellectual discourse I'd have wanted to see.

Anti-intellecutalism isn't, "menolikeyism". If you feel my points have been anti-intellectual, I challenge you to point them out and explain yourself.

I give my thanks to Psion and Canis for great arguments though. Now I am off the the land of d20 publishing. I have deadlines!

This is quite funny. "Great thanks to the people who agree with me! You happen to have had the most intellectual arguments!"

And how many times will you announce you're done with the thread before you're done with it?

 

[Pielorinho]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey Psion...

Y'know, if you're frustrated at the level of vitriol in RobNJ's posts -- if you wish this thread would contain fewer ad hominem attacks and more discussion of the issues -- perhaps you could help by not responding to insulting posts. I halfway suspect that the reason for RobNJ's flaming is that it garners responses.

Psion, I earlier said that I could respect your stance if you limited it to a "don't make a habit of this, WOTC" attitude. Is this a correct description?

If so, am I right in thinking that you're not especially upset by the material in issue 300, but that you just want WOTC not to make a habit of it?

(I've not seen the issue myself; from the descriptions I've read of it, it's not worth my money and wouldn't contain material that I could use. I generally feel that way about Dragon, however -- it's why I don't subscribe).

And DaemonBolo, I hope you've not really left the discussion; I do want to find out which school, which principal you're talking about. This sounds like work for the CARPGA. If you can re-enter the discussion and ignore the fine gentlemen who call you fascists, I'd appreciate it.

Daniel

 

[herald]

Y'know, if you're frustrated at the level of vitriol in RobNJ's posts -- if you wish this thread would contain fewer ad hominem attacks and more discussion of the issues -- perhaps you could help by not responding to insulting posts. I halfway suspect that the reason for RobNJ's flaming is that it garners responses.

WOW!!!

Without a doubt, I would have never read such a thing like this on these boards before.

Pielorinho, what are you trying to say, guy. Don't pay attention to the guy who's debating you because I want my turn?

Psion is a mature enough person to respond to you when he's good and ready.

 

[Henry]

Jeez - leave a thread overnight and see what happens...

I hate to do this - I really do.

However, I feel that this thread has gone far beyond the bounds of the info it was originally asking for, and turned into another imflammatory instance of "BoVD-itis."

I'm not shutting it down because of any one thing, but I believe it certainly won't get any better. Both sides don't look like they've convinced each other of much.

Thread Closed.