Vile Darkness- Controversy and the past

[Umbran]

I think we are in mountain-molehill, tempest-teacup land here.

From what I have seen, opponents of D&D have rarely bother to concern themselves with the facts. Their arguments are not generally based upon the actual content of the books - so what's in the BoVD, or Evil, or the PHB, or any other book is not a major concern.

If they had wanted to raise a stink, they would have done so when they saw how well 3E was selling.

 

[Numion]

The times are different. In the eighties rappers saying "F the Police" was bad. Nowadays it'd be surprising to see any rapper release a record without taking shots at them.

D&D was bad in 80's. It think people got other things to worry about now. D&D is a marginal hobby anyway, and the BoVD probably won't (for good or bad) generate much popular upheaval. I'd even bet some of my money on that

 

[Psion]

Necrophilia is bad. Murder is worse. We have rules for murder in-game, including assassination, poisoning, killing helpless victims, burning people alive, raising them from the dead as damned souls, and so forth.[/]b]

You are making the same logical flaw that Dennis Cramer made when defending his contraversial "gory halfling" picture. The "goryness" of a depiction of a depraved act is not equivalent to the morality of the act. How it is presented is as big or bigger factor.

Depictions of violence go on constantly in D&D... we know that. I have a tendency to try to describe the effects of combat instead of just the old "you hit/you miss" thing. One time I was running a group that included a spiked chain wielder who in combat took down an enemy. Thinking of the best way I could to depict the situation descriptively, I said something to the effect of "you wrap your chain around his neck, and with a jerk, you hear crunching of bones and your chain rips free along with the tender flesh of this throat."

My players gave me a horrified, repulsed look accompanied by stunned silence. Had I just merely said "you hit, he goes down" nobody would have likely given it a second thought.

When it comes to violence, most of us don't have the kind of experience to insert the gory details ourselves. You sort of have to go out of your way to make an act of violence seem gross -- as my inappropriate in-game description or Dennis Cramer's gory picture do.

But sex is a very personal experience for most of us, and an experience that most of us have participated in. Further, many of us know people who were victims of sexual abuse. It doesn't take too much, IME, to elicit a mental image that I don't want by evoking gross sexual imagery.

This really seems to be a classic, "if you don't want it, don't buy it" scenario.

No, it's not. The problem is that I enjoy D&D. I even think I will find BoVD to be a useful and interesting book, and I have it on order despite the fact that I have misgivings about two things I have heard of in it. "Not buying it" is really an all-or-nothing proposition, and I'm a sucker for a well written game product (read: almost anything Monte writes.) If I (and anyone else who feels they crossed the line) can draw to the publisher's attention to the points where I think they crossed the line, it's all the more likely that they can reach a happy medium that can address these topics in a satisfactory yet tasteful manner and not go off the deep end.
likely that they won't

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

...
I hope so. Because otherwise they're probably snorting like a sleeping bulldog and thinking, "You tweakers! You haven't even seen the book yet! What's wrong with you?"

Any publicity, I suppose, is good publicity.

Daniel

The content isn't an issue for my argument, because it won't be an issue for the school board who suspends children for playing D&D.

Of course, I admit that the BoVD is going to be, at most, a minor influence on that. They will jump on whatever presents itself. I just think a book called the "Book of Vile Darkness" is going to be jumped on a lot quicker than the latest "Raging Dumb-Asses" album.

And you're all right, it's probably going to boost sales when Moms Against Vile Darkness starts harping on the local news.

I just think that the BoVD makes it more likely that a year or two from now, we're all going to be back here whining that the local school board just expelled our kid under their Zero Tolerance policy because they were overheard talking about their D&D character.

I'd prefer it be the problem of parents who bought their kid the "Raging Dumb-Asses" album, but no, we have ourselves a lightning rod.

 

[Psion]

We've managed to get away from that disaster somewhat. But has everyone forgotten that "Plays D&D" was one of the "danger signs" people were going on about after Columbine and what not?

I thought D&D was a red-herring (someone said something like they tried it once but didn't play) and "First Person Shooters" was were the real red flag lied.

And y'know, I think the critics had a point on that one. But that's rather political, so that's all I am going to say about that.

 

[Psion]

Amen brother.

Isn't Buttercup female?

The thing that is irritating me the most about the threads on this matter is how no one but the people who created it and the publishers know what is ACTUALLY in the book.

It may have escaped your notice but:

1) I already said I am reserving final judgement until I see the book, and
2) The "Lichloved" and "Cancer Mage" I referred to earlier are di-rectly from the mouth of someone who HAS seen the book.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I thought D&D was a red-herring (someone said something like they tried it once but didn't play) and "First Person Shooters" was were the real red flag lied.

Depended on where you were and how much coverage the media elected to give the issue. Video games are sexier, so they tended to get more TV coverage. Newspapers in three different locales I spend time in had at least some coverage regarding D&D after Columbine.

Upstate NY (I forget which town it was, but it was reported in an Ithaca newspaper) - Parents protested the suspension of their child, who had been running a game in the cafeteria with some friends.

Harrisburg, PA - Editorial in support of a school rule banning D&D since it was "devil worship" and "encouraged abberant behavior."

Central NJ - School board trying desperately to stop a parent group which was trying to force the school board to make the playing of D&D an expellable offense.

 

[Buttercup]

Amen brother. I couldn't have put it better myself.

That's sister. But thank you anyway.

 

[Danzilla]

Truly evil and sick

I’ve avoided commenting on posts concerning this work until I have a chance to see it, but with the overwehlming number of people jumping into this over and over agina I’ve decided to add my two-cents.

I don’t know if this has been used as an argument before this and if it has I apologize.

I can think of a number of very good movies that contained truly memorable villains and a number of real life instances as well. The first that springs to mind is the movie "Silence of the Lambs" with two very well done and very memorable villains in the form of Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill. And, for that matter (bringing us to real world villains) what about the serial murderers that have been sporadically popping up in our history.

I can only speculate, but the materials that are listed to be included in the upcoming book are meant to be an aid to create more "memorable" villains as I’ve mentioned above, and even though they are sick and disgusting, they allow us to make evil people in our campaigns that are REALLY evil.

Will these rules also be used for PCs as well, sure, but it only serves to render the playing field equal...just because something is available doesn’t give us a right (morally) to do it if it doesn’t fit into the general makeup of our characters. If you didn’t want someone to play a chaotic evil character, you shouldn’t have allowed it in the first place...

I plan on picking up this book and if the need arises to create a villain of this caliber and sort I intend to use it in the creating of someone I believe my characters can sink their teeth into stopping... (no vampire jokes please)

and, as far as making people think D&D is evil or providing ammunition to those who do, all I can say is that I haven’t been inluenced buy horror movies or novels into thinking wither of those two industries are by definition evil as of yet and don’t think it will happen in the near future.

again, just my two-cents worth...

 

[Henry]

Do y'all think that Monte Cook is sitting at home, and WOTC folks are sitting in their offices, looking at all the simultaneous threads pontificating on the dangers of the BoVD, and they're thinking just one word: "Eh-excellent"?

Y'know the funny thing? Anthony "Zulkir" Valterra was saying in his Sept. 27 Mortality Radio Interview that one of the things he was pleased with was the fact that morality in gaming WAS one of the things being debated. Paraphrasing, he said it was great to have a lot of people want to buy the book; but he said it was also great that another result of the book was to open a discussion of these issues.

In regards to the satanic controversy of the 1980's, I believe Gary Gygax told us once on these boards that sales nearly DOUBLED when the controversy was in full swing. It wasn't TSR that suffered - it was all those players who, in the face of narrow-minded radicals, gritted their teeth and kept on playing, who were hurt.

If Eminem has not caused people to revolt by now, the Book of Vile Darkness will do nothing to harm the image of D&D. 90% of those who oppose Dungeons and Dragons have no idea what company even publishes it!

By the way, Daemonbolo, I believe the real reason RPGA does not allow evil alignment characters is because the way many players play them is far too disruptive to community play. Too many people take evil as meaning, "Kill wantonly and shaft the other players for their loot the first chance you get." Playing psychopathic killers does not generate a positive play experience.