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



## Morrus

This was part of Tracy Hickman's newsletter.  Note that it gets a little inflamatory in places - so make sure that the rest of the thread does not!



> D20 TERRORISM
> Yesterday, I found a terrorist attack in my mailbox.
> Maybe I took it so hard because it was September 11th. Like many of us in the United States, I had spent the day searching for ways to honor the memory of all that was lost just one year ago. I tried to avoid the television. Instead, I spent much of the day in reflection and work ... and thinking on the nature of true heroes.
> The thing that upset me the most about this terrorism, however, was that it was in the form of Dragon Magazine’s 300th issue.
> At the bottom of the cover, in a little box, it said: “Mature Audiences: Sealed 16-page Section.” In large letters next to it, spanning the bottom of the magazine, it read: “HOW FAR WILL YOU GO? Vile Content * Graphic Violence.”
> 
> Vile Content? Graphic Violence?
> What about the Comic Book Code that prohibited anyone writing for D&D from indulging in such excrement?
> Now their daring us to go TOO FAR?
> How dare you? How dare you take something that I have enjoyed with friends and family for over a quarter of a century and make it cheap, trashy and demeaning? How dare you pour filth on all those good memories?
> Not that this attack was entirely unexpected. I had information that this was coming soon in the form of a product to be aptly called ‘The Book of Vile Darkness.’
> 
> Now THERE’S a title that will silence the D&D critics.
> Yes, there will be a ‘Book of Vile Darkness’ but it would be carefully labeled for ‘Mature Audiences’ only.
> Now my nose twitches whenever I see the words ‘mature audiences’ stuck together. It is such a subtle and devious oxymoron. Invariably, ‘mature’ subject matter targets immature impulses. Think about it: EVERY act that is labeled as ‘for mature audiences’ deals with an immature act or animal-level instinct.
> It is understandable on one level: it is lazy. It takes far less effort to tell a dirty joke than a really GOOD joke. It is like my mother use to tell me about swearing: people curse when they are either too lazy or incapable of thinking up something intelligent to say.
> Now, after OVER TWENTY YEARS of building public relations good will ... it is all being thrown out the window. They are gleefully opening the Pandora’s box ... and there will be NO CLOSING IT again.
> It literally makes me sick.
> The lead article in Dragon on this subject is entitled: “How Far Should You Go?” ... which sounds like a dare to me. The subtitle is “Choosing the Right Level of Evil for your Campaign.”
> 
> The “Right Level of Evil”???
> On the outset, the article appears to be an attempt as some sort of gaming equivalent to the Motion Picture Rating Board classification of films. The clinical-looking ratings of LG, SG, MG and VG supposedly give us a convenient handle on the nature of these game forms. For those of you not familiar with these ratings, they mean ‘Lighthearted Game’, ‘Standard Game’, ‘Mature Game’ and ‘Vile Game.’
> 
> 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. Here is the ‘brave new world’ that we can look forward to in our D20 games. It promotes “selfish and sinful impulses”; distrust and suspicion of everyone; slavery, torture, rape, gore, violence (including “over-the-top, unrealistic amounts of gore”); Characters engage in all manner of sexual acts; and worse!
> This is sociopathic behavior ... NOT entertainment.
> SHAME ON YOU! Laura and I went to Gencon this year and were relieved and delighted to see families there. Yes, actual families with their children coming to play games and have a good time. Gencon felt actually FUN for the first time in years. We thought that perhaps at last D&D could have a future.
> This destroys it all for me. Every dark fear that mothers and clergy across America have about D&D is now, suddenly, true. In one stroke, I watched everything that Laura and I had worked toward for the last 25 years come crashing to the ground.
> Shame on you ... whoever you are! Do you honestly think you can dump filth into our trough and blithely expect us to feed on it? You have sold out cheaply to the animal within, apparently too lazy to write something positive and strong. Don’t you know that Goths and the whole post-modern cynicism is so-last-decade? Do you honestly think that we will all follow you into this dark place?
> People occasionally ask me how I feel about playing evil PC characters.
> My response is always: Don’t do it.
> After all, who do YOU dream of being?
> A New York City Fireman...
> ...or a Terrorist?
> If you agree with me, may I suggest you make your displeasure known ... as both my wife and I will ... in no uncertain terms to ANYONE you think needs to hear about this. May I suggest http://www.planetfeedback.com could assist you in getting the names and addresses of people to whom you might complain?
> And my I further suggest that you demonstrate your own maturity by avoiding purchasing or playing ANYTHING labeled for ‘Mature Audiences Only.’


----------



## el-remmen

Wow, who peed in his corn flakes this morning?

Mr. Hickman needs to take a deep breath and stop taking things so dang seriosuly. ..  The Book of Vile Darkness will do nothing to keep families from playing - not anymore than the fact that there are R or x-rated movies  keeps families from going to the theatre.


----------



## Nightfall

Mister Hickman is certainly entitled to his view. However I think he does a dis-service not just to the gaming community, but to those people who he "claims" to honor. If I want to a way to honor their memories, I do in calm personal reflection. I do it by trying to make the world a BETTER place. Heroes do the TOUGH things, the hard things. Playing evil, just a way of seeing what a hero SHOULDN'T do. In any case, Book of Vile Darkness, and the rest, is fine. I fear not the future. It, like life, comes and goes. We are only able to deal with the choices WE make. So I pray we all make the best ones, in ensure peace, to bring about change for betterment of all, and the be the heroes we yearn to be in our games. Being evil, is just an expression, an outlet for our own inability to deal with ills that won't be cured away by the magic we seek and find in our games. 

That's just my two cents.


----------



## Henry

Morrus - might I suggest we merge this thread with the other one recently started about this very same topic? this post will make some of the others there very relevant and "in focus."


----------



## Cyrian

*holds mouth totally shut to avoid getting someone else's morality shoved down his throat*


----------



## Henry

I think we need to keep Tracy's character in mind here; who he is in TSR's history - and what he's seen in his years of the gaming industry. Past that, I might write up a response to this article, if no one minds.


----------



## Morrus

Henry said:
			
		

> *Morrus - might I suggest we merge this thread with the other one recently started about this very same topic? this post will make some of the others there very relevant and "in focus." *




I need to link to it from the news page, unfortunately, which is why it's in a separate thread.  The boards sometimes make a great storing place for longer news items!


----------



## Thorntangle

The equation of what-you-don't-like with terrorism is really starting to piss me off. It reeks of the witchhunt and is a cheap way to intimidate people into silence. And if people keep doing this, the terrorists will have won


----------



## Benben

*Please.*

I'll let the moderators decide where this should go.

Dragon has always had pulpy headlines.  This should be no surprise to anyone.   This is also the Halloween issue.  People are surprised that it deals with dark matters?

Is the Book of Vile Darkness going to tarnish the image and reputation of D&D?

No.  We've already have AEG's book of EVIL,  and various D20 supplements on Conjuring and Necromancy.   There is nothing new here, and from the view of the outside world there is no difference between WotC and any D20 publisher.  They're all catering to the same audience.

Personally, I think the trashy covers done by Avalanche publishing have done more to hurt the image and reputation of gaming, than the recent publications dealing with evil


----------



## Grazzt

A bit overboard don't ya think? I mean, c'mon. Its not like he probably didn't know the issue was gonna contain "mature audience" stuff. WotC and every board on the internet has been spouting that for a few months now.

And this part:


> In one stroke, I watched everything that Laura and I had worked toward for the last 25 years come crashing to the ground.




is just completely ridiculous in its own right. How does one article or book completely destroy 25 years? Um...ok..whatever.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending WotC, Dragon, Monte Cook or anybody that had a hand in the mag or article or whatever. I myself have seen the article and I really don't see it as being that vile honestly. I dont care for the article either, but not because I was offended. I just think it was poorly executed and a bit immature. Its not really vile enough, like I said. 

I think it borders more on gross than vile (maggots, blood...oooh....since when are maggots or blood evil, for example) and attempts to capitalize on "shock value" than anything else. The only spell in there I could see as being  remotely close to vile is "Corpsebond" (and only because it mentions copulation with a corpse). Again, more for shock value than anything else.

And as for the "How Far Should You Go?" article...well, that is a discussion for another thread, but I don't think it is offensive, provocative, or even really that interesting.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

Someone needs to get a life. I am sick and tired of the 9/11 excuse bull.

If you didnt like the issue then say so on solid grounds with REAL reasons. Attacking the issue for the pathetic reason of when it arrived is just sad.

As for his other comments.

Hey Tracy, your FAMILY game is about killing people and looting their bodies. Don't try to make it out as a sweet game of checkers.

BTW, equating the magazine is the sign of a reactionary and narrow mind. That is the kind of crap I expect from religous extremists and other wackos who try to demonize anything they don't agree with.

Stick to Sovereign Stones and leave the attitude at the door.


----------



## Kai Lord

In the Tracy Hickman authored TSR book Dragons of Winter Night, either Sturm or Flint looked at Laurana while they were battling on the High Clerist's Tower and feared the nightmares that she in particular would be subjected to if the evil men attacking succeeded and took her prisoner.  I wonder what vile horrors Mr. Hickman was referring to, her being tickled to death?


----------



## Khan the Warlord

How dare Tracy Hickman equate the writers and editors responsible for Dragon #300 and _The Book of Vile Darkness_ to TERRORISM?! Mr. Hickman owes everyone that he slandered in his newsletter an apology.

That seals it: I will never again purchase anything with Mr. Hickman's name attached to it, which is quite sad, as he *WAS* an old favorite of mine. This type of irresponsible disclosure of his opinion should convince WotC to never allow him to author a work for them again. 

That type of closed mentality reminds me of the Mothers Against Dungeons and Dragons so long ago. Its sad to see an industry leader informing the world that M.A.D.D was right so many years ago.

Shame on you, Tracy Hickman.


----------



## Nightfall

Grazzt said:
			
		

> *is just completely ridiculous in its own right. How does one article or book completely destroy 25 years? Um...ok..whatever.
> *




Obviously he'd have a hard time in any game worlds you and I would probably enjoy huh Scott? 

Khanny, don't take it so personally. I don't. Hickman has his opinions. Certainly don't let that affect your judgement of Dragonlance 3rd. I say, give the book a shot.


----------



## alsih2o

(including “over-the-top, unrealistic amounts of gore)


  looking back over the course of human history (recent hisyory included) i have to wonder what is considered an unrealistic amount of gore?

 could it be worse than being drawn and quartered? worse than the crusades? worse than the inquisition? worse than wolverine being torn apart to have adamantine laced into and on his bones?(which fell under the cca very well)

  what is unrealistic? the human race has shed rivers of blood, slain newborns over prophecy, attempted genocide, and felled entire species in opursauit of a buck, all without the help of a single demon or devil or evil campaign. 

 i normally do not buy Dragon, but this one i must now get, i want to see what horror they have dreamed up that hasn't been included in history.


----------



## Furn_Darkside

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> BTW, equating the magazine is the sign of a reactionary and narrow mind. That is the kind of crap I expect from religous extremists and other wackos who try to demonize anything they don't agree with.
> *




Kind of like you just did with Hickman?

FD


----------



## Zaruthustran

*Irony*

What I love are the posts that say, essentially:

"How DARE Hickman stand up and state his extremist opinion?! In retaliation for this irresponsible act, I'm going to stand up and state an extremist opinion!"

:Sigh:. Or rather, :snore:.

-z


----------



## Khan the Warlord

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Obviously he'd have a hard time in any game worlds you and I would probably enjoy huh Scott? *




Yes, Tracy probably DMs a wonderful bit of Bunnies & Snowflakes. 



> *Khanny, don't take it so personally. I don't. Hickman has his opinions. Certainly don't let that affect your judgement of Dragonlance 3rd. I say, give the book a shot. *




How can I not take this to the extreme that I have when I see the "great" Tracy Hickman place industry professionals like Monte Cook and Jesse Decker in the same light as Osama Bin Laden and terrorism?

How could anyone not take it offensive ly? I can only imagine how the people he branded this way must feel when they read this.

I was very much looking forward to the new DL 3e and Soveriegn Press products -- but no more.

Ever.


----------



## BiggusGeekus

I can see where Hickman is coming from, but it does indeed look like he overstated his position.

And, just to toss this in, ever since my group said "no" to evil characters we've been having smoother and funner games.


----------



## greymarch

I think Tracy Hickman was drunk when he wrote that.  Honestly.

His little diatribe is poorly written and lacks the required proof necessary to convince anyone that he is right.  I truly believe he was half in the bag.


----------



## Henry

*My response if I were writing to Tracy Hickman:*

Dear Tracy:

I understand where your position is, and where it comes from. You have related the content of the BOVD and the Dragon sealed secton, with a desire to portray a terrorist. You have also expressed your concerns that D&D has lost a "family appeal" that was once beginning to show.

I have to say that I disagree with most of your points. Most, but not all. On a personal levle, I agree with your disgust of profanity, vulgarity, and nudity for its own sake. The moderators of ENWorld do not allow it in their administration of content on the forums.

However, I too lived through the rough times for RPG's in the 1980's. I, too, remember the bad rap that was had, the destruction of materials by concerned parents, and the social stigma of playing a "game that turned you into a minion of Satan." The only thing that was desired by us players in the early 80's was a fun time, and the ability to follow our own direction, without peer pressure. Admittedly, I was not an industry insider, I as merely a teenager trying to find a gaming group to play with. Because of the 1980's "witchhunts", I was unable to find a regular gaming group until 1988 or so.

The BoVD, to be released next month, is not to be elevated and emulated in Players for their characters. It would also be just as wrong to say that "D&D has slidden down its slippery slope" for Wizards producing this product. It is, no more and no less, a tool for DM's to use in their games. And, like the core books that preceded it, and like the pencil and paper and table that we play on, it is no more or less a tool in building a stronger and more varied game.

You are also, I might add, the first Former TSR employee or freelancer who has ever had anything good to say about the "Comics Code" that TSR followed from about 1986 to 1996. Most of the other designers, and MORE than a few fans, have stated absolute disillusionment with the policy which built very little good grace with concerned parents, and alienated almost half of the first edition fan base that existed at the time. Your upholding of this code as a good thing surprised me a little.

I also understand that your religious beliefs strongly influences you opinion in this. Being raised in a similar yet different Christian faith, I hold strong opinions about the ideas that exist in these two products. Yet, I will myself find both of them useable in my games, in the manner that Monte Cook has intimated they were designed to be used: As a supplement to the portrayal of evil in my campaigns, for the PC's to destroy. In my campaigns, evil is a force to be defeated, yet it is a force to be reckoned with; this product will help me spell out the exact allure that evil has on the unsuspecting. My PC's have the option to go down that road, but they also have the understanding that evil will lose in the end. But then, that's what this book represents - understanding why evil is so seductive, so as to be able to overcome it.

I will disagree, on my grounds of individual choice, and also on the idea that the hobby has integrated itself into our culture much more than it was 20 years ago. We do not fear the slings and arrows of the closed minded as we used to; in fact, the closed-minded will never enjoy a hobby such as ours regardless of its image. However, I do not believe it is a good thing to restrict one company's expression because of a group with even less influence than gamers worldwide.

Live long, live well, and game well.

Henry Link


----------



## Grazzt

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *
> 
> i do not buy gragon, but this one i must now get, i want to see what horror they have dreamed up that hasn't been included in history. *




Hehee- good point. And (disregarding the obvious inclusion of magic) there are none. 

Hell- if they wanted to do vileness (and really get people in an uproar)...why not look up some of the atrocities that Vlad Dracul inflicted on his own people (OK- edited out for those that dont really wanna read it....just do an Internet search...you can find the stuff)


----------



## Tsyr

Grazzt said:
			
		

> *Hell- if they wanted to do vileness (and really get people in an uproar)...why not look up some of the atrocities that Vlad Dracul inflicted on his own people ----SNIPPED--- *




Ok, that *really* didn't need to be posted here.


----------



## Henry

greymarch said:
			
		

> *I think Tracy Hickman was drunk when he wrote that.  Honestly.
> 
> His little diatribe is poorly written and lacks the required proof necessary to convince anyone that he is right.  I truly believe he was half in the bag. *




I don't know - Do Latter-Day Saints drink alcohol?

Let's not go that route in disagreeing with him. I'd rather espouse a stong argument  than to call him stupid (as some others have) or drunk.


----------



## Furn_Darkside

Grazzt said:
			
		

> *
> Hell- if they wanted to do vileness (and really get people in an uproar)...why not look up some of the atrocities that Vlad Dracul inflicted on his own people *




Ugh, thanks.. I guess I will not be finishing lunch today.

FD


----------



## psionotic

Edit: The offensive content I had complained about in this post has been edited out by its author.

Thank you for doing so.


----------



## Melkor Lord Of ALL!

Furn_Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ugh, thanks.. I guess I will not be finishing lunch today.
> 
> FD *




HA! This is called imagination!


----------



## Khan the Warlord

psionotic said:
			
		

> *I agree with Tsyr on this point...  That was just inappropriate.  We all know that hideous acts have been performed throughout history, do we really have to recount them on this thread or on this board? *




You're so right -- let's copy and paste Scott's words and email them to Tracy for his next newsletter detailing how horrid RPG editors (oops, I meant terrorists) are now.

Look, Scott was alarmed by Tracy's words and described what *could* have been offered in Dragon, making light of what they actually did put in the magazine.


----------



## EOL

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't know - Do Latter-Day Saints drink alcohol?*



 No, they don't.


----------



## Grazzt

Khan the Warlord said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You're so right -- let's copy and paste Scott's words and email them to Tracy for his next newsletter detailing how horrid RPG editors (oops, I meant terrorists) are now.
> 
> Look, Scott was alarmed by Tracy's words and described what *could* have been offered in Dragon, making light of what they actually did put in the magazine. *




Yeppers Khan.  Anyway- I edited my original post and removed the "offensive" stuff. No point in sidetracking this thread into something other than what it was started for.


Like I said, I didnt like the stuff in #300..but not because I found it offensive. I just thought it was poorly executed and not really all that vile or interesting (YMMV, of course).

And- I disliked Mr Hickman's rant...because it was poorly executed as well. Everyone can have their own opinion, but Mr Hickman's rant was a bit over the top (in my opinion).


----------



## drnuncheon

Khan, if you mean Pat Pulling's organization, that was BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons), probably named to prevent confusion (but still identify with) MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a far worthier cause).

Now, on to Tracy Hickman's editorial:

I, too, am disgusted by Mr. Hickman's response.  By equating Dragon 300 with the twin towers, he is belittling every single person who lost or gave their life in that tragedy by equating their _lives_ to his _game_.  He is comparing the sadness of parents and children who lost family members to his own disappointment with _hobby_.  

Furthermore, he's using the events of 9/11 to try to score some kind of propaganda victory, making it seem like you're a supporter of Al Quaeda just because you don't agree with his choice of morality.  That's the same kind of $#!+ that Falwell pulled when he blamed gays and liberals for the bombings.  I was disgusted then when someone used it to push their own particular agenda/morality, and I'm disgusted now.

Mr. Hickman has every right to be upset about the "vile" content.  He has every right to express that disgust.  But I am sorely disappointed in the manner in which he chose to do so.

Khan is right, Tracy.  You _should_ be ashamed.  How dare you take a national tragedy and use it as a soapbox for your own petty crusade?  How dare you take the memory of the people who died and wave it as a flag for your own sense of morality?  How dare you trivialize the loss by comparing it to a game?

I sincerely hope that your letter was written in haste, to be repented at leisure, and that you do not truly believe the situations to be at all comparable. Tempers flare hot around both subjects, and it is easy to go overboard. Please, reconsider your words.  You are a writer by trade - surely you can present your views in a way that is not so full of hyperbole, a way that is not so demeaning to those who have suffered or died.

Jeff Johnston


----------



## Hardhead

*Terrorism????*

While I concede the Mr. Hickman is entitled to his opinions, and I can even see where he's coming from, equating the Book of Vile Darkness to terrorism is just crossing the line.  In what way could this even *reomotely* be construed as a terrorist attack on him?  Was his mailbox destroyed by it?  Did Monte Cook run into his house with TNT straped to his back?  

No, of course not.  Calling it "terrorism" is simply slander against Mr. Cook and others who have done "mature" work.  Even if you dont' agree with that work (and that stance is understandable), calling it terrorism simply because you didn't agree with it is irresponsible, and worse, it's a insult.

It's an insult to people that die in terrorist attacks for Mr. Hickman to equate him seeing magazine articles he doesn't like to others who are killed or disfigured, or lose loved ones to real terrorist attacks, and using the world "terrorism" over such a small thing, which is not terrorism by *any* definition of the word, trivialises the term.

Mr. Hickman should be ashamed.


----------



## Lizard

Morrus said:
			
		

> *This was part of Tracy Hickman's newsletter.  Note that it gets a little inflamattory in places - so make sure that the rest of the thread does not!
> 
> *




There's really no other way to say this -- Mr. Hickman needs, quite seriously, to get a life. I do not wish to disparage what seem to be genuine concerns, but he is so far over the top that it's impossible to take his words seriously. 

The "Comics code" he speaks of (the TSR code of Ethics is what I think he is referring to) crippled a good deal of creative energy in the game market -- or, rather, redirected it, so that companies like White Wolf were able to tap into the creativity and edge which TSR forbade. While this was hardly responsible for TSRs decline -- even at the nadir, they outsold much of the competition -- it was responsible for the general blandness of the 90s 'mainstream' gaming scene.

No amount of trying to be 'nice' or 'good' has ever silences the narrow-minded nitwits who condemn gaming as 'evil'; all it has ever done is insult and drive away the fans. Not one critic of early D&D ever game out and said, "Now that they've renamed demons to Baatezu, we recommend this game for all parents." Nor will one ever. Jack Chick recently UPDATED his anti-D&D page, saying, in essence: "It's still evil! Still evil!!!!!"

Attempting to appease that segment of the populace is impossible. All it does is lead to ever more demands for ever more bowdlerization. Pat Robertson will never hawk D&D on the 700 club, and that is that.

And calling WORDS IN A MAGAZINE the moral equivalent of mass murder is so utterly despicable that I cannot believe someone who is a respected professional would sink to that level. Indeed, ANYONE who crafts words for a living should be very, very, careful about such facile comparisons -- it is the inability to disinguish fiction from reality, to tell words from deeds, that is at the heart of every censorship law. 

(As a side note, on the issue of playing 'a firefighter or a terrorist'...there's a good article on Wired Online, discussing a hero cop who came to New York to help out following the 9/11 bombings and was lauded for his courage and commitment...and later arrested, several months later, for possession of kiddie porn. Hero AND villain -- in the same man. Good and evil aren't as simplistic as Mr. Hickman would have us believe.)


----------



## Khan the Warlord

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *Khan, if you mean Pat Pulling's organization, that was BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons), probably named to prevent confusion (but still identify with) MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a far worthier cause). *




Jeff, you're quite right. I'm confused as to how I made that mistake, I guess I was too pissed off by Tracy's words and went stupid with that acronym, lol.

Thanks for the correction for those that didn't know the true name of the organization.


----------



## Roland Delacroix

Just the fact that Tracy cites the Comic Book Code puts me off my lunch. The rest of the comment solidifies that.

The Comic Book Code was put in place by people just like Tracy who don't understand sometimes Adults want to read material that is written for Adults.  The comic Book Code verged on impediment of free speech until recentlly Image opened the door to Non-CBC compliant mainstream comics.  There have always been independents that noone read, but now there is a vast collection of adult orientated comics (no, not those kind    )

In short, the Comic Book Code was, is, and always will be crap.  It's the same story as the MPAA, parents willing to throw blame put a board of decision makers in place to judge what kids can see since they don't have the time.  Starts out as a good idea but then gains a stranglehold on the entire business.  Thank god we shrugged off the CBC.


----------



## D'karr

*Rename*

Then B.A.D.D. (Bothered about Disposable Dragons) should probably be renamed D.A.D.D. (Dragons against Dungeon Delvers) to avoid any confusion


----------



## robotron666

I think Monte Cooks latest line of sight  sums up what Tracy has done wrong here.

You also have to take this at face value. Tracy's reaction is a rant. Rant's are often pointless expressions of deep frustrations and anger than the actual subject.


----------



## Kibo

Grazzt said:
			
		

> *
> is just completely ridiculous in its own right. How does one article or book completely destroy 25 years? Um...ok..whatever.
> *




He does have a point.  There isn't any undoing this.  Just as you're not putting b*tch, a**, and sh*t back in the bottle on american tv.  (Even though the FCC is in the hands of the ultra conservatives.)

And it's a lot of ammo to be handing the kooks in america at this time.  Espescially considering how much work these people have put into moving D&D into the mainstream.  To see that put at risk, it must be disheartening.  To see it risked for so little, and so poorly at that, well that must be infuriating.

Though his hyperbole does tend to drift a little to the absurd, there is a point worth examining.  I for one, favor the hero rather than the villian.  Sure, every good hero needs a great villian, but at the end of the story, win or lose, it's about the heroes struggle.  And ultimately, any villian is a failed experiment in humanity.  One has qualities worth emulating, and one has qualities worth gaurding ones self against.

Personally, I think doing "A Villians Tale" must ultimately be a tragic cautionary tale. But products like this seem to be geared towards those who just seek to revel in pointless sadism.  Which might be a good thing, at least those so inclined aren't roaming the streets in search of small mammals to torture.  So, to each their own.

But from a comercial standpoint, it seems quite the risk to play so carelessly with ones reputation for the modest revenue of a niche market. Particularly in an age when the requirements of being a person in media are above average looks, below average IQ, and an inability to use the word "integrity" in a sentence.

So much for my rambeling bout with empathy; after all, it's not like I'll be affected either way.


----------



## Furn_Darkside

Kibo said:
			
		

> *
> (Even though the FCC is in the hands of the ultra conservatives.)
> *




Really? As a non-certified member of the ulta-conservatives, I would let you know it has always been our theory it has been those quote opposite of us in charge of the FCC. 

 

FD


----------



## Michael Sorensen

-


----------



## Stormprince

Okay, I'm thinking that all of this is getting more than a little bit out of hand.

First of all, Tracy's correlation between "terrorism" was not just out from left field. He opened his mail box on September 11th, when you could not *avoid* thinking about terrorism (it was on just about every television station, in every newspaper, on every radio station). He saw something that offended him. He has the right to be offended. He also has the right to state his opinion in his own newsletter. Tracy has a very strong sense of what is good and evil, right and wrong, a strong sense of morality. His sense of morality was offended by seeing an entire magazine that is mailed to a wide-audience dedicated to "evil." A magazine where there are subscribers who are kids. A magazine with a "sealed" section to supposedly prevent children from reading it. Come on now, a sealed section? Who do you know didn't unseal that section? Do you think any of these same people who may not be able to get into an R-rated movie without being escorted by an adult asked permission from their parents before they unsealed that section?

I've read through the magazine. To me, it's a pure marketing ploy. It's shouting, "Look, we can be just as gritty and edgy as White Wolf! We're naughty! BUY OUR PRODUCTS!" Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. Personally, I don't need any product to tell me how to "make evil really evil." I have plenty of resources in real life, as Tsyr pointed out. The fact that they're putting out only the Book of Vile Darkness, and not a companion "Good" book, just goes to show that it's one of those pure marketing manuscripts. Oh yeah, it was written by Monte Cook. How could I forget? How "dare" Tracy disagree with someone Monte or another writer put out. Shame on him. Grow up. Tracy and Laura Hickman worked for TSR to create the same worlds that still exist today. They created Ravenloft.

Tracy has never made it a secret how he feels about morality. He didn't agree with having a character just be a thief, so he envisioned a race of innocent kleptomaniacs. Tracy and Margaret have dealt with and created some of the most memorable "evil" characters in modern fantasy. Lord Soth. Count Strahd. Raistlin. Mina. Dalamar, and now Prince Dagnarus in the Sovereign Stone trilogy. Need I go on? What makes them interesting characters, however, isn't the fact that they are evil, but despite the fact that they are evil.

Just as you had the right to post how you view Tracy's comments, Tracy had the right to post his view on the editors and writers of Dragon Magazine. Is he upset? Yes, and perhaps rightfully so. Was he a bit extreme? Yeah, probably. But to be fair to him, you're only seeing a message that he typed up in the heat of the moment. You haven't read some of his responses to the Dragonlance fans on the mailing lists. You haven't sitten down and talked to him about his viewpoints. Just as you loudly proclaimed "I am boycotting all his Sovereign Stone and Dragonlance stuff," he has the right to "boycott" this one particular issue of Dragon Magazine.

Christopher Coyle


----------



## Desdichado

*Re: My response if I were writing to Tracy Hickman:*



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> *Live long, live well, and game well.
> 
> Henry Link *



And thus you see why some of us are invited to be mods and some of us are not.  Well said, Henry Link!


----------



## ghoti69

I agree with the majority here.  I'm offended with Mr. Hickman equating an article in a GAME magazine with the murder of thousands of innocents.  Personally, I applaud Dragon magazine for having a set of cahoneys to do such a thing in a post-9/11, overly-PC world.  

All one has to do is look at the latest destruction..er...re-release of E.T. to see how terrorists win when people adopt this type of attitude.  I personally contacted my local Fox station when they played the Simpson's episode, "Homer vs. NYC" a couple of weeks ago.  I had heard that they would never show that episode again because it focused almost primarily around the WTC.  Kudos for them to show us how much we lost that day, and not be afraid to show it!  If that piece of America had been lost, the terrorists would have won.

Mr. Hickman, I'm a DM, and I play Evil as it should be played, with a capital "E".  What is the point of playing the game if my players are just looting and killing?  I occasionally throw something into the game that offends and disgusts them to get them motivated.  Case in point:

A cleric in one campaign had charmed an enemy cleric into fighting for the player's side.  That cleric, and his allies, managed to escape, but the cleric's leader skinned him alive as a reward.  Considering the leader, I thought it precisely the reaction she would have.  When the players found out, they went after her with a VENGENCE.  The final battle was one of the best role-played melees it had ever been my pleasure to DM.  All because I "stepped over the edge" a little.

In the end, however, it's a game, nothing more.  That's all it has ever been, all it will ever be.  As I would say to the members of BADD, I say to you:

GET OVER IT!


----------



## Furn_Darkside

Stormprince said:
			
		

> *Okay, I'm thinking that all of this is getting more than a little bit out of hand.
> *




Very well said- SP. 

You were much more civil then I was going to be.



> I've read through the magazine. To me, it's a pure marketing ploy. It's shouting, "Look, we can be just as gritty and edgy as White Wolf! We're naughty! BUY OUR PRODUCTS!"




Precisely. 

It appears to be one more step in the direction of trying to be "edgy". 

That is fine if that is the way they want to go, but I hope the subscriptions they gain will be more then the ones they find are not renewed.

FD


----------



## Walker N. Waistz

All--

Look, Tracy went over the top, but understand where he's coming from: he is, essentially, a minister in the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (a Mormon).  (And by the way, I know the Mormons pretty well, although I'm not one, and no, they don't drink).  You have to expect this sort of reaction from a person in his position, and while I don't agree with the opinion, I respect it.

Tracy has responded to some comments on the DL mailing list, I think.  I'll try to repost anything interesting here.

--Walker


----------



## Mercule

**shrug* *snore**

*Do I sympathize with Mr. Hickman's concerns?*
Yes, although in no strong way.  I'll probably buy BoVD.

*Is equating content you don't like w/ 9-11 offensive?  *
Heck yes!  It was one of the most grossly offensive things I've ever heard uttered by a not politician/political activist/commentator.

*Was it foolish to make the association?*
IMHO, yes.  Comparing cruddy game content/management with an act of war is beyond foolish.

*Will I boycott Mr. Hickman's future works because of it?*
No.  No more so that I boycott the movies of actors who say or support something that I find offensive (long list of examples withheld due to inflamitory nature).  

It may make me more critical of his future work and less like to buy it, but I'm not into the whole "cutting off my nose..." thing.  Lots of people irritate me by saying stupid things.  I'd have a very short list of authors/actors/musicians of which to partake.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

I did no such thing and offended at your suggestion. I merely pointed out that Hickman took the pathetically low road of denegrating something that the disagreed with as the worst kind of evil.

Demonizing the opposition is a base and pathetic arguement style that does not hold up during intelligent discourse. His statements were nothing more than an attempt to play with peoples emotions during a week when the media has already done the same to an extreme degree.






			
				Furn_Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Kind of like you just did with Hickman?
> 
> FD *


----------



## Lazarus Long

*Taking it Personal?*

Remember the run-in Hickman and Monte had in the letters section of dragon a year or-so ago?  Hickman had written an article that basically told players to do whatever it took to entertain themselves and Monte had replied, saying that Hickman's ideas would push a group over into anarchy (to paraphrase).

Hmmm....

Maybe Hicman doesn't like Monte.

(NOTE: this is pure, unfounded speculation.  I have no idea if this is true.  Hickman and Monte may be good friends as far as I know.)


----------



## Eosin the Red

I think you have to take this with a grain of salt.  Instead of overreacting while accusing others of overreacting.

If I remember correctly didn't Hickman and Monte have a bit of a tiff in Scalemail column about an article in the not to distant past? He has strong beliefs, so do alot of us. He is free and correct to express those beliefs as he choses. I never had a problem with V:tg until I opened up Clan book: Bali but they went over the line with it. We all draw *A* line. 

Equating him to a Latter Day Saint is not only rude but it is _against the rules of this board _and is derogatory to tLDS -   [EDIT: It looks like that was less of an insinuation and more of a 'no really he is a LDS.' Still wrong but not nearly so, not really against the rules and not slanderous.  Still wrong.]

*Boy you sure are open minded *(SIDE NOTE: only about the things you chose to be. When others disagree with you you make slanderous remarks about their religious preference)

Reactionary is as reactionary does. I do not agree with Hickmans opinion but I am embarassed by the some of the behavior here.


----------



## Stormprince

ghoti69 said:
			
		

> *I agree with the majority here.  I'm offended with Mr. Hickman equating an article in a GAME magazine with the murder of thousands of innocents.  Personally, I applaud Dragon magazine for having a set of cahoneys to do such a thing in a post-9/11, overly-PC world.
> 
> All one has to do is look at the latest destruction..er...re-release of E.T. to see how terrorists win when people adopt this type of attitude.  I personally contacted my local Fox station when they played the Simpson's episode, "Homer vs. NYC" a couple of weeks ago.  I had heard that they would never show that episode again because it focused almost primarily around the WTC.  Kudos for them to show us how much we lost that day, and not be afraid to show it!  If that piece of America had been lost, the terrorists would have won.
> 
> Mr. Hickman, I'm a DM, and I play Evil as it should be played, with a capital "E".  What is the point of playing the game if my players are just looting and killing?  I occasionally throw something into the game that offends and disgusts them to get them motivated.  Case in point:
> 
> A cleric in one campaign had charmed an enemy cleric into fighting for the player's side.  That cleric, and his allies, managed to escape, but the cleric's leader skinned him alive as a reward.  Considering the leader, I thought it precisely the reaction she would have.  When the players found out, they went after her with a VENGENCE.  The final battle was one of the best role-played melees it had ever been my pleasure to DM.  All because I "stepped over the edge" a little.
> 
> In the end, however, it's a game, nothing more.  That's all it has ever been, all it will ever be.  As I would say to the members of BADD, I say to you:
> 
> GET OVER IT! *




The point Tracy was trying to make here was that it seems that between Dragon 300 and the Book of Vile Darkness, it seems that WotC is encouraging PLAYERS to be evil, vile, corrupt and without any sense of morality. Villains are meant to be villains. He understands that. As a fantasy writer, he understands that. He doesn't agree that evil needs to be so visually visceral, but he's entitled to that opinion.

For gods sake people, you're only reading a PORTION of his newsletter and jumping to your own conclusions. Get ALL the facts before you make your verbal lambastings.

My gods.

You want to know what really offends me about this? The fact that WotC feels its okay to glorify evil, and let's face it, they're making evil pretty attractive to the average gamer. I know a lot of players who'd love to get their hands on some of those spells and feats in the "sealed section."

Yet, WotC forbids any hint of homosexuality in their products and novels. Why? Because it might offend some readers. How many people would holler and scream at WotC for having a gay character? How many of you would feel uncomfortable about it?

Christopher


----------



## The Sigil

Khan the Warlord said:
			
		

> How dare Tracy Hickman equate the writers and editors responsible for Dragon #300 and _The Book of Vile Darkness_ to TERRORISM?! Mr. Hickman owes everyone that he slandered in his newsletter an apology.



I think this is overreacting - he didn't compare the authors to terrorists - he compared the writing of books that encourage role-playing of evil as being similar to encouraging terrorist activity.

Is Mr. Hickman's comparison a little over-the-top?  Probably.

Here it is before someone else claims it:
Cooley's Corollary to Godwin's Law - Godwin's Law is equally effective when "Terrorist" and "Bin Laden" are substituted for "Nazi" and "Hitler."



> That seals it: I will never again purchase anything with Mr. Hickman's name attached to it, which is quite sad, as he *WAS* an old favorite of mine. This type of irresponsible disclosure of his opinion should convince WotC to never allow him to author a work for them again.
> 
> That type of closed mentality reminds me of the Mothers Against Dungeons and Dragons so long ago. Its sad to see an industry leader informing the world that M.A.D.D was right so many years ago.



Ah.  Explain to me how your close-minded mentality ("anyone who has an opinion about morality that is different {specifically, more rigid/conservative} from mine is not worth listening to") is any different than Tracy's... because you're "more enlightened?"  These two paragraphs together do smack of a little hypocrisy.  You're slamming the door on someone because he actually "disclos{ed his} opinion"?  Heaven help Mystic Eye Games if you have an opinion I don't agree with and I find out about it. Sheesh.  So he doesn't have the same moral principles you do... so what?  So he was willing to share them... so what?  Really, I think you're over-recting.



> Shame on you, Tracy Hickman.



Shame on *you* for overreacting and blasting someone for expressing their opinion just because it is different than yours.

The correct response to Tracy's letter, if you do not agree with him is something along the lines of, "Tracy, you're overreacting.  There is a difference between talking about evil - what these works are doing - and advocating and committing acts of evil - which comprises the terrorist activity you attempted to equate them with.  If you want a good treatise on this, read the treatment Orson Scott Card (a fellow Mormon) gives on the subject of literature that depicts evil vs. literature that advocates evil vs. literature that is evil.  I disagree with you, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  I expect you to honor mine."

--The Sigil


----------



## diaglo

Henry said:
			
		

> *I think we need to keep Tracy's character in mind here; who he is in TSR's history - and what he's seen in his years of the gaming industry. Past that, I might write up a response to this article, if no one minds.  *




i liked your longer response Henry. and agree with it, mostly.


----------



## Kibo

*Re: Terrorism????*



			
				Hardhead said:
			
		

> *Mr. Hickman should be ashamed. *




If I read as poorly as some of the people on this thread, I'd certainly be ashamed, even humiliated.  Even through the inflammatory hyperbole, Mr. Hickman's point was obvious.  "Are there really so many people who would rather be villians than heroes that it really justifies risking D&D's return to a 60 minutes segment?"

Mr. Hickman's opinion might well be more inciteful than insightful (damn I'm good), and even less than brilliantly written. But willful misinterpritation, and misstatement of it hardly makes those presenting their opposing views seem more articulate.




--------------------

_Posted edited for inappropriate content - please don't make me close down 2 threads in one day. . . _


----------



## ColonelHardisson

I also feel that Hickman's equation of Dragon 300's "vile" content to terrorism to be unwise. It's along the lines of people who label as "nazis" anyone with whom they disagree - it cheapens the currency of the word.


----------



## Grazzt

Eosin the Red said:
			
		

> *
> Equating him to a Latter Day Saint is not only rude but it is against the rules of this board and is derogatory to tLDS - why not insinuate he is a Muslim, maybe Jew or Minnonite would work better.
> *




Dude- ya might wanna go back and reread some stuff. Nobody equated him to anything. Someone stated he *IS* a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints..a minister even.


----------



## Furn_Darkside

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *I did no such thing and offended at your suggestion*




Good. It seems to be the kewl fad today to be "offended" by comments of others- and to mock those offended by an actual product. I did not want to be left out.

You don't think suggesting Hickman had a "reactionary and narrow mind" or suggesting his comments were like "the kind of crap I expect from religous extremists and other wackos" isn't demonizing the comments of Hickman that you happen to disagree with?

I guess it depends which side of the issue you are on.

FD


----------



## Khan the Warlord

Stormprince said:
			
		

> *
> First of all, Tracy's correlation between "terrorism" was not just out from left field. He opened his mail box on September 11th, when you could not avoid thinking about terrorism (it was on just about every television station, in every newspaper, on every radio station). He saw something that offended him. He has the right to be offended. He also has the right to state his opinion in his own newsletter. Tracy has a very strong sense of what is good and evil, right and wrong, a strong sense of morality. His sense of morality was offended by seeing an entire magazine that is mailed to a wide-audience dedicated to "evil."*




He certainly is entitled to his opinions, but there is an added amount of responsibility and common sense he should use before he decided to take his level of "industry fame" to slander innocent designers that were required to complete a project (Monte may have came up with the idea, but I'm sure everyone else assigned was forced to expound and assist whether they liked it or not).

Tracy Hickman is guilty of slandering innocent industry professionals and should make a public apology to all involved. He is also guilty of trivializing the REAL tragedy that occured a year ago with the terrorist attacks.

I'm sure the families of those that died that day wouldn't enjoy seeing those events compared to a silly method of thinking concerning how a role-playing game should be played.

He also mistakenly took the approach of insulting the general gamer that would desire to play an evil PC or implement parts of tBoVD by saying " And my I further suggest that you demonstrate your own maturity by avoiding purchasing or playing ANYTHING labeled for ‘Mature Audiences Only".




> A magazine where there are subscribers who are kids. A magazine with a "sealed" section to supposedly prevent children from reading it. Come on now, a sealed section? Who do you know didn't unseal that section? Do you think any of these same people who may not be able to get into an R-rated movie without being escorted by an adult asked permission from their parents before they unsealed that section?




A magazine that over-dramatized the contents of the work by the opinion of everyone that has read it save Tracy Hickman (I've yet to see someone that has read the sealed portions agree that it *should* have been sealed). A magazine that despite whatever some people say (marketing ploy or legitimate concern), tried to stop younger audiences from perusing its "questionable" contents. 

A magazine that has given Mr. Hickman work in the past and didn't deserve the public lashing that it received by Mr. Hickman.



> *Personally, I don't need any product to tell me how to "make evil really evil." I have plenty of resources in real life, as Tsyr pointed out. *




Well, I'm glad for you -- I really am. However, not every player of the D&D game can say the same thing, or perhaps they're just too lazy to research "evil" for themselves. For whatever reason, there are multitudes of people that want this book and who has the right to stop WotC from giving it to them?



> *The fact that they're putting out only the Book of Vile Darkness, and not a companion "Good" book, just goes to show that it's one of those pure marketing manuscripts. *





Do you know the product release schedule of WotC for the next 5 years or so? Nope, I didn't think so. Whether they decide to make a companion "Good" book or not is irrelevant -- there are people that want this book and they're getting it.



> *Oh yeah, it was written by Monte Cook. How could I forget? How "dare" Tracy disagree with someone Monte or another writer put out. Shame on him. Grow up. Tracy and Laura Hickman worked for TSR to create the same worlds that still exist today. *





And this reasoning excuses Tracy for inappropriately slandering the names of good people? I don't care if the EGG, or Monte Cook said those remarks, I would nail them both on it. 



> *They created Ravenloft.*




Yep, which is very ironic -- it is like the pot calling the kettle "black".



> *Tracy has never made it a secret how he feels about morality. He didn't agree with having a character just be a thief, so he envisioned a race of innocent kleptomaniacs. Tracy and Margaret have dealt with and created some of the most memorable "evil" characters in modern fantasy. Lord Soth. Count Strahd. Raistlin. Mina. Dalamar, and now Prince Dagnarus in the Sovereign Stone trilogy. Need I go on? What makes them interesting characters, however, isn't the fact that they are evil, but despite the fact that they are evil.*




That is his creative approach and I loved almost every character. However, this doesn't give him the right to force his opinion on how evil should be handled in such an insulting and degrading manner, to both the designers and the customers that want it.



> *But to be fair to him, you're only seeing a message that he typed up in the heat of the moment. You haven't read some of his responses to the Dragonlance fans on the mailing lists. You haven't sitten down and talked to him about his viewpoints. *





Feel free to post a few snippets of his replies then. I would love to see them and I bet others would too. But, if you want, you can simply email them to me. Whichever.



> *Just as you loudly proclaimed "I am boycotting all his Sovereign Stone and Dragonlance stuff," he has the right to "boycott" this one particular issue of Dragon Magazine.*




I believe I was the only one loudly proclaiming my own personal boycott of all things Hickman. However, if Tracy would stand up and admit his mistake (not his opinion, but the rude and insulting manner in which he gave it), then I would gladly purchase every Hickman-related product that I originally planned to. Hell, I would forget the event ever occured.

What is the possibility of that happening?


----------



## Golem Joe

I see an awful lot of condemnation for Hickman and his thoughts and beliefs, his comparing the BoVD to Terrorism and the like, but not a lot of discussion of the central point of the arguement.  That is, if DnD is a game about heroes and heroics, why all the focus on evil and depravity?  Why are publishers putting out books about playing "evil" campaigns?  Why are people actually looking forward to a book that covers topics like necrophilia, slavery and the selling of one's soul?

I seem to recall Monte Cook here mentioning The Book of Exhalted Deeds would be a tougher sell for the DnD audience because it would cover the same ole-same ole.

While I think Tracy got a bit carried away in some of his comparisons, as we are all like to do when we feel passionate about something, I think his opinion has a lot of merit.  Does a book that revels in the "darker" aspect really add something substantial and positive to the DnD lexicon, or does it just revel in the kewl dark-fantasy fad?  Does, in some way, it do more harm to the game then good?  Not that villains don't play an important role in the game, but they certainly aren't meant to be the focus.

I've seen one post of someone declaring he will never purchase anything Tracy writes ever again because he compared a section of Dragon magazine to terrorists.  I haven't seen anyone declare they will do the same for Monte Cook for introducing spells based on necrophilia to the game.  Is that because terrorism is all too real and necrophilia is...well...necrophilia?  Please!


----------



## Desdichado

Eosin the Red said:
			
		

> *Equating him to a Latter Day Saint is not only rude but it is against the rules of this board and is derogatory to tLDS - why not insinuate he is a Muslim, maybe Jew or Minnonite would work better.  *



Uh, Tracey is a Mormon.  All you have to do is look at the "About the Author" section of any Dragonlance novel to figure that one out.  Nobody is insinuating he is one because of his delicate tastes, he really is one.

And, as we learned as a tangent on another thread a few months back, so are many posters (including me) on this message board.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

Then he is dumb pure and simple. The book to my knowledge is for DM use. It is intended for the DM to create greater and more vile evil foes for the players.

As they say the greater the evil you oppose, the greater the good you represent.




			
				Stormprince said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The point Tracy was trying to make here was that it seems that between Dragon 300 and the Book of Vile Darkness, it seems that WotC is encouraging PLAYERS to be evil, vile, corrupt and without any sense of morality.
> 
> Christopher *


----------



## The Sigil

Eosin the Red said:
			
		

> Equating him to a Latter Day Saint is not only rude but it is _against the rules of this board _and is derogatory to tLDS - why not insinuate he is a Muslim, maybe Jew or Minnonite would work better.
> 
> Reactionary is as reactionary does. I do not agree with Hickmans opinion but I am embarassed by the behavior here.



*applauds*  Kudos to you, Eosin, for selecting the proper response - "I do not agree with your behavior."

And shame on everyone who dragged Hickman's religion into this... Eosin's comments are right on the mark.  How is saying, "oh, he's just a reactionary Latter-Day Saint/Mormon" better than saying, "oh, he's just a reactionary Jew/Feminist/Muslim/Nazi."

Answer: It's not.

--The Sigil


----------



## Walker N. Waistz

Tracy posted the following on the DL-list:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before I begin, I just want to say how grateful I have been at the tone of the responses on the list today. While I understand that many of you may not agree with my position on this subject, your responses have been thoughtful and well presented. Well done, everyone.

==========

NYFD and the Terrorists, in an extreme sense, typify the archetypes of heroic good and vile evil. As such, I thought the analogy was reasonable. The point being made was which of these archetypes to we aspire to emulate.

My argument stems from my belief that archetypes, down through the ages, have existed to help us understand not only who we were historically but who we aspire to be. Heroes inspire man to achieve higher ideals.  Villains conquer, oppress and threaten to drag us backward.

My position is that role-playing -- and for that matter all other entertainments -- teach us something by speaking to the mythological hard-coding of our beings. Role-playing especially affects us.

(Yes, this is a subject requiring a LOT more space than this email. I suppose next month's newsletter would be as good a place as any.)

I do not believe in the so-called 'catharsis' of evil play. It is a
phantom.

I guess it is best summed up by saying that I believe we become whom we pretend to be -- which is why I do take this entirely too seriously and personally.

One last note: NYFD Firemen were not hired to die. Billions of the rest of us do not walk into hell, knowing full well that it is hell, in order to save someone else from that hell ... even with our own lives ... out of honor and duty. No, I do not believe they were doing their jobs like the rest of us; they went far beyond their jobs FOR the rest of us.

That is who I aspire to be.

Tracy Hickman


----------



## drnuncheon

Stormprince said:
			
		

> *His sense of morality was offended by seeing an entire magazine that is mailed to a wide-audience dedicated to "evil." A magazine where there are subscribers who are kids. A magazine with a "sealed" section to supposedly prevent children from reading it. Come on now, a sealed section? Who do you know didn't unseal that section? Do you think any of these same people who may not be able to get into an R-rated movie without being escorted by an adult asked permission from their parents before they unsealed that section?*




So, now the magazine is at fault because the parents aren't doing their job?  Please. If I were a parent and I saw that my kid was getting a magazine with a special "sealed section" I'd want to look it over before letting them read it.  That's part of a parent's job, and I have little patience with the people who think that everybody else should do their job for them.

As for your comments about Tracy "daring" to disagree with Monte Cook - as near as I can tell, the vast majority of the people on this thread think Tracy has an absolute right to believe as he does.  If anyone says he has no right to be offended by the content of the magazine, I'll stand right up and argue for him, because he's got the right to decide what he feels is appropriate for himself and his games.

What they - and I - object to is the way he chose to express himself - the way he equated a game designer with a terrorist.  If I were Monte, or Jesse Decker, or any of the folks at Dragon, I would be incredibly, mortally offended.  I would feel like I was being attacked by someone who had lost all sense of proportion.

I'm sure Tracy would feel exactly the same way if someone compared _him_ to a terrorist.

I appreciate your desire to defend your friend and co-worker, but do you _really_ think that comparing an issue of a magazine to the death and destruction in New York is appropriate?  Do you _really_ think that that shows _any_ kind of respect for the heroes and the victims of that day?  Would you walk up to someone who has lost a spouse, parent or child and say, "I know just how you feel, the latest issue of Dragon was morally repulsive to me."

I don't think so, and I hope that Tracy wouldn't either.

J


----------



## The Sigil

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *I also feel that Hickman's equation of Dragon 300's "vile" content to terrorism to be unwise. It's along the lines of people who label as "nazis" anyone with whom they disagree - it cheapens the currency of the word. *




Too late... I already claimed the corollary to Godwin's Law. 

--The Sigil


----------



## ruleslawyer

robotron666 said:
			
		

> *You also have to take this at face value. Tracy's reaction is a rant. Rant's are often pointless expressions of deep frustrations and anger than the actual subject. *




No; I really think this rant goes a little beyond the typical hyperbolic, emotional expression of anger at a particular issue.

As an international lawyer and (former) WTC neighbor, I get angry enough when Dubya attempts to draw irrational parallels between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attack. For someone to bring this into an assault on a particular _role-playing game marketing strategy_ isn't only patently absurd, but also extraordinary painful and offensive to those affected by the attack. 

Even if I didn't completely disagree with Mr. Hickman's point (which I do), his comparison to terrorism would have discredited his complaints in my eyes.  Quite plainly, Mr. Hickman's "rant" constitutes conduct which I find perhaps the most impermissible reference to 9/11 that I've ever read.

Moreover, I do completely disagree with Mr. Hickman's points, as they constitute the worst sort of socially-conservative pro-censorship moralism. Namely, Mr. Hickman equates portrayal of particular conduct with implicit endorsement of that conduct.  I think that it's clear that BoVD and its attendant issue of Dragon, far from promoting or even condoning acts of torture, sexual violence, or drug use, labels these acts "evil" and is providing some mechanics and description of such acts as ways for DMs to illustrate the true horror of evil in their campaigns. Following Mr. Hickman's argument, we might say that Call of Cthulhu promotes insane conduct, or that Schindler's List promotes Nazism.

Finally, it's clear that WotC did make a strong attempt to keep the concepts in BoVD out of the hands of younger gamers. The sections in Dragon 300 are sealed, which makes it difficult for younger gamers to flip through them at the store and signals parents that something less-than-appropriate for their young children is contained there; and Monte even includes an article on how to follow a "ratings" system for a campaign, which would be extremely useful for DMs dealing with younger gamers.

Finally, I do agree with Kibo that BoVD is handing quite a bit of ammo to the anti-D&D kooks. However, I might also point out that in all honesty, those kooks would be anti-D&D to begin with, and are unlikely even to notice the issuance of a new sourcebook, since I really doubt that Jack Chick and his ilk actually read or even look at the books. 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.


----------



## Omega Lord

Considering Mr. Hickman is the co-author of one of my favorite fantasy series of all time, it saddens me greatly to see him ranting and raving without making a point. Such extremist impulsive ravings I would expect from Jack Chick or a similar fundamental extrimist, but to hear it from Mr. Hickman is dissapointing to say the least. Also I find the comparison of an article in a magazine to what happened on 9-11 disgusting. By making such a comparison Mr. Hickman trivializes one of the most devestating events in recent history. I am not begrudging Mr. Hickman's right to an opinon but really that is going too far. I personally am going to buy the BoVD and use it as a tool for creating realistic and truly despicable villans for my players to confront and destroy.


----------



## Kibo

Furn_Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Really? As a non-certified member of the ultra-conservatives, I would let you know it has always been our theory it has been those quote opposite of us in charge of the FCC.
> 
> 
> 
> FD *




Collin Powell's son heads the FCC.  You should see some of the things they've handed fines out for lately.  Including but not limited to a teenage asking health related questions.  Meanwhile if I wanted to say anything was particularly cruel, and grossly inappropriate about the gay and lesbian community under the guise of my religious beliefes that would be ok.

A tyranny of the minority over the majority.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Too late... I already claimed the corollary to Godwin's Law.
> 
> --The Sigil *




Sorry; I tried to read the thread, but I guess I missed that.


----------



## JacktheRabbit

Not at all. I did not equate a few pages in a magazine with the murder of 3000 people through the destruction of the Wold Trade Center. I merely called him out on his cheap tactic of so horribly demonizing something merely because he didnt like it.





			
				Furn_Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Good. It seems to be the kewl fad today to be "offended" by comments of others- and to mock those offended by an actual product. I did not want to be left out.
> 
> You don't think suggesting Hickman had a "reactionary and narrow mind" or suggesting his comments were like "the kind of crap I expect from religous extremists and other wackos" isn't demonizing the comments of Hickman that you happen to disagree with?
> 
> I guess it depends which side of the issue you are on.
> 
> FD *


----------



## drnuncheon

Golem Joe said:
			
		

> *I see an awful lot of condemnation for Hickman and his thoughts and beliefs, his comparing the BoVD to Terrorism and the like, but not a lot of discussion of the central point of the arguement.*




That is the damger of using the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that he chose to use.  Had he approached the subject in a calm and rational manner, there would have been far more chance at a calm and rational discussion.



			
				Golem Joe said:
			
		

> *I've seen one post of someone declaring he will never purchase anything Tracy writes ever again because he compared a section of Dragon magazine to terrorists.  I haven't seen anyone declare they will do the same for Monte Cook for introducing spells based on necrophilia to the game.*




Please get your facts straight.  The spell (singular) based on necrophilia is in an article by James Jacobs, not Monte Cook.  If you're going to assign "blame" assign it to the proper people.

J


----------



## D'karr

Some people get offended too easily.

No wonder we still don't have world peace.  It is an unattainable goal with regards to the human condition.


----------



## Khan the Warlord

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *
> I think this is overreacting - he didn't compare the authors to terrorists - he compared the writing of books that encourage role-playing of evil as being similar to encouraging terrorist activity.
> 
> Is Mr. Hickman's comparison a little over-the-top?  Probably.*




He mentioned terrorism in his post just a few days after the anniversary of 9/11. He mentioned 9/11 specifically. It is natural for me to include the name of the person responsible for 9/11 when I reply.




> *Ah.  Explain to me how your close-minded mentality ("anyone who has an opinion about morality that is different {specifically, more rigid/conservative} from mine is not worth listening to") is any different than Tracy's... because you're "more enlightened?"  These two paragraphs together do smack of a little hypocrisy.  You're slamming the door on someone because he actually "disclos{ed his} opinion"?  Heaven help Mystic Eye Games if you have an opinion I don't agree with and I find out about it. Sheesh.  So he doesn't have the same moral principles you do... so what?  So he was willing to share them... so what?  Really, I think you're over-recting.*




1. At no point am I blasting Tracy for stating his opinion regarding the evil theme of Dragon, the sealed contents, or the Book of Vile Darkness. I "slammed" him for attacking, insulting, and equating everyone responsible for it to terrorists. As I've said before, Tracy is free to have whatever opinion he wants, but there is a bit of accountability one of "fame" needs to watch for when he uses the approach Tracy did to communicate those opinions.

2. And perhaps you're right about my relationship and MEG -- perhaps I should put a disclaimer in my signature that states "The opinions and statements offered in this thread in no way relate to those of my employers, whom I freelance for".



> Shame on *you* for overreacting and blasting someone for expressing their opinion just because it is different than yours.




I hope my earlier response in this thread sheds some light for you here, as I wasn't bashing Tracy at all for voicing his opinions -- merely the insulting manner in which he did so, both to the designers and to the gamers that would be interested in the  "evil books".



> *The correct response to Tracy's letter, if you do not agree with him is something along the lines of, "Tracy, you're overreacting.  There is a difference between talking about evil - what these works are doing - and advocating and committing acts of evil - which comprises the terrorist activity you attempted to equate them with.  If you want a good treatise on this, read the treatment Orson Scott Card (a fellow Mormon) gives on the subject of literature that depicts evil vs. literature that advocates evil vs. literature that is evil.  I disagree with you, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  I expect you to honor mine."
> 
> --The Sigil *




Perhaps you're right to a degree here, and if my responses in this thread have offended anyone, then my apologies. 

Now for a bit of humor: Like Tracy, I was presented with something that I found shocking and appaling and I responded in kind. Since it seems perfectly fine for Mr. Hickman do respond while enraged in any manner he chooses, hopefully I can be forgiven as well.


----------



## Harlock

Grazzt said:
			
		

> *Dude- ya might wanna go back and reread some stuff. Nobody equated him to anything. Someone stated he IS a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints..a minister even. *




A little calrification from a Latter-Day Saint.  He was said to be "like" a minister in our church.  The church actually doesn't have ministers in the protestant sense of the word.  We have a lay clergy.  Meaning just about every member of the church teaches, is called upon to speak to the congregation from time to time and that most of those people teaching in the church are not compensated monetarily for their efforts.  Only those that are basically working full time for the Church are paid.  

On to brother Hickman's remarks.  I hope everyone understands he was angry.  *I* was angry on 9-11.  I thought I was over this thing but just watching the Today show and a few reports had me in tears again.  My emotions were raw.  Over the top kind of raw, sort of like Tracy's response.  I tend to agree that this whole "mature audiences" thing isn't really about portraying vile and evil acts accurately to enhance your portrayal of villainy.  It is mainly just a marketing ploy.  Does that cheapen the D&D product?  I certainly think so.  I would have liked the actual D&D company, WotC, to stay above such base behavior.  This will rekindle old hatred for D&D from groups that already feel it was Satanic or whatever.  They do not care that it is about portrayal of villains for cinematic or thematic impact.  They'll simply read the cover and feel justified in their assumption that D&D is evil.

I was hoping the D20, OGL, OGC stuff would let WotC stay above this sort of thing so I as a gamer could always point out the fact that some "bad" product was made by a 3rd party publisher for D&D but not by D&D as it were.  Such is life.  I am dissapointed with things like this, but fortunately I don't have to buy it or read it.  Maybe it is because I am a father, a conservative, a "Mormon", or all three but I simply don't want anything in my home that my son could see or read and repeat back to a teacher, or grandparent, or even me.  Tracy did overreact in my opinion.  So have many of us who have responded to his letter.  Dragon #300 being in my mailbox (which it may be by now) is not anything like terrorism to me, it's simply sad.


----------



## Kibo

Khan the Warlord said:
			
		

> *
> Tracy Hickman is guilty of slandering innocent industry professionals and should make a public apology to all involved. *




By accusing Tracy Hickman of slander, in writing, you have libeled him.  (All the law I know I learned by watching spider-man).


----------



## Grazzt

Harlock said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A little calrification from a Latter-Day Saint.  He was said to be "like" a minister in our church.  The church actually doesn't have ministers in the protestant sense of the word.  We have a lay clergy.  Meaning just about every member of the church teaches, is called upon to speak to the congregation from time to time and that most of those people teaching in the church are not compensated monetarily for their efforts.  Only those that are basically working full time for the Church are paid.
> *




My apologies Harlock. I should've mentioned in my quote that the other poster said he was "like" a minister.


----------



## Henry

Perhaps I should clarify something myself for Eosin and Sigil:

When I made mention of Tracy's Faith, I was not citing it as derogatory in any way. I have read the man's work for almost 20 years, and I love his work dearly. His and Margaret's Dragonlance 
work on deities greatly influenced my home-brew campaign.

What I was making a point of was, for those who did not understand his attitudes, that he is a practicing member of a faith that has very strong convictions on the topics mentioned in his opinion piece. Tracy has made no secret of his faith, and in fact has used it as a reference point in past editorials against those who claim that RPG's lead to "evil and debauchery." It is part of who he is, as surely as "writer and game designer" is. It is key to understanding part of his editorial above, in addition to the knowledge that he lived through some of the worst of times for the Public image of TSR and D&D. No doubt some of his own religious brethren have given him flack for defending this potentially soul-destroying hobby of ours.

And now, what does he see in his mailbox on the anniversary of the most tragic even this country has seen since 1963 or 1941?

I understand, I just don't agree.


----------



## Blackspy

*Tracy's Rant*

It's too bad that Tracy didn't cool off before he wrote his rant.  Emotions are running high this week all over the world - you can't really blame anyone for getting frustrated - at least that is the way I am taking this rant.  
   "What the hell is a slaad" anyways?  The Comics Book hysteria code made my gaming years a little different in the late 80's, as an author and designer it likely impeded Tracy's work.  Vermingaard ( sp?) and Lord Soth are epitomes  of villians in my world.  Watching Raistlin's dance with darkness was interesting and good reading.  Any DM worth his salt could make use of the BoVD or the infamous Dragon300 sealed section and keep it out of the campaign he runs for his kids and their friends. No terrorism there.  
  As for players copying what they play or see in the game, I don't know what level assassin/meglomanic Hitler played in his game.
  In closing, Tracy, cool off the next time you see something you don't like, the families are playing the game now because their kids are now old enough - not because of the sancity of the Comic Book Code.
PS. I am also a member who is Bother About Disposable Dragons.


----------



## The Sigil

Khan the Warlord said:
			
		

> I hope my earlier response in this thread sheds some light for you here, as I wasn't bashing Tracy at all for voicing his opinions -- merely the insulting manner in which he did so, both to the designers and to the gamers that would be interested in the  "evil books".



Could Mr. Hickman have done better?  Certainly.  However, I must admit, a (small) part of me agrees that the very fact that this material is being published should be an affront to a "mature" gamer - not because it discusses "mature content" but because it does so in a juvenile fashion.

There is also a part of me that agrees with Mr. Hickman - in that I agree that those who want this juvenile treatment published are insulting and immature.  As you indicated, it's not an indictment of the subject matter so much as the way it is being handled.  There is, however, another part of me that says, "well, better to be done in a juvenile fashion than not done at all."  A third part of me disagrees with both of the above. 

Hopefully this analogy is a little more agreeable to everyone... there are "mature" and "immature" ways to handle the same subject.  Medical textbooks have pictures of the naked human form (IMO, the naked human form is mature subject matter).  Playboy has pictures of the naked human form.  IMO, the medical textbooks handle the naked human form in a mature fashion.  Playboy handles the naked human form in a juvenile fashion.  



> Perhaps you're right to a degree here, and if my responses in this thread have offended anyone, then my apologies.
> 
> Now for a bit of humor: Like Tracy, I was presented with something that I found shocking and appaling and I responded in kind. Since it seems perfectly fine for Mr. Hickman do respond while enraged in any manner he chooses, hopefully I can be forgiven as well.



I understand where you're coming from - Mr. Hickman's response hits your sensibilities in the same way the magazine hit his.  There isn't only humor involved here.

I will be more than happy to be the first in line to say, "you're forgiven." 

--The Sigil


----------



## mike

I just read the silly rant from Tracy Hickman - to compare anything in a roleplaying game to terrorism is outrageous! Terrorism destroys innocent peoples lives - this is just a game - if you dont like it dont buy it - some folks (like me) are looking forward to 'mature audience' content.


----------



## Buttercup

Sigh.  I am getting soooooo tired of all the ranting and raving about BoVD.  

Some of us will buy it.  Some of us won't.  Three months from now, this whole brouhaha will have faded into the past.  But for me, one thing won't fade.  And that is Mr. Hickman equating words in a magazine with the horrible, senseless, gruesome murder of thousands of people.  See, I recognize real, honest-to-god evil.  I saw it in plenty that day.  Words on a piece of paper can be shocking, or rude, or offensive, or stupid.  But not evil.  They're just words.  It disgusts me that anyone could equate the two.  I think of the families who don't even have remains to bury, because their loved ones were incinerated, and then I think about the most offensive words I know, written on a piece of paper.  On the one hand you have a tragedy, on the other you have nothing much.

I've been weeping for our dead on and off for a year.  To me, his words say that he takes those deaths far too lightly.  Shame on him.


----------



## the Jester

*Re: Re: Terrorism????*



			
				Kibo said:
			
		

> *
> Post Quoted From Earlier In Thread Now Deleted *




Okay, now THIS is offensive.  Keep your predjudices to yourself, please.  This is exactly the kind of post that gets threads closed.


_Ashtal Edit: You did nothing wrong ...  I'm just removing the content which had been removed.  Nemm probably hadn't seen the quoting. _


----------



## Khan the Warlord

Kibo said:
			
		

> *
> 
> By accusing Tracy Hickman of slander, in writing, you have libeled him.  (All the law I know I learned by watching spider-man). *




It was a quick and hastily chosen word used when I meant to say "libel" or any of a number of others. How about "rude", "insulting", or "un-called for"?

I'm sure Mr. Hickman would understand my usage of the word, but if not, I hope my lawyers can in my defense.


----------



## Eosin the Red

Grazzt and others:

Thanks for the pointer - I had actually caught it and was editing my post before 20 some odds posts racked up behind me. Noted in the original that he actually is LDS, still not appropiate for argumentation but not as bad as it initially appeared.

My point still holds and it seems like others concur: Poor taste? yes. Overreacting? Yes. Deserving of a lynching? No. Reacting in exactly the same fashion while denouncing him. Down right funny.


----------



## Furn_Darkside

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> *
> 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. *




Just to be clear on this issue- as I have said in other posts: 

I am on a "wait and see" position on BoVD. 

If it it contains im-"mature" content such as some of the work in Dragon 300. I will not buy it.

If it contains useful material to help my dm'ng, then I will be in line to buy it.

Monte Cook has never shown signs of using bad taste in his past products that I have purchased. He has only improved my campeign. I will give him the benefit of the doubt until the book is out.

FD


----------



## Celebrim

First, I have three points.  Those points are not directly related to each other except by the fact that both points are about Mr. Hickman's complaint.

The first point is that the reference to 9/11 in the complaint is unwise.  Not because a parallel can't be drawn between evil and evil, but because frankly the level of evil we are talking about here is of completely different levels.  Making a reference to 9/11 does not clarify his position.  Instead, it obfuscates it.  Making a reference to 9/11 just gives people an excuse for missing the point.  Even for people that are inclined to agree with him about his overall point, 9/11 is such an emotionally charged subject that any comparison between it and gaming is frought with difficulties.  So just forget about the fact that Hickman begins his complaint with that overused word 'terrorism'.

Second of all, Mr. Hickman is not some innocent ignorent person unaquainted with evil, gaming, life, fantasy or writing.  This is a guy who callaborated in the creation of most of the villians that are currently being voted on as best villain in gaming.  To make a loose comparison, claiming that Hickman is some sort of pansy because he has strong moral convictions is like claiming Orson Scott Card (another author from the same background) is a pansy that is unfamiliar with evil and afraid to depict it.  Those of you that are dismissive of him only make yourselves appear foolish.  Maybe this wasn't his best written piece, and maybe you don't agree with him but no one has yet presented on this board anything like a rebuttal of his complaints.  Instead, we see the same sort of mistakes made in this thread that you are so angry about in his editorial - emotional reaction, hyperbole, demonization, etc.

Thirdly, all that said, I pretty much agree with Mr. Hickman.  There is no point in having an RPG supplement about 'vileness', I find the lust that exists for such material appalling.  Labeling something 'mature content' does 9 times in 10 mean that the content is immature, base, purile, and so forth.  Shock sells, but shock for the sake of shock is neither deep nor art and seldom wise.  It is merely attention grabbing behavior, and a mature society should not condone it as valuable expression (although it should probably gaurd against banning it completely as well).  Indeed it is Mr. Hickmans attempt at shock value by referencing 9/11 that I think upsets most people.

Yes, horrific things occur in history, and sometimes an author may even want to make (within his judgement) a blunt reference to that, but I often get feeling that there is a faction out there that just wants to revel in the vileness, that feels that one is not 'cool' unless one can out Herod Herod, that isn't satisfied until they can be graphically perverse and aren't sickened by it, and seriously loves celebrating evil as a thing to be immulated and even considered as a non-evil thing. It is against this faction that I think Hickman rails, and the suspicion that Wizards has stooped to catering to this faction and its beliefs because it would be short term profitable.


----------



## Eosin the Red

Holy smokes Batman, that piece above is about the most god awful piece of garbage I have ever seen. I understand outrage. I understand justice. I don't understand hate in this fashion. Help, help, mods?


----------



## Darke

Silly rant from T.H.

das Darke


----------



## mtbdm

*Immaturity*

Well, what could be more "immature" than Tracy's little rant, eh? They call it "Mature Content" because mature people can deal with it responsibly, Tracy. First of all, D&D is not a comic. Second, there are a LOT of ADULT comics out there (many of them much better than the typical superhero trash). I, for one, am overjoyed D&D finally stepped up to the plate and tackled mature themes.  Many other RPGs and products have dealt with such themes for a long time. I say GIMMIE MORE! I'm sick of typical Disneyfied happy fantasy CRAP! (For an example of such, anyone may refer to Mr. Hickman's Dragonlance novels). Keep your morals to yourself. Everyone else has plenty of their own--like FREE SPEECH, for one. If you want to play "Winky Puke in Rainbow World" the RPG, feel free. Let the rest of us purchase and play what we want. Don't like the Book of Vile Darkness? DON'T BUY IT! 
Sincerely,
Matt the Bastard DM


----------



## Default Name Player

I have nothing to add in regards to Hickman and his Dragon Magazine/9-11 connection. If he enters a rant because of a magazine, the so be it: more power to him. I only have to look at the skyline whenever I go to work to be reminded, but that's only me...and a few million other New Yorkers.

I just want to point to out to those who are saying how this "change" is for the worse for D&D...well, to be honest, this "change" has already been going on in comic books...and television...and video games...and movies...etc. 

Same complaints, same defenses, different mediums. Replace "Book of Vile Darkness" with "Grand Theft Auto 3", and it's pretty much the same words being spouted at the moment.

Personally, I have my own tolerances, and I keep them to myself. If I don't like something, I don't buy/watch it. If I feel I need to rant (and I mean a rant, not a discussion) about it...well, be prepared to be slammed for it. Hickman made his choice, and the consequences it entails.

Oh, and as usual with any thread that involves "Book of Vile Darkness", I just want to add the obligatory "the book isn't out yet".  

Well, off I go to try to do something more positive...like trying to help save Farscape...


----------



## Samnell

EDIT: Nevermind. Boards keep mangling the quote.


----------



## Umbran

_*sigh*_

I, for one, would like to ask people to keep to the subject.  Veering off into partisan discussion of FCC policies won't be constructive.

Let's remember something.  These times can be hard on folks of good conscience.  And, under pressure, sometimes people do unwise things.  Are we to come down on him like a ton of bricks for one mistake?  I ask you what's more constructive - anger and indignance that he did something less than wise, or a bit of compassion?

It isn't like Mr. Hickman is a public official, or even terribly famous, as these things go.  He writes books, occasionaly pretty good ones.  But it isn't like he's a major molder of fashion, who has an implicit responsibility to set a good example.  He's just this guy, really.


----------



## Buttercup

*Re: Re: Terrorism????*



			
				Kibo said:
			
		

> *
> Some offensively bigoted comments.
> *




Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## Slacker

Tracy Hickman has an opinion. Everyone else has an opinion. I'm not angry with Mr. Hickman for having an opinion I don't share. I am somewhat miffed that he's writing rants when he should be writing material for the 3rd ed. Dragonlance sourcebook.


----------



## dpdx

I'd like to add one more point to ruleslawyer's already excellent post (which he may or may not agree with. See, I don't claim to speak for him):

Lately, our society seems to be doing (or not doing) things "for the kids" a lot. Tracy brings up in his rant that there are kids who read Dragon, and that they have the necessary motor skills to pop the seal and read the "adult" stuff. All well and good, but...

Maybe this (BoVD) isn't for the kids.

Maybe, like the Supreme Court once said (and I'm paraphrasing here), if you were to edit a work based on what is suitable for kids, you would not only violate the rights of the adults in the audience (and we are many) by restricting their content to kid-friendly stuff only, but you would also violate the author's right to publish whatever he darn well chooses.

D&D, I'm guessing, is mostly played by adults. More adults have the discretionary income to drop $80 or so on the core Rulebooks and some dice than do children.

D&D is also, at its core, about killing monsters and taking their stuff. Killing and stealing are adult concepts. So if you're a kid that's playing DnD, you're playing at killing monsters and taking their stuff. Whether it gets sicker than that is up to you, but you're already playing an adult game.

So maybe Wizards can produce ONE book and dedicate ONE issue of a magazine for adults.

It certainly sounds comprehensive enough, the BoVD. I can't imagine Wizards is going to say to its customers, "Hey, hold up! BoVD II!! We've discovered more sick things we can do to corpses!"


----------



## Buttercup

Eosin the Red said:
			
		

> *Holy smokes Batman, that piece above is about the most god awful piece of garbage I have ever seen. I understand outrage. I understand justice. I don't understand hate in this fashion. Help, help, mods? *




Click the "Report this post to a moderator."  It's the fastest way to get the problem taken care of.


----------



## Nightfall

Khan the Warlord said:
			
		

> * Yes, Tracy probably DMs a wonderful bit of Bunnies & Snowflakes.
> *





Well wouldn't THAT far. But that's just me. 



			
				Khan the Warlord said:
			
		

> *How can I not take this to the extreme that I have when I see the "great" Tracy Hickman place industry professionals like Monte Cook and Jesse Decker in the same light as Osama Bin Laden and terrorism?
> 
> How could anyone not take it offensive ly? I can only imagine how the people he branded this way must feel when they read this.
> 
> I was very much looking forward to the new DL 3e and Soveriegn Press products -- but no more.
> 
> Ever. *




Well that's your veiw Khan and I DO respect it. That being said, the best way to RE-ACT to something like this is NOT react. Whether or not Hickman is intending to get a rise out out of people, I say "Let's not give him the satisifaction." Instead, let's just judge him on his merits as a designer for this hobby. So far in 3rd I'd say he's got a ways to go.


----------



## derverdammte

I didn't know Mr. Hickman was a mormon, but that doesn't enter into my lack of interest in him and his body of work.  Frankly, I'm not surprised by his rant.  After reading some of his other "opinion" material a long time ago, I figured he was a radical fundamentalist only slightly to the left of Bob Larson.

I disagree with his moral sensibilities--and his gaming sensibilities.  Have you read that essay of his on morality in gaming?  Screw that.  I think anyone who gets that self-conscious about morality in the games they run is misguided.

Consider this: if you're confident that you're a moral person, that should show up as a fundamental component of the games you run WITHOUT you having to put it in there.  His suggestions sound stilted, awkward, and preachy.

As far as his overreaction goes, well, it's nothing we haven't seen on these boards.  The only thing missing is the mention of soccer moms.  I'm fundamentally unimpressed with that kind of screeching and wailing.

(note:  I am not slamming mormons, fundamentalists, or Tracy Hickman.  Bob Larson is a sick lunatic, though.  I'll say that for free.)


----------



## lordtwang

Apparently terrorism has fallen a long way from the old days.  Today's prime target is the small Christian role-playing audience.  Mr. Hickman is entitled to his opinion, but I am insulted by his cheapening of 9-11.  The event has nothing to do with Dragon Magazine and gaming.  At least Dragon didn't try to sell the issue by striping the cover in red, white, and blue.

Sure, they probably shouldn't have sent the article out to everyone, but he didn't have to read it either.  I get vile Chrisitian propaganda hung on my door knob and placed into my mailbox all the time.  You know what I do, I cringe and throw it away.  I don't read it!  He should've thrown the magazine away and asked the publisher for a refund.  

Not everything is made to a Mormon's taste because not everyone is a Mormon.  If you choose a stringent life-path, you must filter for yourself.  Don't expect people from a different path to filter for you.  Because you're mature enough to filter for yourself, mature enough to make a decision whether you view content.  That's why it's called mature content--not that the writing inside is mature but that mature people can decide what to do with it, can look at it and say, "Well that's really cool," or "Well, that was all sinful."  Being a mature person, Mr. Hickman decided he didn't like it and good for him.

Now, I must say, I have a little personal boycott of my own and it started long before this:  I won't read books written by Mr. Hickman.  I read a couple and having studied myth and literature for years now, I can see his Christian views seeping all through those stories.  Now a writer's views always seep through a story, but here I mean seeping in a way that makes me feel uncomfortable, like he's trying to convince me of something or tell me how life really is.  I'm not a Christian, and I find Christianity offensive.  So I do the mature thing and avoid his books.

I'm not surprised by his statement.  If you look at his website and his views on role-playing, as a gamer you should be offended.  He thinks there's only one way to play games and that's just not true.  He can have a good morality play if he and his players want that, but the rest of us don't have to play it that way.  Most Christians grow more and more conservative as they age and he seems to be another one.  Look at Orson Scott Card for example.  He's one of the best writers out there in my opinion but I just can't stomach his books like I used to.  And the stuff on his website . . . I just don't go there anymore.


I'm still confused as to how 1 issue out of 300 ruins it all.  Wait, I guess it's because you only have to sin once to go to Hell or something like that.

You know, he makes it sound like no one else has ever worked to improve D&D's image.  And like someone said before, people who thought it was evil back in the day still think it's evil now.  Do you think cleaning it up actually changed the minds of people who showed that it was evil by misunderstanding and (illegally in some circumstances I've seen) misquoting the text?

And sorry, but I've never seen a D&D book with Comics Code Authority stamp on it.  I don't think the major comics companies even use that drivel anymore.


----------



## Zappo

Thorntangle said:
			
		

> *The equation of what-you-don't-like with terrorism is really starting to piss me off. It reeks of the witchhunt and is a cheap way to intimidate people into silence. And if people keep doing this, the terrorists will have won  *



I SO agree! Terrorism has become a shield behind which any position can be held. It seems that anything can be done in the name of defense against terrorism, and, as if by magic, noone can dare complain.

That's the only thing I wouldn't forgive in a blink to mr. Hickman. The rest, I dismiss because it's just a rant.



My position is simple: _noone can tell me how I have to play!_ Not WotC, not mr. Hickman, not anyone else. So anyone who takes offense to the closed section of Dragon or to the BoVD is free to take all the offense he wishes but not to say that the material shouldn't have been printed, or that I shouldn't play evil PCs - that's nothing but censorship.


----------



## Roland Delacroix

Khan the Warlord said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, Tracy probably DMs a wonderful bit of Bunnies & Snowflakes.  *




The game is Bunnies and BURROWS, and it still has quite a bit of killing as you watch out for eagles and such.  

Heres a link to the GURPS version:  http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/Bunnies/

You can still find them on Ebay


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

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 thought which I regularly see employed here when it is suggested that any exercise of thought or the imagination could possibly be bad.

If you're in that group, think carefully about the logical outcome of your though processes. Would it disturb you to find a group role-playing the 9/11 terrorists? ("I have +15 to pilot (jumbo jet) so I can crash the plane into the building, right"). How about a group role-playing the rape and murder of that little girl down in Southern California? (Player to DM: "Does she scream? Good, I begin to torture her--do I get a synergy bonus from having watched the videos?"). If these examples are offensive to you, that's exactly the point. They ought to offend you. If they don't, I rather doubt your moral sensibilities. Such things are not fit topics for entertainment. But that's exactly the kind of thing that the push towards "mature content" in gaming encourages. Those hypothetical campaigns are certainly vile--almost beyond belief--but Dragon magazine mentions "vile" campaigns as just another option for our entertainment--neither better nor worse than heroic campaigns. Think very carefully about what you accept and encourage. You might just get it and then everyone will have to live with the consequences.

Fortunately, this board, unlike many places on the internet, also has a group of people who are actually willing to think and to employ their moral faculties. My thanks to those of you who have posted in this thread. Had you not, my disgust for the other commentary would probably have driven me away from the boards and possibly away from gaming which I enjoy very much.


----------



## ForceUser

Default Name Player said:
			
		

> *I only have to look at the skyline whenever I go to work to be reminded, but that's only me...and a few million other New Yorkers.*



At the risk of seeming unmasculine, (hug).


----------



## Golem Joe

Khan the Warlord said:
			
		

> *Tracy Hickman is guilty of slandering innocent industry professionals and should make a public apology to all involved. He is also guilty of trivializing the REAL tragedy that occured a year ago with the terrorist attacks.*




I think you need to go back and reread the requirements of a slander charge.



> *I'm sure the families of those that died that day wouldn't enjoy seeing those events compared to a silly method of thinking concerning how a role-playing game should be played.*




Just curious, but are you suggesting the correlation would have been alright PRE-9/11?



> *He also mistakenly took the approach of insulting the general gamer that would desire to play an evil PC or implement parts of tBoVD by saying " And my I further suggest that you demonstrate your own maturity by avoiding purchasing or playing ANYTHING labeled for ‘Mature Audiences Only".*




By saying they are motivated out of baser instincts, yes he did.  Anyone else here ever had issues with a player who took playing his character as an excuse to be as evil and depraved as he could be?  I won't say there aren't people capable of playing a good villain.  But most players who go the "evil" route are just looking to thumb their nose at societal norms.  I certainly wouldn't put up with that in one of my games.



> *A magazine that over-dramatized the contents of the work by the opinion of everyone that has read it save Tracy Hickman (I've yet to see someone that has read the sealed portions agree that it *should* have been sealed).*




Well, in Tracy's opinion it should have been omitted completely.  How's that?



> *A magazine that despite whatever some people say (marketing ploy or legitimate concern), tried to stop younger audiences from perusing its "questionable" contents. *




By "sealing" the contents?  Oh, good luck.  I bet that won't even keep kids out of it at Barnes and Noble, let alone in their own homes.  



> *A magazine that has given Mr. Hickman work in the past and didn't deserve the public lashing that it received by Mr. Hickman.*




In your opinion it doesn't.  In his, it does.



> *For whatever reason, there are multitudes of people that want this book and who has the right to stop WotC from giving it to them?*




No one.  And I don't have the right to stop you from shooting up with heroin, either.  I can't make you stop reading trashy romances or watching porn.  But just because someone CAN give you something doesn't mean its the right thing to do.  (BTW, I do realize no one is gonna DIE from reading BoVD.  The question is does it cheapen the game as a whole?)



> *Do you know the product release schedule of WotC for the next 5 years or so? Nope, I didn't think so. Whether they decide to make a companion "Good" book or not is irrelevant -- there are people that want this book and they're getting it.*




Actually, I've read posts where Monte has talked about doing a Book of Exalted Deeds, but has said WotC hasn't commissioned such a work.  So maybe not 5 years, but at least the next year.



> *And this reasoning excuses Tracy for inappropriately slandering the names of good people? I don't care if the EGG, or Monte Cook said those remarks, I would nail them both on it. *




And yet you don't seem to want to address the primary argument.



> *Yep, which is very ironic -- it is like the pot calling the kettle "black".*




How so?  First of all, Tracy Hickman did NOT write the Ravenloft campaign setting, only the original module.  And I fail to see how THAT in any way encourages players to take the role of evil characters.  Ditto with the Desert of Desolation books.



> *That is his creative approach and I loved almost every character. However, this doesn't give him the right to force his opinion on how evil should be handled in such an insulting and degrading manner, to both the designers and the customers that want it.*




Actually he has every right to state his opinion on how evil should be handled, and can be as insulting and degrading as be pleases.  Be so kind and tell us when he comes to your door and stops you from reading your Dragon, or when he spends his fortunes to buy every last copy of BoVD so that it never sees the light of day.  Right now, the fact that this thread is so active with a variety of opinions proves he's done anything but FORCE an opinion on anyone.

Or will Monte be on later to say: "I wrote the book and I was wrong."

[snip]



> *I believe I was the only one loudly proclaiming my own personal boycott of all things Hickman. However, if Tracy would stand up and admit his mistake (not his opinion, but the rude and insulting manner in which he gave it), then I would gladly purchase every Hickman-related product that I originally planned to. Hell, I would forget the event ever occured.*




So it is a fact that he was rude and insulting, not your opinion?  Isn't that coming close to forcing an opinion on him?


----------



## Clefton Twain

*Indifference*

You know, I think I've passed the point of really caring much about things like this. Opinions are like rear-ends: Everybody's got one and they all stink (yes, even mine ).

If Tracy didn't like the whole vile thing he is entitled to do that. I personally didn't really find it all that great nor did I find it horrible. I found bits of stuff I could use in a campaign and bits of stuff I probably wouldn't.

There is always going to be something that somebody doesn't like about everything and I accept that. I just think Tracy went a little overboard in his fervor. Obviously he really REALLY (I mean *really*) hates it, we all figured that out.

But I don't really understand the link to terrorism. Mostly, I guess, I simply figure that if he was offended by reading it on September 11, then don't open the danged thing. Just like I'm probably not going to watch Apocalypse Now or some mass-destruction movie on September 11.

My basic view is this: No matter who you are, if you post a message like Tracy's, you're going to tick off a lot of people even if you're 100% in the right (which we all know opinions are neither right or wrong...right? ) You could be a nobody or you could be the President of the United States and people will still think you're a nutcase. Even if it's in your own newsletter there is something to be said for a well thought out message and opinions backed up by either fact or examples.

I'm not even sure where I'm going with this but I think I'm done.

(edited for formatting)

--CT


----------



## Dextolen

While Mr. Hickman was a bit over the top, I echo some of his thoughts.

Products that promote/exhibit mature themes just debase the hobby.  It was hard enought for some of us growing up with parents that flipped through the old 1st ed. books pointing at each exposed nip and demonic maw.   I don't know if parents still do that kind of stuff but Dragon 300/BoVD will give them reason enough.

Further definition of evil within D&D is unneccesary to me, I have no need for any product that goes into lengthy detail on how to be "More evil".  I don't plan on running evil campaigns and find that I can make opponents evil enough with the core rules, thank you very much.  

And let's be honest, evil cult number 234-A4 lasts about 50 seconds in game time before they are cleaved, stacked and sorted by the adventuring party anyhow.   I can only hope that the evil cleric can buff himself and get off a few spells before he meets (choose evil god) personally.


----------



## Talaysen

Ok...I don't have time to read through all the replies and see if all these points have already been addressed, but I'd like to say a few things.

First, we should keep in mind where this is coming from. A Mormon. A Mormon who lives in Utah. A Mormon who lives in Utah and has expressed very strong views on ethics and morality in fantasy role-playing. Tracy, I think you're a good, decent sort of fellow at heart - or at least you want to be. I really do. But I never expected folks like you to take this well. I think the Pope's a pretty good guy too. I don't think he'd like this book either.

That said - WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU THINKING?! You feel very strongly about this book, and that's great, but you do not, not, NOT NOT NOT call people TERRORISTS because they say something YOU DON'T LIKE! I agree with the people who say you owe the folks at WotC an apology. In fact, you owe them a hundred apologies written in longhand, and it still won't be enough. You talk about 9/11 but you obviously don't have enough respect for what happened and the people who died that day. You do NOT do something like this. You do NOT say something like this.

Now. I realize that some of the hype surrounding the BoVD has been distasteful, but I ultimately see this book as a guide to incorporating these VERY sensitive issues into your game - not a book which will tell players how to summon demons and conduct mass orgies. (Oh, they'll probably be able to figure out, but I don't think that'll be the intent.) Because you know what? Rape happens. Pedophilia happens. Drug addiction happens. In fantasy worlds, demonology happens and necromancy happens, and it is not pretty, but it can be used as a metaphor. Gaming has an immense amount of value not only as escapism but also as a medium through which one can transmit a social message and discover things about oneself and others.

For too long we've cast gaming as "kill the orcs, loot the bodies". When people make strides in other directions they're often told to shut up. It's past time that stopped. It's past time we started realizing that things have consequences, even in D&D, and even though this may sound odd - I think the Book of Vile Darkness will help with that.

I don't know if I'm really getting my point across here but...there it is, for what it's worth.

And on another note - I'm probably still going to have a look at Dragonlance 3E when it comes out. But it won't be because of Tracy Hickman. I don't deal with emotional terrorists.


----------



## el-remmen

Okay, you all are going to get one warning only. . .

If we want to discuss opinions on the effect of the BoVD on D&D and the community then go right ahead, because that is what the thread is about using Mr. Hickman's rant as a basis - but please refrain from bashing religions, other posters, Mr. Hickman himself and all other negative crap that is just going to drive this thread into the ground as it crashes and burns.

You all know the rules.  Please follow them.


----------



## Dr. Harry

*Overreactions*

While I agree that Tracy's message was most likely written in the heat of the moment (after all, it was part of his own newsletter, sent to an audience he no doubt perceives as friendly and well-disposed to him), I think that many of the responses are ironically in the same vein.

   It is impossible to read much of Mr. Hickman's work without noticing his strong sense of personal morality.  (I consider this a good thing.)  The examples of complex, well-written villains in books he has worked on do not contradict this, in that the evil characters, while conveyed with depth and detail, are never held up as anything to be emulated.  The section in Dragon #300 had material for role-playing PC's commiting torture, luridly described pain (instead of relying on the more abstract 'hit point'), necrophilia, and rape.  I do not consider myself a 'religious extremist'  for finding the idea of PC's wallowing in the above throughly repulsive.  This leads to the conclusion of Mr. Hickman's piece, which has been largely ignored (in many responses it seems that the fires of "righteous indignation" were burning to hotly by the to pay much attention what the newsletter actually said afetr the point the poster wished to attack).

   What Tracy Hickman equated with terrorists were the prospective saditistic, torturing, rapists glorified as PC's.  I agree with this completely.  The point I feel he was trying to make was that characters made with the "mature" content are equivalent (or worse, if that's possible) to the terrorists.  The question can be rephrased "Do you enjoy playing characters that glorify that moral attitudes of terrorists?"  The fact that he received this on 9/11 is almost certainly what caused him to write his piece in this particular way.  In this light, not only does his piece not deserve most of the condemnation it has received, but I, for one, am willing to endorse it.

   I also agree entirely that the term "mature content" in incorrect and contradictory to the material found.  While I have enjoyed and purchased much of Monte Cook's work, and while I have a good impression of him as a writer, I'm going to let BoVD go with my own misgivings at WotC's effort to make some of the worst anti-gaming paranoia an *official* product of D&D.


----------



## Henry

At the risk of sounding unmasculine, I must ask all of us here to TONE IT DOWN.

First, let's keep the personal attacks OFF. Ideas are game, the people behind them are not.

Second, let's please lighten up on graphic imagery. We've had enough of that today, too.

I'm not singling anyone out, but if you've crossed the line in this thread, you know it.

EDIT - thanks for backing me up, Nemm. You're fast with that post button. I've got some tricks to learn .


----------



## Khan the Warlord

Roland Delacroix said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The game is Bunnies and BURROWS, and it still has quite a bit of killing as you watch out for eagles and such.
> 
> Heres a link to the GURPS version:  http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/Bunnies/
> 
> You can still find them on Ebay   *




LOL!

That is just hilarious and a strange coincidence -- I had no idea an actual game with a similar name was made.

Funny stuff.


----------



## Mercule

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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!!*



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *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!!*



			
				dpdx said:
			
		

> *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*



			
				mtbdm said:
			
		

> *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

Morrus said:
			
		

> *
> 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...


----------



## Ziona

*Re: Terrorism????*



			
				Hardhead said:
			
		

> *Even if you dont' agree with that work (and that stance is understandable), calling it terrorism simply because you didn't agree with it is irresponsible, and worse, it's a insult...to people that die in terrorist attacks for Mr. Hickman to equate him seeing magazine articles he doesn't like to others who are killed or disfigured, or lose loved ones to real terrorist attacks, and using the world "terrorism" over such a small thing, which is not terrorism by *any* definition of the word, trivialises the term.
> 
> Mr. Hickman should be ashamed. *




Just wanted to say that you said my thoughts perfectly!

Nothing against the "mature" work of Mr. Hickman, (I love Dragonlance), but this is *ludicrous*.  If you thought that the sealed pages in Dragon were inappropriate, then just say so.  Don't make it sound like you were a victim of a horrible tragedy. 

Hickman is more than welcome to his opinion (as we all are) but give your opinion straight out.  Say you don't approve or you thought it was tasteless, don't call it terrorism.

Personally, my husband & I get Dragon in the mail, and we received the issue on the same day. I don't see what the hubbub is about...but hey, that's just _my_ opinion.

ps. just for the record, this does not effect my opinion of his writing. i am still a dragonlance fan...


----------



## Furn_Darkside

Ghostwind said:
			
		

> *
> Anyone want to take a guess at how many more copies of Dragon 300 were just guaranteed by Mr. Hickman's letter?  *




Hardly any- it is such a small market, and those interested in getting it are already getting it. 

It may have generated more sales, but less then the cover did.

FD


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

*Re: Nice Straw Man!!*



			
				dpdx said:
			
		

> *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. *




Well at least you get the point. I *am* telling people both what and how to think. So are you. If you could admit that you're doing the same, we might be able to have a polite conversation.

You'll note that I not only asserted that the content in question was bad but that I also gave reasons for doing so--reasons which were intended to provoke thought and discussion. If you don't wish to engage in either, that's your choice--an unfortunate one but a common one.

And as to the last, of course I have the right to tell people what and how to think. That's what being in a community that values free speech and the free exchange of ideas is all about. (Note that this is an exchange--that implies that I don't sit in one corner with my ideas and others sit in their corners with their ideas and we all slap little labels on each other and go about the business of ignoring each other. Instead, you give your reasons and I give mine and then we can both make up our minds about whether our ideas were wholly or partially correct). What I don't have a right to do is to use violence to compel you to accept my ideas. But then, I haven't even come close to doing that, have I?


----------



## Darrin Drader

You know, personally I never liked the comic book code that Tracy refers to. I don't want to get off ona rant here, but I think that the game, comics, or fiction in general should be allowed to go wherever the creativity of the authors go. If this means that it gets a bit gross or depraved, then so be it. In my opinion, a system of self censorship in order to put a pleasant face on something plays into the hands of all the groups that have wrongly damned D&D for so many years, and is exactly what was wrong with 2nd edition AD&D and late TSR products. Why do you think so many people stopped playing the game during the last 10 years of old TSR?

Lets also not forget that really, this is a pretty nasty game we play. Our characters are trained killers, and the subject matter includes avenging murders, hunting down and killing outlaws, preventing genocide (or sometimes simply moving on from genocide), deal with fictitious terrorism, and depopulating entire regions.  The fact that we still play means that we accept this as part of the world our characters live in. There's also few of the nasty parts that don't in some way mirror large portions of human history. I think that what Tracy finds so objectionable is the fact that it discusses the darker side of our own humanity. We may choose to see the darkness and use it for entertainment or turn a blind eye towards it and pretend it never existed, but either way these are still things that humans are capable of doing.

Lets also not forget the fact that Tracy Hickman is a pretty devoted Christian. Now I don't have a problem with anyone because of their religious beliefs. I really don't. The issue is that Tracy's website delves into reconciling him playing D&D with his strong faith. If someone needs to post all of this in a public forum, isn't that the same as making excuses for their activities? Isn't that also the same as admitting that the activity is wrong in the first place? I'm not trying to insult Tracy on a personal level here, because I have read a great deal of his work, and I think that he is a gifted author, but why does he feel the need to treat this as though its a personal betrayal?

I also agree with everyone who has said that they're getting sick of people branding everything they don't like with the title of terrorism. It seems to be the new social fad and in my opinion, it completely trivializes the deaths of all the innocent people that have died as the result of real terrorism. 

The truth is that worse material has been published under the D&D and D20 logos already, and In this case the objectionable pages were sealed with a big old warning label on the front for god's sake. If you don't want to look at it, don't open it! And more to the point, don't try to tell the editors of one of my favorite magazines what they can and cannot include.


----------



## Zappo

Baraendur said:
			
		

> *You know, personally I never liked the comic book code that Tracy refers to. I don't want to get off ona rant here, but I think that the game, comics, or fiction in general should be allowed to go wherever the creativity of the authors go. If this means that it gets a bit gross or depraved, then so be it. In my opinion, a system of self censorship in order to put a pleasant face on something plays into the hands of all the groups that have wrongly damned D&D for so many years, and is exactly what was wrong with 2nd edition AD&D and late TSR products. Why do you think so many people stopped playing the game during the last 10 years of old TSR?*



My thoughts exactly. Not publishing for fear of reprisal - _that_ is evil. Don't like it, don't buy it.


----------



## Katerek

PErsonally I find Mr. Hickman's whole little rant a bit offensive by opportunizing on the flagrant use of the word terrorism.  Terrorism kills, and quite frankly the use of that word has become too comoon recently.

I just pre-ordered twenty copies of dragon #300, I am tempted to mail them, page by page to Mr. Hickman, but that WOULD be a crime so I will not.  I however just got a bonus a work, so I cannot think of a better thing than to vote with my dollar.

I also noted that Mr Hickman touted GenCON has a high moral family affair.  Talk about blind shmuckism.  I was at GenCON two years ago, know what I picked up while I was there?  Pam and Tommy on video, and a whole collection of Foglio XXX comics.  Comics which were laying out at eye level for ANYONE to see.  Including a small boy, no more than ten, who I shooed away from the booth.  Me, not his parents, or Mr Foglio mind you.

Im a notorious decadent and morally flexible individual; I find Hickmans choice of horses so high to ride ethically ambiguous at best.  He just doesn't like Monte, because of old bad blood.  It is obvious, and painful to see, especially when the source is from someone I used to admire.

Ah well.  He is as entitled to his opinion as I am, I s'pose.

EDIT PS Oh and one more thing: The COMIC BOOK CODE???? Come on already!  That's a hoot.  Has he even SEEN a comic book lately?  Every woman on the cover looks like an anorexic Dolly Partin in zero gravity wearing a hand towel and some body paint.


----------



## CrusaderX

I applaud Mr. Hickman for his courage and convictions.


----------



## The Sigil

*Re: Re: Nice Straw Man!!*

Just to toss something out here...

"What is bad for children is seldom good for adults."  (This happens to be one of my own moral premises.  On this grounds I reject the argument that "sometimes adults want to read material designed for them."  That doesn't mean you can't use it as a point to back your views, just that I won't agree with you - but I will agree to disagree).

IMO, the core of the issue - and discussion here - warrants the following questions:

If the material in question (the Dragon #300 content) is judged to be "mature," why include it at all?  What moral premise(s) can you resort to in order to justify such an inclusion?  (I can think of a couple, I just want to see what other people think).  What moral premise(s) can you resort to in order to justify the exclusion of such material?  Which set of moral premises do you hold in higher regard?  Why?

Does this material enrich the hobby of D&D?  If so, how?  If not, why not?

What was the purpose for inclusion of the material?  What principles (moral or otherwise) drove the decision? (My guess: A Marketing/Money decision - an amoral but not immoral principle IMO.)  Are the principles I follow in line with this decision?  Do I hold my morals in higher or lower regard than other peoples' morals?

When you can bring forward your answers to these questions, recognizing that others may proceed forth from different moral premises, we will begin having meaningful discussion on the topic (at least that is my hope).

--The Sigil


----------



## JLXC

Could Tracy have overreacted any more?

No.

Grow up Tracy and all the fanboys.

Mature material in a..... GASP..... Adult Game!  My youngest player is 35.  You babies can go cry to your mommas.  We like mature ideas and material.


----------



## Ziona

Zappo said:
			
		

> *Not publishing for fear of reprisal - that is evil. Don't like it, don't buy it. *




Gotta agree with you, Zappo...


----------



## seasong

Kibo said:
			
		

> He does have a point.  There isn't any undoing this.  Just as you're not putting b*tch, a**, and sh*t back in the bottle on american tv.  (Even though the FCC is in the hands of the ultra conservatives.)




Actually, he doesn't.  There were orgiastic movies in the early 20s and before... all of which disappeared and are practically forgotten today.

For that matter, look at the Comics Code that Tracy so obligingly mentions. _That_ is a prime example of stuffing the genie back in the bottle and giving him a boot to the head along the way.

Never underestimate censorship's ability to undo humanity's natural tendency to express itself.


----------



## Cerubus Dark

Forgive the stupid question but IS this the same Tracy Hickman who writes the DragonLance Books?




As far as the "mature" sealed section.  Don't make me laugh.  I have seen worse things in the Deities and Demigods.  Hell if they want to scare readers print the Unlawful Guide to Carnal Knowledge.  But come on a few crappy spells, 3 or four stupid monster cults, hardly makes it mature.

The only cool thing in that issue was the 4 new dragons.

Rust is a Must!


----------



## Darrin Drader

Cerubus Dark said:
			
		

> *Forgive the stupid question but IS this the same Tracy Hickman who writes the DragonLance Books?*




One and the same, which brings up an interesting question. Wizards publishes Dragonlance for him and sends hiom a paycheck for his work. Is it really a good idea to be challenging the same people that have been so good to him?


----------



## King_Stannis

Stormprince said:
			
		

> *....The fact that they're putting out only the Book of Vile Darkness, and not a companion "Good" book, just goes to show that it's one of those pure marketing manuscripts. Oh yeah, it was written by Monte Cook. How could I forget? How "dare" Tracy disagree with someone Monte or another writer put out. Shame on him. Grow up. Tracy and Laura Hickman worked for TSR to create the same worlds that still exist today. They created Ravenloft......
> 
> ......You haven't sitten down and talked to him about his viewpoints. Just as you loudly proclaimed "I am boycotting all his Sovereign Stone and Dragonlance stuff," he has the right to "boycott" this one particular issue of Dragon Magazine.
> 
> Christopher Coyle *




i gotta admit, i kind of agreed with the monte cook reference. i think people over here do get a little star-struck when it comes to him. i don't think there'd be near the hype for this book if it weren't for the fact monte was involved. nothing against monte, he's a pretty nice and approacheable guy. though i can see the frustration in chris' comments....monte can do no wrong in many people's eyes.

as for boycotting "sovereign stone" - if anyone is doing that, they are depriving themselves of a pretty good product.

as for the rant itself, i have mixed feelings. all these years i'm on the defensive about D&D being about (generally) good guys defeating evil. BoVD would seem to make that task harder, were it thrust in my face. in the same respect, it'll probably fade into the backround in a half-year. so long as there isn't a rush to "out-gross" each other, things should be okay. i hope.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Baraendur said:
			
		

> *Lets also not forget the fact that Tracy Hickman is a pretty devoted Christian. Now I don't have a problem with anyone because of their religious beliefs. I really don't. The issue is that Tracy's website delves into reconciling him playing D&D with his strong faith. If someone needs to post all of this in a public forum, isn't that the same as making excuses for their activities? Isn't that also the same as admitting that the activity is wrong in the first place? *




Isn't the fact that Richard Dawkins makes excuses for his role in evolutionary theory the same as admitting it's incorrect in the first place?  (I suppose it might look a lot to some people like he's putting forward reasons why he's right and intelligent design theorists are wrong but it can justifiably be rephrased this way).

Obviously not. What it does imply is that there is debate as to the correctness of evolutionary theory/correctness of suppressing dissent in the community to which Richard Dawkins addresses his books. In the same way, the fact that Tracy Hickman's website delves into reconciling his gaming with his faith means that there is a real or perceived debate as to the appropriateness of Christians gaming among the community that reads the internet. And obviously, it implies, that he wants to make a contribution to that debate. (And he does make a contribution that goes beyond "All gaming is always good no matter what, it's using your imagination dude!" or "Gaming is the devil's tool for temptation.")

Holding or stating an opinion in a public forum does not necessarily mean that it's incorrect.

*



			I'm not trying to insult Tracy on a personal level here, because I have read a great deal of his work, and I think that he is a gifted author, but why does he feel the need to treat this as though its a personal betrayal?
		
Click to expand...


*
Probably because he intentionally worked for D&D and used D&D in a manner that was consistent with his beliefs and up until now, the official D&D product line has not included content that directly contradicted his beliefs. Now it does. And as one of the individuals who contributed a great deal towards making D&D what it is today, he understandably feels personally betrayed. That this direct contradiction was revealed to him on Sept 11* (a rather emotionally laden date for him apparently) only added fule to the fire.

*I imagine he knew about this beforehand (who didn't) but hadn't yet seen it. Seeing the magazine probably made real to him what he must have expected and quashed any hopes that the content might not really justify the warning label.


----------



## heirodule

*Re: The Comics Code*



			
				Talaysen said:
			
		

> *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.
> *




Strawman. The concerns wasn't simply that kids would imitate whatever they see, but that a diet of stories where heroes and good guys act unheroic (murdering the villans) would lead kids to disrespect lawful authority and act out. The'd be juvenile delinquents of one stripe or another.

Anyway.

Hickman's rediculous for mailing its like terrorism, but the marketing of the book is disappointing. "How vile will you get" as a teaser plays on the same vain curiosity that leads young kids to all kinds of bad-for-them websites (not just pron)

Sealing the section itself I'd argue was gimmicky, not really "proctective" if a parent needs to pre-screen the mag his kid gets. "ooh I wonder what's in there. I'll borrow my buddies copy...eww! What's this copulating with corpses and seed-spurting stuff?"


----------



## The Sigil

JLXC said:
			
		

> Could Tracy have overreacted any more?
> 
> No.
> 
> Grow up Tracy and all the fanboys.
> 
> Mature material in a..... GASP..... Adult Game!  My youngest player is 35.  You babies can go cry to your mommas.  We like mature ideas and material.



Could you have been any more offensive?

Yeah, probably.

The comments that follow... "you babies can go cry to your mommas" simply indicate a FAR greater lack of maturity than the "babies" you refer to.  Classic bullying.  Nice work.  Way to intelligently and rationally support your position.

--The Sigil


----------



## King_Stannis

JLXC said:
			
		

> *Could Tracy have overreacted any more?
> 
> No.
> 
> Grow up Tracy and all the fanboys.
> 
> Mature material in a..... GASP..... Adult Game!  My youngest player is 35.  You babies can go cry to your mommas.  We like mature ideas and material. *




funny, i don't recall seeing a warning label on the PHB saying "not for people under the age of 18". what makes you believe it's solely an "adult" game?


----------



## paqman

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> *And, just to toss this in, ever since my group said "no" to evil characters we've been having smoother and funner games. *




_Note  on't take this comment as a provocation, I am stating a fact of our group:_

That's funny, since our group sait "no" to good characters, we also have been having smoother and funner games. Guess it is all a thing of points of view


----------



## Zappo

*Re: Re: Re: Nice Straw Man!!*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> *If the material in question (the Dragon #300 content) is judged to be "mature," why include it at all?*



My question, instead, is: why not include it? IMO, not including it as an act of self-censorship _is_ truly immoral. Not including it deprives everyone of the material, but if it is included those who object are free not to use it.

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.


----------



## Darrin Drader

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Isn't the fact that Richard Dawkins makes excuses for his role in evolutionary theory the same as admitting it's incorrect in the first place?  (I suppose it might look a lot to some people like he's putting forward reasons why he's right and intelligent design theorists are wrong but it can justifiably be rephrased this way).
> 
> Obviously not. What it does imply is that there is debate as to the correctness of evolutionary theory/correctness of suppressing dissent in the community to which Richard Dawkins addresses his books.  *




Drats! My efforts to poison the well foiled again.


----------



## The Sigil

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Probably because he intentionally worked for D&D and used D&D in a manner that was consistent with his beliefs and up until now, the official D&D product line has not included content that directly contradicted his beliefs. Now it does. And as one of the individuals who contributed a great deal towards making D&D what it is today, he understandably feels personally betrayed. That this direct contradiction was revealed to him on Sept 11* (a rather emotionally laden date for him apparently) only added fule to the fire.
> 
> *I imagine he knew about this beforehand (who didn't) but hadn't yet seen it. Seeing the magazine probably made real to him what he must have expected and quashed any hopes that the content might not really justify the warning label.




In this, I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head.

--The Sigil


----------



## SHARK

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


----------



## RabidWombat

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.


----------



## Airwolf

*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!


----------



## roler123

*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.


----------



## qstor

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


----------



## Bagpuss

I find it hard to take seriously anything a fella with a girls name says.


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith

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




			
				Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't know - Do Latter-Day Saints drink alcohol?
> 
> /B]*


----------



## The Sigil

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice Straw Man!!*



			
				Zappo said:
			
		

> My question, instead, is: why not include it? IMO, not including it as an act of self-censorship _is_ truly immoral. Not including it deprives everyone of the material, but if it is included those who object are free not to use it.



Here, I disagree.  I think my original question is valid.  Is Dragon an "adult" magazine?  No.  Why then include "adult content?"

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


----------



## Pielorinho

Okay, a couple of points.

First, although I'll avoid attacking individuals, and although I of course believe anyone has the legal right to make offensive statements, comparisons of evil-playing gamers (or evil-writing designers) to terrorists is pretty amazingly insulting and awful.  

Second, I'm playing in an evil campaign right now.  We've been playing a heroic campaign for a little over a year, and our DM is running a 3-session mini-adventure in which we play evil characters who are working behind the scenes to thwart our normal PCs.

Last session I got to play a mind-flayer, and I got to go into the drug-crazed dreams of a captive drow to torment/interrogate him; got to build Macchiavellian schemes in which the slaughter of my troops to serve as bait for my enemies was entirely acceptable; got to give my rivals the distinct impression that I was thinking about slurping on their brains.

It was a blast.  And it served a great purpose in the overall story:  it gives us as players an insight into the machinations of our enemies that we wouldn't be able to get from any other perspective.

I've also run live-action games with hard-core horror in them, games that I'd no way allow a child to participate in.  I've also played a character in the past who was struggling to come to terms with her history as a sadistic servant of a god of pain, who would sometimes slip in her goodness and torture a prisoner.  I've also pulled from real-life horrors such as those in Belgian Congo to create scenes that would be entirely inappropriate for children players.

And I think that by using such elements in my games, I can achieve effects that I couldn't otherwise achieve.  When a player had a casual belief that orcs should be slaughtered, encountering a half-orc PC didn't change her mind -- but discovering that her fellow citizens had slaughtered the half-orc's friends and were using parts of their bodies as aphrodisiacs made her rethink her attitudes.

Does this make me an immature gamer?  Conversely, do folks think that there's no horror so awful that children shouldn't be shielded from it?

I've not seen the Dragon issue, and from what I've heard, I'm not at all convinced that it'll help bring out darker themes in gaming (maggots !=dark).  But I fully believe that dark-themed gaming can be a rewarding experience.

Daniel


----------



## Talaysen

Even mentioning his religion is a form of attack? That seems a bit much. I mean, I mentioned his religion simply in an effort to put things in context. The fact of the matter is that these are the values he's been taught. I didn't say all Mormons are going to hate the BoVD; I said that a lot probably would, simply because it would seem to go against what many would see to be church values.

Heck, there are a few Mormons I can think of who'll probably think the BoVD is the best thing since sliced bread.

But again, I was just trying to put things in context (which perhaps I didn't do very well) and point out that - given Tracy's faith, his expression of that faith, and his support for values associated with said faith - his sentiments aren't so surprising. The way in which he expressed those sentiments is, but that's beside the point.

I think that it's perfectly acceptable to mention someone's faith when it's relevant to the situation at hand; and in this case I feel it is. Actual, deliberate attacks on a person and his faith are unwarranted and inexcusable.


----------



## yongi

The man's entitled to his overreactions as much as anyone else.  I don't happen to care for the BoVD, either.  Why he feels that way, or why I do, or why you don't feel that way, etc,. are immaterial.

However this particular rant is rather foolish.  Have your opinion, express it if you feel the need, but please leave ridiculous & unfounded comparisons to real tragedies out.

Or, as  *my* mother used to say: people make  comparisons to terrorism when they are either too lazy or incapable of thinking up something intelligent to say.

-y-

OTOH, the fact that the Ranger got the shaft is morally equivalent to the Holocaust.


----------



## rpace

*Well. . .*

Two things:

Tracy must not know what terrorism is.  He wouldn't have equated a commercial product offering a different flavour of role-playing with car-bombers, anthrax-spreaders and other types who use violence and the fear of violence to effect change.

The "comics code" approach was flawed in that it never appeased those it was meant to appease.  Consider, as well, that Marvel Comics has abandoned the Comics Code Authority  stamp of approval as being out-dated and uneeded considering their comics primary audience.  They are finally selling in Wal-Mart, which had no interest in the comics under the CCA.

It's all well and good to consider the exceptional child who may play D&D (addressing the unasked but usual response to mentioning D&Ds primary market), but the real market is for older teens and adults and their limitations and preferences are what should be taken into account.  

One final point:  just because Tracy is a writer, minor celebrity and has a history with the product doesn't mean he actually has a valid point.


----------



## Talaysen

yongi said:
			
		

> *
> Or, as  my mother used to say: people make  comparisons to terrorism when they are either too lazy or incapable of thinking up something intelligent to say.
> *




And on that note, I think perhaps I should apologize for calling Mr. Hickman an "emotional terrorist". I do feel that he's trying to twist the emotions associated with last year's tragedy to his own ends here, and that is simply inexcusable, but I should have stopped short of coming so close to hypocrisy. My apologies.


----------



## JPL

Uh, Tracy?

It's just a game.

You write silly little games and stories for a living.

Firemen save lives for a living.

You were not a victim of terrorism.

They were.

It's just a game.


----------



## robert84

*Let it go...*

RAVENLOFT


----------



## Ashtal

Ya know ... I'm closing the thread.  This is too touchy, we've ranged all over the board from good to bad, and I can't ever see it getting any better.

So, g'night Gracy.


----------

