I'd be happy to never see it resurface.
I think Heroes of Horror, Book of Vile Deeds, Book of Erotic Fantasy, etc. suggest a much-needed subset of books—an adult RPG series that makes 4th Edition competitive with World of Darkness. Fleshed out non-combat abilities, rules for icky damage and insanity, etc. If the weakness of 4th Edition is that it's a bit too simplified for a younger audience, I'd recommend a Vertigo imprint, so to speak.
Wizards could just bring back Ravenloft... which I think they're planning on doing anyway.
WizO_Unicorn
Granted one of my players also feels that the word moist should be considered a dirty word.
“In trying to appeal to the next generation of gamers, WotC has alienated a large portion of those
that supported the hobby for many years and made it so successful. Moth has his doubts about the appeal of a game that requires a lot of reading, writing, 'rithmitic, genuine interpersonal interaction, and
no graphics or soundtrack to the younger crowd”
Well I admit he really dislikes were the game is headed and I hope that if they do bring back Ravenloft they make it more mature closer to 3 and 3.5 instead and of a more what would likely (if I were putting bets on this and I will hope to lose) be the correct term “sanitised for a younger audience or more family friendly”
Well I hope that the people at WotC will prove me wrong for once infect I could out right challenge them to do it.
Wizards could just bring back Ravenloft... which I think they're planning on doing anyway.
I'd prefer some general rules first, rather than a campaign setting. Sometimes campaign settings put too much of their own imprint on rules. Kind of a hassle for those of us who prefer homegrown settings...
And unlike some wank fest like BOEF would sell like hotcakes.
In case you hadn't noticed, ApollyonsChosen, BOEF is still in print, suggesting that it's done just fine in sales. Honestly, I can respect that'd you'd prefer not to have sexually explicit games, based on your own world view. D&D, however, attracts a very diverse range of players.
Wizards has two choices when addressing that wide audience: go for the lowest common denominator (ergo the rather neutral core books), or address different niches with smaller run product lines and tailored DnD Insider resources (such as Adults Only Insider forums or a Vertigo-style imprint).
You and I and everyone else could ALL feel respected and have our needs met if they go in the latter direction. If you prefer not to buy BOEF, don't buy it.
IMHO, part of the reason that D&D remains so battle-focused, in addition to the fact that people love action games, is that truly mature, adult content opens up the possibility of controversy and disagreement over things more sensitive than rules.
It's important to separate make-believe morality from real world morality. However, my faith teaches that haphazard killing is a lot more problematic that portraying people's naughty bits. If I were to be a purist about *that*, I'd spend a lot more money on pornography than I do on roleplaying games. Which, um, I don't. I don't think? Hah.
I would not mind a Ravenloft book it would be AWESOME!
Discuss and flame.
After all, they eliminated the "Mature" section of the forums, and they seem to be going for a younger audience this time around.
And as such I would love to see it resurface, but i'd say they would need to revamp it and make it better. Perhaps mix it in with the horror book? (Heroes of Horror)
It was poorly conceptualized and due to its fixation on demonizing fetishes and 'icky' visuals, was to maturity what kryptonite is to Superman.
Nothing remotely resembling that trash should be produced for 4e. Ever.
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈtu̇r, -ˈtyu̇r also -ˈchu̇r\
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
ma·tur·er; ma·tur·est
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin maturus ripe; akin to Latin mane in the morning, manus good
Date:
15th century
1: based on slow careful consideration 2 a (1): having completed natural growth and development : ripe (2): having undergone maturation b: having attained a final or desired state c: having achieved a low but stable growth rate d: of, relating to, or being an older adult : elderly 3 a: of or relating to a condition of full development b: characteristic of or suitable to a mature individual 4: due for payment 5: belonging to the middle portion of a cycle of erosion
— ma·ture·ly adverb
I understand that there is a small portion of the word mature that deals with certain pornographic/ traditionally lewd materials, but personally I find it somewhat confusing how gamers have turned any thought of "mature" gaming to being able to include heavy amounts of said content in their games.
I don't find myself prudish in any ways really, but my own definition of mature as being able to fully immerse in my character's inconsistencies.
I mean there is a section of gaming development that people go through where they don't make any outside connections (mother and father are dead, no siblings, ETC.) and this is so the dm doesn't have a "back door" to attack the players character. To me "mature" roleplaying is opening one's character to such things and by extension creating a more rounded person.
Why can't mature books have content on developing a person in a more rounded manner?
This new edition is so focused on Hero's as opposed to wicked or evil games, I like that. I was disappointed with most peoples ideas about what evil is, it just gets to be too much. I want the next "mature" book to have in it reasoning why the good guys let the bad guys live at the last moment, why it's ok to try not to fight (I love playing the reluctant combatant, it also confuses most modern roleplayers). What about having ideas such as the hero who has a member of the family who has turned out to be evil? I don't hear many people talking about how awesome Caramon is because he cared for Rastlin, I find less people wanting to play anything but Rastlin.
We are up to our ears in the anti hero, and maybe I'm just getting old, but I'm sick of it.
To me mature gaming is realizing that there is a story there, and the players are a part of it too. If you realize that a bad-guy is the main re-occurring dude, or you think that a certain evil doer is actually a cool antagonist why not help work with the DM to keep him alive to come back and stay an integral part of the story. Most Immature players are working so hard to kill them that they try to chop them up and do all sorts of other things to keep them from coming back (before you all start saying that it's the DM's job to think of interesting ways to bring them back, "mature" gaming would be the realization that it's everyone's job to tell the story).
My 2 cents.
I understand that it's "just a game" but it's a game based on the Story, that's the difference between roleplaying and computer games. When I play a computer game, I actually read through the flavor text. I honestly don't know anyone in my gaming group that does that. In that way it's more than just a game, it's an avenue to explore our own flaws and contradictions as a people, culture, and society as a whole. There is an entire section on Psychological development that hinges on allowing people to roleplaying life events out in order to develop a more consistent understanding of people. No there may not be codified rules for that, but it's the same game. We just do it by choice, and without a councilor guiding our movements.
What makes good stories is how human the characters are, along with how awesome they are.
Superman, could be a horrible person, but he takes that power and uses it for good, Why? That's what makes him awesome, look at the Kingdom Come series in DC, it's all about pushing the buttons that are painted onto him, not hammering against the ones that can't hurt him. That is considered one of the best stories in comics.
X-men: Magneto, is more understandable as a villain because he wants to better his chosen people, not because he's the "Mutant Master of Magnetism". Wolverine is not only great because of his powers, but because of how much he cares for who he's with, and his anger isn't because he's just so ticked off, it's because he hurts for those who can't heal (metaphorically).
These elements make a great story, I think mature gaming should revolve around the ability to pursue those avenues.
I'm now watching Naruto, and the reason that it's so incredible is the pain that is inflicted on both Saske and Naruto by each other, not that one is powerful and the other is too. They both don't want to do what they are doing, and that pain is moving the story. This is the core of mature roleplaying.
notice how none of that involved death, gore, or sex.
I'm going to jump down off my soapbox. Apparently flattery inflates the ego.
Wotansman, I want to game with you.
Me to.
I mean, where's the Necromancer? Demonologist? Diabolist?
Wizard still covers the seeker of forbidden lore (even though his spells will be no different from the moral scholars
), sure...But what about the people who want to spend time figuring out how to best deploy our undead/demonic/infernal minions and make them work in concert with the party?
What about all us people who enjoy having to figure out how to sneak into town through barely-legal (if that) ways?
In 3.5 playing a Necromancer was easy (hell, the greatest problem was whether you'd be a cleric, wizard, sorcerer, dread necromancer, death master or any of the thousand other classes specializing in necromancy). The diabolist/demonologist was slightly harder, but even that role could be created simply by taking summon monster I-IV and the Planar Binding/Summoning and Gate spells.
In 4e I had a hard time finding any Conjuration spells (granted, there were still some) and a harder time still to find any necromancy (didn't find any at all).
Personally, I want to see a Necromancer class. I want to see a summoner class. But more than that, I want to see that delicious fluff that was the reason I bought copies of Champions of Ruin, Fiendish Codex I, Book of Vile Darkness, and Heroes of Horror.
Sure, most parts of those books are not even worth bothering with, but there are still parts that can help develop fully-rounded characters (whether or not they're evil... remember in backstories, there can be villains too)
The boss demons and devils were a welcome addition and a few more critturs in the last few pages made it a decent splat.
Like BoED, it was a little thin for the money, but I used both quite a bit.
There's no way in god's green earth I would buy a book of erotic fantasy for my D&D games. That really is 'icky'.
There's no way in god's green earth I would buy a book of erotic fantasy for my D&D games. That really is 'icky'.
You might want to thank your parents sometime for being that 'icky'.
I agree with wotan though, that mature=boobs is a stupid assumption.
Regaring the new "hero" focus of 4e: I'm going to join the call for more books on bastardry. My group simply doesn't play heroes. One or two of them might try from time to time, but rarely does an adventure go by where one party member hasn't done something mean or spiteful to another. In the old alignment scale, they trend in the LN, LE, N, NE area. These are players that will guard a merchant caravan until it gets out of town, then turn on it, loot it, and sell the survivors to slavers. To each their own though. ;)
Too bad, I was so hoping for a Book of Erotic Fantasy 4th ed...:P
I don't think there's really anything left to say, as far as getting back on my soapbox.
I was roleplaying back in the mid 80's (around 85), and from there I don't remember much focus on true ROLEplaying, but I was younger at that point, so I just may not have been in any group that focused on it.
At some point in the early 90's (before 92) I remember we were playing the old d6 Star Wars, and we ended up playing a whole night (seriously like 4-5 hours) without touching the dice. So we wanted to see how long we could go because we enjoyed it so much. I think we ended up making it some 13-14 hours. That's when I fell in love with roleplaying.
Even still, I can remember seeing the first edition of Vampire at the store, and judging that I wouldn't want to play it based on the poor weapon selection at the back of the book, but we were playing a lot of Rifts or Ninjas and superspies (Palladium books). But the group was still focused on a min-max competition between me and another player.
I've got to say it was White Wolf and my first introduction to Werewolf, in 1994. I had graduated high school and a few of the Uber-geeks from boy scouts (a few of us were boy scouts, but we didn't hang with these guys), who our group had tought to rp but never really gamed with them, and like 2 guys from our HS group found Vampire, and I thought it was ok, but whatever. But Werewolf was just brutal enough for me. and since my GM had left somewhere near two years ago, I took up the throne.
I think it was something about how that system approached roleplaying, along with a bit of maturity that I had gained (during the past 3 years my mother had cancer, it was a pretty rough patch of my life). But my style changed to focus on the story.
My mom had always wanted me to be a writer, and so I went to a ton of workshops and writers building exercises. We lived in a small (3,000 person town) with a really good college in it, so these were common. I started applying everything I'd learned in those along with what I'd learned from HS Drama classes and departmental classes (I graduated with thespian honors) to my gaming. It resulted in a very different take on the game, and from there I've only tried to develop my style.
Even when I play (ie don't dm) I immerse in my character, sometimes it takes me up to 1/2 an hour to "get out of character". I've been out of practice lately, but some of my group seem to like what I'm doing, for them it seems a little novel.
More later, if you like this. I seem to be on a roll here. I've got to go to class now.
You might want to thank your parents sometime for being that 'icky'.
My parents played a roleplaying game involving discussing imaginary characters having kinky sex when not killing monsters?
I don't think anyone I've ever played D&D with would want to get into their characters sex lives other than crude jokes.
Wotansman What can I say I like the way you DM and I have the same problems if you want to you can stay on the soap box go for it and by the way, when you Dm do you use PBP (play by post)?
and in all that rant, I never said.... I tried to play a "by post" but I've never gotten into it... I've become more adept lately, however, I tend to have problems fully accessing my "in character mode" when I can't be there face to face, I think it's the drama classes...
That's an interesting line of thought though. Within the writing aspects... I should be able to operate that way. hummm....
Since WOTC seems to be going the route of getting rid of all their "mature" affiliations (Mature forums closed, reluctantly acknowledging the existence of the BOVD and the 3.x nymph art) I believe there will be no BOVD in 4th ed.
Too bad, I was so hoping for a Book of Erotic Fantasy 4th ed...:P
Mature is heavily questionable.
Evil PCs and evil parties have always been controversial, and will probably stay so. The biggest reason for that is because it takes a very good player to actually play chaotic/lawful/neutral evil rather than stupid/random/makes-no-sense evil. Part of that could be because of maturity. Another part could be a systematic flaw in how evil was always handled. Evil monsters/NPCs have typically been portrayed as crudely as possible. (As a test to see if your DM is guilty of this, next time you have a BBEG who wants to destroy the world/country/city ask them "But don't you keep your stuff there?" if they hesitate with an answer, your DM is guilty). So, wouldn't it make sense for an evil PC to imitate exactly how evil NPCs are typically played? Wouldn't a book explaining that (admittedly, BoVD could have done a lot better with that) help the situation and maybe improve some games?
White WOlf did it more seriously and efficiently, albeit it could be improved there too, as Shadowrun.
Any character who is dumb enough to make a violated horn instead of buying a teleport scroll is too dumb to live. And that's exactly the kind of character the BoVD says all evil characters are. My cold, calculating and manipulative sorcerer is not only not represented of a kind in the BoVD, but they pretend guys like him don't exist.
What it boils down to is the BoVD was too much demon, not eough devil. Even the devils came out looking like chaotic stupid.
How in the world did it legitimize Evil PCs? From what I've seen, it crystalized the hardline against playing evil because it painted evil as a bunch of utterly depraved, cartoonish morons with no sense of basic simian self preservation or common sense.
I disagree with that assessment. It seemed to add "XTREME!" to the Evil (and then to Good, when they tried to repeat with BoED) alignment. Known as 'vile evil'. So you could have Evil, which is your run of the mill villain. And then when you really want to make your players question just what sort of person they hang out with on a weekly basis, you can use the vile evil.
Which, if we can break evil into the normal evil and vile evil, I'll completely agree with you that they decided that vile evil = gross, perverse or just icky. Almost comical. And I definitely agree with you regarding the BoED, where they decided that what separates Good from Exalted is also what separates Good from Evil...the willingness to use disease, poison, assassination, etc. While claiming a higher path.
What it boils down to is the BoVD was too much demon, not eough devil. Even the devils came out looking like chaotic stupid.
I don't even agree that BoVD was 'too much demon'. It was really just 'let's be gross'. It did neither demons nor devils in an intelligent light, the Fiendish Codexi were light years beyond BoVD in that regard.
The only thing I really liked from BoVD was the Dread Emperor's belt and chains.
I do wish that mature wasn't measured by the violence, blood or explicit sex involved. On the other hand, I don't like the idea that no company can produce such for those that do want them. The core books are full of violence. Seems a little two faced to turn around and say 'sex is bad' when 80% of your game revolves around killing things and the other 20% around splitting up what you've robbed off their corpses.
How in the world did it legitimize Evil PCs? From what I've seen, it crystalized the hardline against playing evil because it painted evil as a bunch of utterly depraved, cartoonish morons with no sense of basic simian self preservation or common sense.
Any character who is dumb enough to make a violated horn instead of buying a teleport scroll is too dumb to live. And that's exactly the kind of character the BoVD says all evil characters are. My cold, calculating and manipulative sorcerer is not only not represented of a kind in the BoVD, but they pretend guys like him don't exist.
What it boils down to is the BoVD was too much demon, not eough devil. Even the devils came out looking like chaotic stupid.
It legitimized evil PCs in the sense that earlier editions just simply wern't really set up for evil PCs. At one point, there was just chaotic/neutral/lawful. I recall back in AD&D, the DMG took a stance against evil PCs--although my memory isn't perfect. There were some who claimed (and still a few old timers) that D&D is strictly a heroic game. So, I was thinking legitimize as far as (1) an official statement that, yes, that is a legitimate way to play the game; and (2) gave us some rules to get us going. Granted, some of the things in there, like the violated horn made little or no sense. But, a lot of books had impractical items. It didn't do a good job with the motivations behind evil.
It did have some very good things which could be used as seeds for an evil PC, or to make a non-evil PC lean evil. There was a spell which could restore youth under certain circumstances, but you needed to steal it from someone and you needed a unicorn's horn. You could, for example have the party's wizard get tempted to use it because they are losing their edge (or if you have a hardcore roleplayer, because they are taken with a younger woman).
I think we have the same idea on what is needed to play an evil PC well, and I can't agree more with the "too much demon, not enough devil" metaphor. Evil was portrayed as an end, rather than a means to an end. But, for all the book's flaws, it opened doors. Plus, the spells in there rocked.
Telling someone not to do something make them want to do it. But giving them a means to do it that highlights the idea that they'll all be chaotic stupid jerkasses wearing belts of Micheal Jackson and talking aobut how awesome cancer is all the time without the basic sense to realize liquid pain is diminishing returns or that thier race is pretty much a more annoying, more limited version of a better one from Core.
In that respect, I think the BoXD's are equivalent to Savage Species. They present options, but the options are actually designed to cripple the characters using them and the game itself (well, at least as much as red vs blue alignment naturally cripples the game).
The trouble is, that much like Savage Species, Gili, and Battlefield Earth, there's a segment of the population that ended up liking it... somehow.
I, however, can't decide if the designers should be more ashamed of writing such bad books, or missing a GOLDEN oppurtunity to write soemthing useful about roleplaying and mitigating the staggering effects of alignment on it.
Imagine if they had produced a book that included subtle evil, understanding good, or pragmatic neutrality. They could have produced soemthing good with these concepts, but they flushed it to give official books for playing Lawful and Chaotic Stupid. Maybe the crunch was okay for some, but the fluff was such utter, utter garbage.
1. It is ok for evil pc to team up, to face a greater threat.
2. They are still people with the same emotional attachments as other characters
3. In most cases fallen heroes are considered fallen because what they see as a shade of gray like taking a powerful artefact they would make farming better in one country to improve his home land, is he a evil or something in-between ? Or tried over throw the government because they did not like they direction the century was headed.
4. Like heroes they have goals and hopes as well and in some cases the only thing that makes a overzealous paladin good when he goes into a dungeon or wizards tower and kills and loots every thing.
Now what would you call Lancelot in this clip other then in his mind he is doing good but well you be the judge and compare it to other campaigns in D&D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBnL4Rj6V8M&feature=related
Howver, I did like heroes of Horror. Can't really see the point of doing a 4e version though..... I'm already gonna use the disease mechanics for taint.
Evil gets such a shaft in 4e, I'd like to see this book back. It was a great resource for making villains, and my periodic dark-natured campaigns when I needed a break and wanted to be purely insidious for awhile...
Evil PC where always discouraged, again. For good reasons.
As for vilains, well... Vaal shown things as they where, honestly.
Still, I have spent a decade convincing parents that I'm not teaching Satanism 101. I let parents read the Player's Handbook if they have concerns and with Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter it has been much easier. However, we'll see how it goes with tieflings now. If Wizards was really marketing to kids, I wish they would have left the tiefling in another set like FR as before. Now I have to come up with a new way to ease parent concerns. I really liked how the the more 'mature' sections were separated before that allowed me as a DM to keep it simple and age appropriate for middle schoolers and then introduce other topics/books for the college level players.
I guess I'll see how it goes.
Lerin
never forget the importance of the Neutrality/Unaligned factor in D&D.
And so, tieflings pc tend actualy to be at worse dark and somber anti-heroes... who fight evil.
Those things are not black and white always, you know.
And another issue; why D&D should be censored for moralists and denatured? Why not the game couldn't go also to mature and serious levels, with such topics?
...ok seriously he pointed out that there is almost no anti-hero in Harry. I mean that kid should be much more morally ambiguous at best, what with the way he was raised. Part of what makes that character so awesome is the fact that he is the Boy Scout. Hermine is the "best at what she does" or "best at [insert here]" character, so it's not like a power struggle, and like spiderman, Harry himself admits that it's usually dumb luck that get's him through the tough times.
You can definitely do a Tiefling character from that perspective, he just happens to be a good guy.
I mean just because of WWII you Can, but I think you shouldn't, judge Germans to be all evil... They are people who happen to be descended from people who made some bad decisions. Should all Americans be prejudiced against because their fore-bearers almost wiped out many indigenous peoples?
Tieflings are humans who were marked by their culture, that's all.
As far as dealing with secondary school level children and those topics, it's a measure of our current culture that we don't want any of those themes put in the publics purview, while at the same time from the other end of our mouth we say that everything should be Politically Correct to a state of sickeningly ignoring some things that should be payed attention to, but that's another conversation. (tiny rant, sorry)
As far as Rouges being too key-holed... try playing the 2e bard as a wandering minstrel (Thom from The Wheel of Time), that was a little hard, but I was able to find a way to do it. There will be ways released to get the specific flavor of rouge that you want, just wait for it.
Are these classes a little more pigeon holed, yes, but you can make do with it, if you do a little work.
By the way, how you play a true minstrel bard is pick up the kit from the brown bard's book: true bard (I think) Take a half elf, and choose to Dual Class Bard/True bard... Makes a pretty good one. But I had to wait for the right book to come along.
As far as what the new Rouge can do, this is the first time I've ever seen a viable non-magic knife fighter in ANY Edition of D&D, and I've been waiting to play one for... oh... 20+ years. So yes you may have to wait on different editions for your build.
play DnD with 12 year olds - it is a great teaching tool as well as a game.
It just seems strange that the game has evil incorporated into its core stories
(infernal pacts with devils) but doesn't have it as character options.
Lerin
Just to keep from getting confused I'll keep with the Harry Potter line of logic, as long as we can say that Harry Potter is heroic fantasy, that is.
Ok, look at how dark that story is, look at the Doom that everyone faces, and has only been a few years out of when the story starts... Sometimes it takes a dark background to make the good more good. Heck Voldemort is walking around for most of it... no one ever believes Harry, I mean who wouldn't break, but he doesn't, why, he's so freaking Good.
Conan, in the movie was raised a slave, and then the gladiatorial arenas, but that's Heroic.
X-men are able to be heroic because not only are other mutants after them, but the rest of the world at large.
Look at the Devastation the first Star Wars (episodes 4, 5, and 6) came from under. That's down right bleak, what with the killing of the old republic and the Jedi Knights (especially because the people didn't resist the wanton destruction of their own culture).
Check out Kingdom Come That's bleak as heck, but it's truly a story about the heroism of man. This is what Hero's really are, and it show's us how far we've gone away from that heroism. We are lost children, truly.
In our heroic fantasy we want to be carried away by those who are able to hold on when we'd give up... and we want to be able to hold on, when no one else would... because it's easy to give up, to give in.
I completely agree with you Wotansman on all accounts. That's why I
play DnD with 12 year olds - it is a great teaching tool as well as a game.
It just seems strange that the game has evil incorporated into its core stories
(infernal pacts with devils) but doesn't have it as character options.
Lerin
Is that really so evil, or an ambiguous temptation? The temptation of searching power from something that *may* be dark against a much more present and 'in your face' menace...
Like in the Chthulu Mythos - when the prayers fail, the priest look in the closed and forbidden section of the church library... 'that' book...
And again - the game should not be censored without a good reason. D&D can explorate mature ideas and themes.
love,
malkav
Some people define mature as things they don't want their kids to see.
Others define it as things they want their kids to be.
The disconnect between the two definitions is where this argument breaks down.
For some, like V. Ashland and Wotan, mature uses the second definition. The BoVD clearly focused entirely on the first.
Is that really so evil, or an ambiguous temptation? The temptation of searching power from something that *may* be dark against a much more present and 'in your face' menace...
Like in the Chthulu Mythos - when the prayers fail, the priest look in the closed and forbidden section of the church library... 'that' book...
And again - the game should not be censored without a good reason. D&D can explorate mature ideas and themes.
Infernal.....INFERNAL.Thesaurus: infernal
adjective
Perversely bad, cruel, or wicked: devilish, diabolic, diabolical, fiendish, ghoulish, hellish, ogreish, satanic, satanical. See kind/cruel.
So annoying or detestable as to deserve condemnation: accursed, blasted, blessed, bloody, confounded, cursed, damn, darn, execrable. Informal blamed, damned. Chiefly British blooming, ruddy. See like/dislike.
And while D&D can explore mature themes i would certainly hope that Wotc leaves most of the "mature" subject matter up to the individual DM to create. I am all for Demons. Devils, and villainous villains. Not so much torture or smut. Those elements of the BOVD i could have done without.
Hopefully any 4th edition version will correct such discrepancies with proper rituals and powers.
Though, judging from how 4th Edition handles wizards and their spells I strongly doubt it. I still can't wrap my head around how spells just disappear from a wizards books at certain levels and how they can't learn new spells that they encounter during adventures.
Just, not the BoVD as it was in 3E. If you're going to do it, make it less about the "horror movie monster" style and really focus on getting sinister and a different type of mature. There's a lot more to a darker side than the BoVD.
Honestly, I love playing an evil character right. It's incredibly fun to have my character lauded as a hero by an entire nation, all the while having successfully guaranteed that the rulers of the devils will be competing with each other for who gets the grubby remnants of her blackened soul. And with the right group, evil can be extremely rewarding roleplaying.
Others define it as things they want their kids to be.
While it's true I don't want my kids to be snot bubble blowing little monsters like the BoVD basically is, I certainly don't want them to be subtly and intelligently evil either.
While it's true I don't want my kids to be snot bubble blowing little monsters like the BoVD basically is, I certainly don't want them to be subtly and intelligently evil either.
Why not? If they're like that, then they're more likely to get far ahead in life. Then they can support you in your old age while you teach their grandchildren not to be evil.
The only evil I've ever seen is Hannibal Lecter...and that's pushing it.
I've played evil a few times...nobody likes it. I help my companions too much without plotting behind their backs, and I never capture, torture, and toy with the good guys enough (I just flat-out kill them at the soonest opportunity). I even killed a party member once because he started doing a monologue with the hero on a rack, and then I killed the hero. Now, having said all that...I don't like playing evil, it's no fun...too constrained.
I just stick with unaligned now.
Anyway, for the sake of other players, I think handbooks of some sort for both good and evil would be of value to most players and DMs alike, but nothing like the BoED or BoVD, because the only thing good about the BoVD was the spells...and the BoED was just stupid, just like Good.
One last thing...Ravenloft was just...bleh, I couldn't stomach it, it was just so cliche. What was it, the place that cheesy, completely unintimidating wannabe villains go when they die? Half the time I expected to run across an entry in the book for a D&D version of Lord Helmet. I'd say it was less scary than Lovecraft's work, but you can't get less scary than simply "not".
While it's true I don't want my kids to be snot bubble blowing little monsters like the BoVD basically is, I certainly don't want them to be subtly and intelligently evil either.
Which is why the mature describes something. In this case, evil.Had the material in BoVD been your definition of mature, that being reasoned, intelligent, deep, etc....you probably would have liked it more. It would have been a mature look at evil, by your definition.
Rather than the 'mature' look at evil that it is. With less graphic pictures than the BoED.
In my experience, most people wouldn't know true evil if it walked up and bit them on the unmentionables.
Agreed.
In my experience, most people wouldn't know true evil if it walked up and bit them on the unmentionables.
In my experience, anything that walks up and bites you in the unmentionables has already qualified as true evil.
In my experience, anything that walks up and bites you in the unmentionables has already qualified as true evil.
That depends on whether or not you are paying for... oh, never mind. That leads to the dark path.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that running amok and slaughtering people at random does not make one truly evil; it makes one psychopathic. True evil comes from a place that most of us will never understand.
Evil is never taken seriously in D&D, just as ho-hum or over the top and too much.
Core book had evil as drab, "Oh I hate bunnies"; BoVD was, like "Zomg! I will slay you, **** your corpse, pray to profane gods whilst doing so, all while I force your children to watch! Lulz Imb4 paladin."
Evil is never taken seriously in D&D, just as ho-hum or over the top and too much.
seconded
While it's true I don't want my kids to be snot bubble blowing little monsters like the BoVD basically is, I certainly don't want them to be subtly and intelligently evil either.
Why not? If they're like that, then they're more likely to get far ahead in life. Then they can support you in your old age while you teach their grandchildren not to be evil.
also seconded! Search your heart, Vaal; you know this to be true...Anyway, all I'm saying is that running amok and slaughtering people at random does not make one truly evil; it makes one psychopathic. True evil comes from a place that most of us will never understand.
True evil is one of those things that varies from mind to mind. I had two evil characters in D&D who were on the complete opposite sides of evil. One was a man who skinned children alive to sell their pelts on an open market (and actually made a fair amount of money off it). The other was a cold man who constantly sacrificed good beings to evil deities to achieve power, prestige, and pleasure.
In the mindset of a normal person, they are psychopathic. However, just because they are labeled as "psychopaths" doesn't mean they aren't truly evil. It depends the mindset of the person that does it. Like are they aware of what they are doing? Do they know the consequences? Do they accept the consequences? What are their motives? Is he under duress? Do they actually enjoy it?
Those are just a small sample of questions that need to be asked about true evil but those questions are just as 2D as the "chivalrous, good" society is.
As one of my friends once told me, life is like television. Most of society is stuck with basic cable and accepts it. However, evil is like HD TV. There is a lot more to it than what initially meets the eye.
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n.
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
adv. Archaic
In an evil manner.
Pulled from thefreedictionary.com
So according to this, that sick and depraved individual causing random acts of murder and carnage is true evil. That you wish to explore more kinds of evil is understandable but saying that one evil is more.... eviler is just opinion. That backstabber who wants to take over the kingdom with plotting and planning is just as bad as the brute who cannot go a day without snapping three people's necks and as bad as the person who wants to worship evil spirits for his own gain. Being mortal ourselves we cannot judge to say what is truly evil or not, evil is a lack of morals and you can be evil if you didn't pass elementary school or have three doctorate titles under your belt, it isn't a matter of mental capacity it is a matter of spirituality