Gary Gygax's thoughts on the Books of Vile Darkness and Erotic Fantasy

[Libertad]

Silven.org review with E. Gary Gygax posted:
Q6: What do you think of the Book of Vile Darkness, if you have had the chance to read it?

GG: I have not read that actual material, but I have read quoted excerpts and several summaries of the content. None of what I read made me think it was a work that should have been published for the D&D game, let alone by the company that owns the property. That sort of material should not be included in a game that purports to be "heroic" in nature and promoting the triumph of good over evil. With the publication of the Book of Vile Darkness, WotC has given detractors of the D&D game splendid ammunition for their attacks on it. To me it is a shame for them to have published the work.

Q7: In principle, how do you feel about Anthony Valterra's soon-to-be-released, Book of Erotic Fantasy?

GG: Likely, it will be far worse than the Book of Vile Darkness from what I have heard of it, but at least it will not have the d20 mark on it, so some distance between it and the D&D game can be asserted.

From a personal standpoint, I find the subject material prurient and juvenile in concept. It is not what I would ever consider using in a game, nor will I ever recommend the work to another. It is something I would never publish, as I believe that sexuality has little part in the role-playing game form. Of course, I do not question the author's right to publish such a work, or the right of those who wish to acquire it to do so, but I believe it to be destructive to the game form and deplore the mindset that considers it anything else but unsuitable.

So, what are your thoughts on this?  Do you agree with Gygax, in that these books made it harder for D&D fans to get respect?  Do you think that the subject matter of these books was handled poorly and are unsuitable for table-top role-playing games?

[sirpercival]

Well, I always felt like BoVD was intended to be a DM resource, and not a player resource.  In that respect... the Monster Manuals and MotP had a lot of info on beings of pure evil, devils & demons, etc.... and were intended as DM resources.  How can the players triumph over ultimate evil if there's no rules for said evil?

[littha]

Well, I always felt like BoVD was intended to be a DM resource, and not a player resource.  In that respect... the Monster Manuals and MotP had a lot of info on beings of pure evil, devils & demons, etc.... and were intended as DM resources.  How can the players triumph over ultimate evil if there's no rules for said evil?

This, I would never consider using pretty much anything from the BoVD as a player just because I don't generally play evil characters but I can use a lot of its ideas while writing demons/devils and worshippers of evil deities or the like.

[ariasderros]

On BoVD:
He didn't read it. It flat out points out what few reasons are "acceptable" to play for team evil, and states in the front that it is otherwise meant to be a DM sourcebook. And the comments about D&D detractors seems to be based on the old "Satan worshiping gamers" crap, which isn't that much of a problem anymore. The only relevant modern stigmas has nothing to do with BoVD's material.

On BoEF:
I do agree with him. It can be funny in concept, like any lazy dick-joke, but when actually brought into a game, I just have to go "Really?", and that has happened before. The DM, who was 25, was quite proud of himself, because he thought it was funny, but no one else was even remotely amused. If everyone in the group finds it appropriate, then it is, otherwise, it has limited, if any, place.
I'm being careful here, because this is a really hard thing to talk about without coming off as trying to say "my fun is better than your fun" kind of stuff, which is not meant at all.

[Jackinthegreen]

I don't believe WotC themselves should have handled or endorsed such material as far as sexual content is concerned.  The target audience isn't necessarily people that can handle that sort of thing maturely, plus having that material available isn't exactly good PR considering the view many might have of the company even without that material.

As for them handling other people publishing such things though, I'm not sure how things would or have worked out.  If someone comes along and makes a supplement like the BoEF, WotC publicly denouncing it is essentially free advertising.  The same might be true of taking them to court if a violation of copyright or trademark or whatever happened.

Letting such a publication quietly exist for the select niche of people who can use it maturely should be fine.

[bhu]

So, what are your thoughts on this?  Do you agree with Gygax, in that these books made it harder for D&D fans to get respect?  Do you think that the subject matter of these books was handled poorly and are unsuitable for table-top role-playing games?

Honestly I thought both books soft balled it as much as they could.  If it was handled poorly in any respect it was the fact they couldn't get over the possible reaction their subjects might create enough to discuss them in any depth or with anything but a fairly stereotypical mindset.  As for respect....well fuck respect.  If people are so immature and narrow minded they feel the need to create artificial divisions to keep certain portions of the populace at bay because they don't feel comfortable around them then you don't want or need their respect.  And suitable is a fairly relative term from group to group and person to person.

[ariasderros]

I don't believe WotC themselves should have handled or endorsed such material as far as sexual content is concerned.  The target audience isn't necessarily people that can handle that sort of thing maturely, plus having that material available isn't exactly good PR considering the view many might have of the company even without that material.

As for them handling other people publishing such things though, I'm not sure how things would or have worked out.  If someone comes along and makes a supplement like the BoEF, WotC publicly denouncing it is essentially free advertising.  The same might be true of taking them to court if a violation of copyright or trademark or whatever happened.

Letting such a publication quietly exist for the select niche of people who can use it maturely should be fine.

They didn't publish it. They did, in fact, denounce it.

And suitable is a fairly relative term from group to group and person to person.

+1

[Unbeliever]

It's also worth remembering that Gygax is a product of his time.  He lived through the firestorm of D&D = Satan Worship and Magic.  Which was ridiculous for all sorts of reasons.

That being said, I happen to find BoVD pretty prurient all told.  I'm not against exploring ultra-evil in D&D.  Great heroes need great villains.  But, they seemed be going for some combination of titillating and squick factors that I don't find particularly compelling.  Hence, prurient.  BoVD, not in its entirety but at many points, has always struck me as kind of childish; viz. Nipple Clamps of Exquisite Pain and that wacky rod thingy made out of tongues.  Although I haven't really read through it in a while.

I'd contrast that with the Fiendish Codexes and Elder Evils.  All three books deal with evil and so on.  But, I think they focus on the right parts for a game -- useful stuff for constructing plots and stories, etc. rather than titillation b/c it's so evil or what have you -- and also just seem better put together.  I find the FCs in particular a gold mine for adventure and encounter ideas. 

[awaken_D_M_golem]

hmm ... He was still smarting from the jakc chikc attacks.
And maybe he was secretly a pun-pun fan, not a h.i.v.e guy, eh ?
 

BoEF wasn't part of the wotc/tsr history.
You make an open source, you get some cheesecake too.

[Jackinthegreen]

They didn't publish it. They did, in fact, denounce it.

I'm talking about the BoVD in that first paragraph.  They did publish that after all.  The BoEF is another matter which I talk about in the second paragraph.  I thought I made it clear by saying content they had published in the first contrasted with "other people publishing such things" in the second, but evidently not.

[Libertad]

hmm ... He was still smarting from the jakc chikc attacks.

He has every right to be.  Crazy evangelicals not only sent him death threats, they also stalked him in vehicles and drove past his house several times.  He had to hire bodyguards for several years.

[midnight_v]

hmm ... He was still smarting from the jakc chikc attacks.

He has every right to be.  Crazy evangelicals not only sent him death threats, they also stalked him in vehicles and drove past his house several times.  He had to hire bodyguards for several years.

Right but when it starts affecting changing you veiws, beliefs, and living, THE TERRORISTS WIN. Thats the whole goal of that type of assholery in all its forms, to control you through fear via "Threat of Harm". Fuck that, fuck that forever, I defy that shit on principle, and meet it w/jack bauer style violence.

   Moreover, Evil, is just as valid a choice in D&D as good, because... well you know the rest, libertad.
   Personally, though I think that a positive thing because in the end Rpg's in general are story generators, as well as games. Sometimes the stories are more interesting when the night is blackest, and the Empire has won the galaxy. Especially if you get to play as Vader, Boba Fett, and the High Wizard... uhm, sorry, The Emperor.
   The problem with evil in D&D isn't that there aren't heroic(tier) stories of blackguardry, but because most people, aren't very talented at making evil look good (or at least delicious).
 Hell, half of them are afraid too. Doing so makes some people divide by zero, cause they can't get past the concept they've been force fed all thier lives that "Good vs Evil", Good HAS to win.
   Lastly, the problem is that EVIL in D&D is too defined and its defined by mechanics, so its hard for some people to parse it between, Jeffery Dahmer, and Darth Vader.
D&D needs an evil: Workshop. It certainly isn't just a DM's tool, but the ability to facilitate another type of story

[Libertad]

@midnight_v:

I think a big problem with portraying "subtle" forms of Evil in tabletop RPGs is that it's all too easy to take the lazy route and make it "extreme."  More so in a game of "objective" morality where Team Evil is literally the embodiment of Demons and Gods of Destruction and Terror.

A lot of times the audience wants "real bad buys," or writers go for "gross-out evil" to inspire revulsion and hatred (like Garth Ennis).  The tragic anti-hero or former good guy has a place in literature and games, it's just that simplistic "I'm the embodiment of Evil!" option's the more iconic and popular choice for consumers and writers.  I think that's what Monte Cook went with "gross-out evil" in the BoVD, because the ante for Team Evil in D&D's higher than a "shades of gray" morality game.

[Agrippa]

I find it some what funny that Gygax condemns the Book of Vile Darkness for being a source book for evil characters since Elric and Cugel are two of his favorite fantasy anti-heroes.

[veekie]

I find it some what funny that Gygax condemns the Book of Vile Darkness for being a source book for evil characters since Elric and Cugel are two of his favorite fantasy anti-heroes.

The BoVD is hardly Elric's kind of evil though. Its the simplest, most direct, revel in slaughter, gore and fetishism evil. No place for personal bonds or motives beyond mwahaha evil.

Basically the wrong kind of evil to focus on because its so shallow. Heck, what do the dark powers even get out of your sacrifice? Whats their metaphysical stake in it?

[Unbeliever]

I find it some what funny that Gygax condemns the Book of Vile Darkness for being a source book for evil characters since Elric and Cugel are two of his favorite fantasy anti-heroes.

The BoVD is hardly Elric's kind of evil though. Its the simplest, most direct, revel in slaughter, gore and fetishism evil. No place for personal bonds or motives beyond mwahaha evil.

Basically the wrong kind of evil to focus on because its so shallow. Heck, what do the dark powers even get out of your sacrifice? Whats their metaphysical stake in it?

Basically, this.  Which is part of why I agreed with Gygax's puerile assessment.

No one seems to disagree with that.  So, if anything, BoVD is worthy of criticism as being poorly-implemented.  In other words, evil seems to be a legitimate subject for the game and the stories it seeks to drive.  Which, frankly, seems to only make sense:  it's a game of good and evil.  You kind of need the second part in there somewhere.  The childish, simplistic approach in BoVD isn't the right one, though. 

[Unbeliever]

Sorry to double-post, but Midnight's post got me thinking. 

@Evil as a character choice
Personally, I don't think evil characters are a particularly valid choice in D&D.  At least not for a long-running campaign.  Two reasons. 

First, D&D doesn't really deal with morality well to begin with.  This is well-documented.  With generalized "good guys" you're not putting much pressure on this sort of thing; they can have sufficiently-varied motivations (e.g., saving people, promoting some sort of abstract goodness, greed) that all lead up to the same rescuing villagers from marauding whatevers.  So, no problem there.  Playing characters that are putatively evil, though, is going to force you to confront D&D's unsubtle and unlovely approach to morality more directly.

Second, and more importantly, evil characters don't usually see themselves as such.  To quote George RR Martin, "a great villain is one that's just 2 steps away from being the hero of his own story."  (side note:  he's probably taken that mentality too far in SoIF, but that's another thread)  Meaning that from the character's perspective, which is going to overlap a lot with the player's one, the character isn't going to be "evil."  He's going to have a reason to wanting to lay waste to Cormyr or whatever.  He's going to have some motivations which are going to seem reasonable to him.  It's hard to play a three-dimensional character for any period of time otherwise. 

And, at that point you're not really playing "evil" anymore.  You're maybe playing "ruthless" or antiheroes or even just "really pissed off." 


P.S.:  despite what I've just said, on occasion I've seen/played a solid "evil" character.  In a Planescape game I played what is essentially a Yugoloth.  He was greedy, violent, and had little in the way of morals.  Slavery, for instance, was completely acceptable to him.  This didn't really change the complexion of the campaign all that much, though.  Mostly b/c this character could be easily motivated (greed) and even came to regard his companions as extremely useful and capable and so would protect and aid them.  It also helped that the other PCs were willing to work around his ... proclivities.  But, we didn't have a situation where there was a shining beacon of paladinhood in the party or anything.

[midnight_v]

I'll respond.

Thats a lot. Apparently, as I'm the apparent chosen voice of evil here on the boards... I'll go ahead and represent it. Still thats a lot to take in what you guys have said, and I'm going to think up an appropriate response. Just saying, I'm still here, even if I dont' post it today.

[veekie]

Sorry to double-post, but Midnight's post got me thinking. 

@Evil as a character choice
Personally, I don't think evil characters are a particularly valid choice in D&D.  At least not for a long-running campaign.  Two reasons. 

First, D&D doesn't really deal with morality well to begin with.  This is well-documented.  With generalized "good guys" you're not putting much pressure on this sort of thing; they can have sufficiently-varied motivations (e.g., saving people, promoting some sort of abstract goodness, greed) that all lead up to the same rescuing villagers from marauding whatevers.  So, no problem there.  Playing characters that are putatively evil, though, is going to force you to confront D&D's unsubtle and unlovely approach to morality more directly.

Second, and more importantly, evil characters don't usually see themselves as such.  To quote George RR Martin, "a great villain is one that's just 2 steps away from being the hero of his own story."  (side note:  he's probably taken that mentality too far in SoIF, but that's another thread)  Meaning that from the character's perspective, which is going to overlap a lot with the player's one, the character isn't going to be "evil."  He's going to have a reason to wanting to lay waste to Cormyr or whatever.  He's going to have some motivations which are going to seem reasonable to him.  It's hard to play a three-dimensional character for any period of time otherwise. 

And, at that point you're not really playing "evil" anymore.  You're maybe playing "ruthless" or antiheroes or even just "really pissed off." 


P.S.:  despite what I've just said, on occasion I've seen/played a solid "evil" character.  In a Planescape game I played what is essentially a Yugoloth.  He was greedy, violent, and had little in the way of morals.  Slavery, for instance, was completely acceptable to him.  This didn't really change the complexion of the campaign all that much, though.  Mostly b/c this character could be easily motivated (greed) and even came to regard his companions as extremely useful and capable and so would protect and aid them.  It also helped that the other PCs were willing to work around his ... proclivities.  But, we didn't have a situation where there was a shining beacon of paladinhood in the party or anything.

I think for that, you need two things, a clear definition of evil, and the character needs a motivation and existence beyond their alignment. Evil people have friends, family and things they value. They fight for causes they believe in. They enjoy things everyone else does.

The system of course, does not care about their drives and interests. But deep evil characters have those factors motivating them. Those with Personality:Evil, Organization:Evil and Fetish:Evil, aren't really characters so much as caricatures.

[Unbeliever]

...
I think for that, you need two things, a clear definition of evil, and the character needs a motivation and existence beyond their alignment. Evil people have friends, family and things they value. They fight for causes they believe in. They enjoy things everyone else does.

The system of course, does not care about their drives and interests. But deep evil characters have those factors motivating them. Those with Personality:Evil, Organization:Evil and Fetish:Evil, aren't really characters so much as caricatures.

That seems true to me, and more or less what I was trying to say put much  more succinctly.

And, the question then becomes if you're fighting for a cause or family or friends, where is the "evil"?  You might be fighting for an "evil" cause.  Sure, but what's really the difference to the game in doing so?