Twilight Forums

I do not remember who exactly said the above saying, but the meaning is "Blaming the inocent and excusing the obviously guilty"

Whoever played D&D for many years, knows all too well how the church reacted to the monster manual of the second edition, how both the Pope and the Patriarch spoke of the "evil" game, that "Dungeon Masters, members of the Devil's hierarchy, use this foul game to initiate inocent people to the doctrine of Satan". Yes, these exact words, where part of the first page in the official catholical print (specificaly in Italy).

And whoever wishes a more recent example, one can look in both magic the gathering, and vampire the masquerade... Specificaly, V:TM, got banned in most of orthodox Europe, via popular demand of the "worrying elders of our beloved and enlightened, open minded society"... (got restored after a year due to unconstitutional churh decree)

How does all this relates to TH?...



No, this is not a polemic about why angels and similar creatures should be a part of this game. The quote was the sparkle that made me write things, hovering in my mind for a lot of time, but never had the oportunity to share. It is a sentimental burst versus a world that fully accepts a breast being cut with a sword from its root in one movie, but gets enraged with another one being touched in yet another movie. A world that feels proud about the mythos our ancestors left to us, but get enraged when people gather to weave their own mythos.

People point to video games and pen and paper games accusing them for the ever growing violence but see no fault in showing live action from a real battlefield, wether in Kosovo or Iraq.

Well, instead of saying things that probably most gamers consider true to one extend or another, I'll post a few articles I read and found interesting, wether for their comedy factor, or for their arbitration (yes, I actually do mean arbitration )

A satirized letter
Famous Thomson
A neutral view article
Ok. I admit it. I almost screamed "ZOMG WTF?!" while reading this.


UN: I can see IcyFreak armed with a dictionary coming here and I can feel her angry breath...

_________________

Then there's that tract about D&D. I mean, that's so unrealistic!



What level 8 would be attacking a zombie? That's pretty much instant destruction when turning at that point! Jeeze!

Yeah, that last one is so crazy I don't eve know where to begin. When you read stuff like that, and it has so little to do with the actual game, the ability to argue just kind of breaks down, because it's so far off base. I really don't understand where the author is coming from, but if the author had actually read any of the materials of those games, they'd know it's not accurate.

It leaves me wondering: did TSR start out searching for realism but give up on it? Is the author deluded? Is the author lying? Are there earlier versions of the game that were significantly different from what I've ever seen? I just don't know.

What I do know is people will read the author's post and for whatever reason they'll believe him without bothering to check facts themselves, and that's what really pisses me off.

Referring to my original quote, I can still understand why people might not feel comfortable fighting something called, say, an "angel" because their religion says an angel isn't something you should fight with, because it comes from God and is supposed to be good, so you'd have to be evil to fight it, even in a pretend scenario. I'm less certain, but also maybe able to see, why someone might feel uneasy pretending to be good and fighting a devil or the like, though that seems like an admirable enough thing to do, even in the religious perspective--fighting the devil is a good thing, right?

I am completely and utterly unable to understand the claim that D&D contains within it "actual real rituals that will summon evil spirits." That's simply and factually completely untrue, at least in any incarnation of the game that's existed in the last 25 years.

I've played D&D Red Book, and the difference between it and 2nd edition (or third) is a lack of detail. In second, you might get (say) a Long Sword +2 (+4 vs. Giants). In Red Book, you got a Sword +2. Things were a lot more limited and that's about it.

I've never played ChainMail (the game that eventually became D&D), but I wager the differences are similar: less detail.

And, really, Gary Gygax was just your typical nerd. I seriously doubt he knew a damn thing about "witchcraft". It's just paranoid delusions on Jack's part. Of course, he's also convinced that Catholicism is the work of "The Whore of Babylon", so he's not all there, ya know?

Well, possibly. My mother worked retail, and there are still people who freak out if their bill comes to some varient of 666.

Depending on the viewpoint, that isn't acceptable either. You are to turn your back on the devil, not fight him; that's God's job.

Same here. Of course, we were never inducted into the real D&D or something. I have no idea where those books came from, though. The most disturbing thing I've ever seen in D&D is the Book Of Erotic Fantasy (which is nauseating... "Perform a CON check to see how long you can fuck.")

I have heard somewhat rational complaints about D&D, though, but those tend to focus on the fact that a D&D character is, generally, living for herself or for her country, etc. and not for God. I don't agree with that view, but at least it doesn't make me want to check their medication.

Amusingly enough, I know several people who were introduced to D&D by their chruch youth leaders. Heh.

Ok, since I have played all versions of D&D, from chainmail and first edition, to 3.5, I consider the following true:

-Chainmail was about historic battles, except from the last supplement, practicaly there was no magic element. In short, Chainmail was a historic battle simulator, based on miniatures, with a primitive combat system, and much fun without even a single moral consideration (there was nearly no RP factor).
-Dungeons and Dragons (the 1st) was a tabletop game. It's rules were a bit more complex than Chain, but still, you could have your entire char sheet in a contact card. Moreover, it's RP factor was limited to player interaction, since D&D 1st, was basicaly a dungeon crawling game. (Hence the name D&D)
-The 3rd (and 3.5) editions, are basicaly an uber balanced system, with heavy doses of simplification relative to the 2nd. The two primary factors of this latest edition, is balancing everything (classes, races, skills, spells, magic items) and making the game more user friendly, by standarizing everything (anybody remembers the suplement "Followers of Vecna"? It had a full article about what finger combinations must be done to evoce specific powers of the hand of vecna...)
-And now, the hot shot: 2nd Edition, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Practicaly, this is the game that all the ruckus is targeted to. You ask if it has a dose of realism? In the core books, none at all. But many supplements, had very extensive and accurate articles, acompanied by images, that yes, indeed, could be considered realistic. BUT in no case, and in no D&D supplement the last 40 years (chainmail included), there is a single element that bears a realistic resemblance to RL practices of magic. The majority of elements that got near realism, were at best decorative articles, that were meant for the DM to provide a more accurate description, not for the players to actually follow step by step so as to emulate rituals. And of course, the pointer about the Author of the discussed article, being a past satanist and having witnessed what "the Necronomicon can do", is the final absolute shot to his lack of comprehension of this world (wisdom 2? Maybe 3?).

void boasting()
{
cout << "-Note, that I own every last supplement written, published, or coauthored by TSR and WoTC, and have read every official single line, D&D related (except the dragon and dungeon magazines, that I own only a couple)."
} //boasting END :P

One last thing: the Book Of Erotic Fantasy is not published by WoTC, but by WW (!). Yes, things changed much from the times that D&D fans were at open war with V:TM fans... I for myself, played both, but ended up opting for D&D, simply due to sheer lack of RP capable players...

_________________

Jack Chick is batshit insane. One of the craziest motherfuckers I've ever heard of.

Oh, man, I totally missed that part. Yeah, totally gone from this world. Saying you know what "the Necronomicon can do" is like saying you know what "De Vermis Mysteriis can do" or what "the Book of Eibon can do". Non of those books are even real, so they certainly can't do a damn thing.

Unless he's referencing the Simon Necronomicon printed in the 70's. Then, he's just a bloody moron. I have a copy, and I've read it, and it's pure claptrap and nonsense.

-Cristiona, Lovecraft fanatic who knows what the Unaussprechlichen Kulten can do.

Actually it is far worse: no other Lovecraft's fictional book beats the infamy of Necronomicon. Even people outside of the world of fantasy litererature have heard of it. Taken accordingly, it is like saying

"I know the true story behind that Cinderela whore and trust me, those paganist three pigs, really deserved what the wolf did to them. I have undeniable evidence that Pinochio burns in hell!"

ugh... >.>

uh oh... <.<

ouch.

_________________

You know, I have to disagree with you and tell you that that article does have a point. Sort of. That would be to be careful of what you're playing (don't we all know that already?). Everything else is just icing on the cake, very much argumentative, and I'd like to see the studies proving his point, and the actual D&D quotes that he's talking about.

Now, I don't play D&D myself, never have and never will, but I'm not especially inclined to believe everything that guy said. Written too many argumentative essays for that. And I'm part of the same religion he is (or appears to be from that article). I'm aware that this (the not playing D&D) makes me somewhat less reliable on the subject, but what the heck, I might as well post.

Oh, and Devant? I don't need a dictionary to tell you where you've gone wrong, with regards to spelling and grammar.

_________________
Have a nice day.

[img=http://img468.imageshack.us/img468/7595/disclaimerna5.th.png]

I scanned the above part from my Player's Handbook. It is the basis of all D&D playing, practicaly, it is impossible to play without having read it. If all the worth of the article is located on pipointing the possible care needed when playing RPGs, then I suppose he wasted much time on nothing, since the game itself does so.



I would like to believe that this is a hearty comment . Unless you still hold grugdes for my ignorance of your gender some time ago . From my part, I did not meant to offend you ala "Stern Prof". The comment was more of a reference to the "facsimile dictionary" and how it damages all those "incapable" speakers .

_________________