Quote from: StormBringer;257773Even if that off-screen sacrifice was the reason five Fighting-Men are kicking in the door every day to kill the PC?  Wouldn't sorcery be as rare with other ritual components like 'tears of a snake', 'humility of the gods', or 'the nightmares of a murderer'?  Especially as, by your own admission, your players give no more mind to the actual ritual than 'I get the stuff and cast the spell'?

That is an excellent point StormBringer.

Geoffrey, not to dog pile you, but given that you admit that even your players don't indulge in the details, why are they necessary in your opinion?


TGA

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257792Insert "I didn't play D&D for all those years without learning a little something about courage" joke here, right?  

TGA

Something like that TGA.

I mean you have been doing a pretty good job of articulating the concerns many have with this supplement, I don't think there was any need for you to go down the dodgy psychological tangent you did. Can you dig it?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Geoffrey;257793Most fundamentally, it boils down to this:

Since M. A. R. Barker published The Book of Ebon Bindings 30 years ago, and since I've only seen praise given to it, I assumed that the level of grisly detail therein was OK with most gamers. I'm frankly perplexed why so much outrage is being directed against my little book when The Book of Ebon Bindings has no outrage against it.

Never heard of FATAL, I take it?

Given the reactions that you have encountered so far, what plans, if any, do you have of changing the presentation of your material?


TGA

Quote from: RPGPundit;257753Are you drunk?

RPGPundit

No, just sophomorically idiotic as usual.

The issue that both you and I've glommed onto, Pundit, is that (AFAICT) Barker wrote the BoEB as a pastiche, an in-game-world-object, as one can see by the language and the lack of game-mechanical references.

I'm more inclined to charity in Geoffrey's case than you are, but I think he erred by not picking up on this. The reference to a hex number, for example, puts him, the "real" author, much closer to the reader. The passages he describes would be far less likely to offend if they were framed by text stating something like, "The following is an excerpt from the Book of Deep Summonings, writting in 1247 A.C. by Karshish the Unholy" etc.

Quote from: Fritzs;257785Not true... pedophiles tend not to molest kids, they are people who really love preten kids and yes, they are sexualy aroused by them to some degree. But as yourself would you rape someone you love? Ut's sadists who rape most kids, not pedophiles.



This sort of material might serve substitution for pedophile so said pedophile will feel less "need" if he faps to childporn cartoons. So it actually might help to protect kids from being raped.

Can you really be this stupid?

Quote from: Geoffrey;257793Most fundamentally, it boils down to this:

Since M. A. R. Barker published The Book of Ebon Bindings 30 years ago, and since I've only seen praise given to it, I assumed that the level of grisly detail therein was OK with most gamers. I'm frankly perplexed why so much outrage is being directed against my little book when The Book of Ebon Bindings has no outrage against it.

Two reasons.

1.  Yours is new, BoEB is old.

2.  Hardly anyone actually has BoEB.

Quote from: JimLotFP;257615You're not killing girls to cast regular D&D spells - they don't exist in Carcosa.

You know, what with the one decent character class going by the old appellation "Fighting Men" and the way in which all the female characters mentioned so far appear to have been limited to little more than human sacrifices, I've been wondering about just how playable women are in the setting.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257793Most fundamentally, it boils down to this:
 
Since M. A. R. Barker published The Book of Ebon Bindings 30 years ago, and since I've only seen praise given to it, I assumed that the level of grisly detail therein was OK with most gamers. I'm frankly perplexed why so much outrage is being directed against my little book when The Book of Ebon Bindings has no outrage against it.

That's a very filtered sample.  The vast majority of gamers have no love for MA Barker or the Petal throne (it's never been a very popular setting) and only a small proportion of those would have read Ebon Bindings.

Quote from: David R;257800I don't think there was any need for you to go down the dodgy psychological tangent you did. Can you dig it?

Regards,
David R

I totally dig it.  It was a mistake on my part to bring it up.


TGA

Quote from: Drohem;257805Can you really be this stupid?

He comes across as a Nambla advocate.

Not Geoffrey, I don't get that vibe at all from him, I did from Fritz's post though.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257754I don't know what to say. If you don't believe me, you don't believe me.

I can only reiterate that I sought to portray Yogthag and his associates as the vilest of the vile. Horrific details make a reader hate the doer of such things even more than if the details were left out. I wanted readers to really, really hate Yogthag and co., and thus feel intense satisfaction when they were all killed at the end.

I think you've run into a fundamental problem of player-character identification. I do wonder at this, some of the things I've read in the thread suggest you don't have a high player-character identification in your games...yet you also criticize the players for "their" actions, and cite instances where players decide not to go through with certain rituals because they're too awful. Well...if so, why should the players care? It's the characters that are doing the evil deeds, not them.

Quote from: JimLotFP;257517But the mass slaughter common in RPGs... that must be perfectly OK to fantasize about. Very decent.

Oh, because epic battles against a foe who a) might well be the aggressor and b) is perfectly capable of fighting back is totally on a par with raping a helpless victim.

Show me a D&D game where the murder of helpless innocents by the PCs is commonplace and we can talk.

Quote from: David R;257779What the hell are you saying here droog, you mean playing heroic fantasy does not make one heroic?

Regards,
David R

I would say the difference is one of scope and opportunity.  I will never, ever, never be in a position to kill a tribe of orcs.  Ever.  Or even a single orc.  Nor will I quit my job, travel to the Urals, and lead the army of Dwarves against the predations of the Bloody Skull goblin clan.  I am not a Ranger, nor a Magic User.  All these things, no matter how hard I think about them, are beyond what is possible.  No matter how unhinged I may be or may become, I will never, under any circumstances, ever cast a fireball in a crowded theatre, nor hack an orc to bits in front of his family.  Ever.

On the other hand, I do believe that thoughts lead to actions.  Maybe not directly, maybe not immediately, but each thought is re-inforced by the previous one.  There are mechanisms in place, not only in the mind but in society, where the worst atrocities are naturally constrained.  Well before that level is reached, however, thoughts become so comfortable and ingrained that action becomes almost reflexive.

Luckily, this works the other way as well.  If we raise our eyes, and through our avatars, look upon heroic deeds and be moved by them, if we can accustom ourselves to this mode of action, where those of lesser means or power are defended, protected, and given hope by those who value life itself, perhaps we can take a little of that away into our daily lives.  Instead of looking away but saying nothing, perhaps we can find it in ourselves to speak up about a racially or sexually demeaning joke at the office.  Maybe we can approach the parents screaming at their child in the supermarket and ask if everything is ok.  Perhaps we can start to be active participants in our own lives, instead of bystanders watching things happen.

But we aren't going to get there by playing games that only seek the darkest places in ourselves.  Those places exist in us all, but to embrace them is to embrace madness.  We must see them for what they are, ancient instincts, and work towards a life where we don't need them.  We ultimately express that part of us which is nourished the most.

Shall we then be hopeful, opening our hearts and minds to each other, and strive for what is best in ourselves and our fellow humans?  Or shall we retreat to each our own darkness, lashing out at everyone and snarling at those who approach too closely?

Geoffrey,

Let me know when it's available in pdf and I'll check it out then for myself.

Stormbringer, no offence, but you're in even more dodgier territory than TGA. I think I may have some idea where you trying to go, but I'm afraid I don't agree with you. I wish I could be a little more specific, but really although well written, you have not given me anything substantial to argue against.

Regards,
David R