Central Castings books - a few questions
MMetca
Central Castings Dungeons and Heroes for Tomorrow, but I would like to find out
what other books were published, and I would like to hear your commentary about
them. Also if someone has some or could point me to some to purchase I would
appreciate that info. also.
Thank you,
Matt M.
Tony Rabiola
depending on which genre/time period you are developing a
character for. Best bet is Ebay, i would say...
argent
--
"What fools these mortals be...."
"MMetca" <mme...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000821150012...@ng-df1.aol.com...
Sidhain
> Could someone please tell me a little bit more about these books. I have the
> Central Castings Dungeons and Heroes for Tomorrow, but I would like to find out
> what other books were published, and I would like to hear your commentary about
> them. Also if someone has some or could point me to some to purchase I would
> appreciate that info. also.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Matt M.
>
Heroes of Legend, and Heroes of Today
I've owned these two..
Truthfully? Id found them fun little books useful when I was really bored to make
characters--PC's and NPC
so can see how outrageous they could get, then try and make sense of the rolls in away that
would allow them to be played in the RPG's I was involved in at the time.
But that rarely happened, basically I found them good fun for themselves, just to see what
weirdness came out, a few times I used ideas they inspired in games--but not without serious
editing. My Heroes of Today was stolen-and I miss it greatly. But I still have Heroes of
Legend...My biggest gripe is having half my characters end up with Sword shaped birthmarks or
tattoos--no joke...
But for actual game use? I'd say marginal at best. If you are a fan of random rolls, and or are
going to sue a lot of common sense to override some of the stranger combos it can be
worthwhile.
Mark Rouleau
into the background of your characters.
Now I for one like random rolls as a way of getting the creative juices
flowing when creating a character, and many of the tables in the Central
Casting series had merit, but taken as a whole, well, a friend of mine put
it best when he said the characters that came out of the books were "a
little *too* interesting."
After all, after you create a character who's parents were killed by foreign
spies, was raised by tibetan monks, has a birthmark in the shape of a hand,
developed his first arch-enemy at age 10, learned to see and communicate
with ghosts at age 12,
etc, etc, etc... the actual adventuring part seems somewhat mundane in
comparison.
--------------
Mark Rouleau
If a sleepwalker gets hit by a car, do you call a somnambulance?
"MMetca" <mme...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000821150012...@ng-df1.aol.com...
Blackberry
For those of us who have been playing for literally 20 years or more, it helps
us come up with some ideas for character backgrounds. For new players, it can
guide them through it as well. Sometimes we have to toss out the result and
start over, though, if the character is just too powerful or too pathetic to be
playable.
I took a look at Central Casting: Dungeons. It seems to be a book to generate
random dungeons. While that's fine and good, I gave up dungeon crawls a long
time ago.
--------------------
"It's enough to make you wonder sometimes if you're on the right planet."
-- Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Brian -- le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com -- remove "NOSPAM"
Doug Berry
mme...@aol.com (MMetca), wrote thusly:
>Could someone please tell me a little bit more about these books.
The first editions were filled with PJ's own religious views. I
did not appreciate being told that being bisexual was an evil
thing, and really did not appreciate that he was passing this
odious crap onto to younger gamers.
It was cleaned up in later editions, but I still have a bad taste
from those first printings.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"We are GURPS. You will be assimilated. We will add
your distinctive setting and background to our own. |
Resistance is futile."
Sidhain
> did not appreciate being told that being bisexual was an evil
> thing, and really did not appreciate that he was passing this
> odious crap onto to younger gamers.
>
I personally liked the fact that he took a stand on his beleifs, even if those beleifs did not
mirror my own.
S. John Ross
Slipping zingers into the middle of a gaming supplement isn't taking a
stand, it's pure yellow cowardice.
|| S. John Ross
|| Husband · Cook · Writer
|| In That Order
|| http://www.cumberlandgames.com - Stuff For Gamers
Sidhain
> Slipping zingers into the middle of a gaming supplement isn't taking a
> stand, it's pure yellow cowardice.
>
>
But he didn't. He made a fairly large editorial statement at the beginning of "Heroes of Today"
Mark Morgan
Not having the books on me, I do kind of remember the area that had the
"deviant" psychological traits was missing and replaced with a soapbox.
i think it was the opinion that anyone who played a character that had
"evil" traits was just plain wrong.
Note that his view of deviant and evil are not mine.
I enjoyed the first book, the second was ok. The third caught me by
surprise since there was no evidence on the outside that the author had
a religious conversion.
--
Mark Morgan
lem...@informix.com
Doug Berry
"Sidhain" <sid...@earthlink.net>, wrote thusly:
>> The first editions were filled with PJ's own religious views. I
>> did not appreciate being told that being bisexual was an evil
>> thing, and really did not appreciate that he was passing this
>> odious crap onto to younger gamers.
>
>I personally liked the fact that he took a stand on his beleifs, even if >those beleifs did not mirror my own.
I don't mind that he's religious, what I minded was seeing what I
am, bisexual, being labeled as evil.
Would you approve of a game where blacks and Jews were depicted
as monsters, if that was the author's beliefs?
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> Slipping zingers into the middle of a gaming supplement isn't taking a
> stand, it's pure yellow cowardice.
Um, what'd I miss?
I would think it takes more courage to express your view
(especially if unpopular) than to not do so.
S. John Ross
| I would think it takes more courage to express your view
| (especially if unpopular) than to not do so.
I agree, hence my comment.
Sidhain
> am, bisexual, being labeled as evil.
>
> Would you approve of a game where blacks and Jews were depicted
> as monsters, if that was the author's beliefs?
> --
No I wouldn't but your are talking unchangeable genetic fact, and from a Biblical perspective
neither one of those things are "'wrong" but Levitican law does hold that homosexuality is a
sin. Now considering according to Christianity we are ALL sinners--that doesn't make what you
are any worse than anyone else, it makes you jus as wrong as everyone else..
Bokman7757
>
> > Slipping zingers into the middle of a gaming supplement isn't taking a
> > stand, it's pure yellow cowardice.
>
"Heroes of Today"
Not having the books on me, I do kind of remember the area that had the
"deviant" psychological traits was missing and replaced with a soapbox.
i think it was the opinion that anyone who played a character that had
"evil" traits was just plain wrong.
Note that his view of deviant and evil are not mine.
>>
To me the whole thing just seemed gratuitous. If you don't want people playing
characters with "deviant" sexual habits, why have any results leading to that?
I don't know about you, but if I wanted to play a transvestite voyeur with a
foot fetish, I wouldn't need a table to guide me to that decision- I'd say
right up front "this is going to be an aspect of my character" and then work on
the other details.
Plus, he used the term "politically correct" to describe the views he was
opposing- a term which has become, effectively, useless, as it has almost never
been used in a non-derogatory sense. It's a blanket term for any reaction a
person finds oversensitive. In short, I think he was casually writing off the
views contrary to his.
As for discouraging role-playing of evil behavior- the guy must have been
foaming at the mouth when VAMPIRE was released.
Bokman7757
neither one of those things are "'wrong" but Levitican law does hold that
homosexuality is a
sin. >>
People used Biblical quotations to justify slavery and opposition to
interracial marriage. Things haven't changed.
Sidhain
So?
The man has a right to free speech, even if it isn't a "popular" opinion.
And there is a difference between using the Bible to support slavery, and pointing out
something is a sin, people can still sin, knowing it's a sin (and people sin without knowing
things are sins as well.
Brett Evill
wrote...
>
>> I don't mind that he's religious, what I minded was seeing what I
>> am, bisexual, being labeled as evil.
>>
>> Would you approve of a game where blacks and Jews were depicted
>> as monsters, if that was the author's beliefs?
>> --
>
>No I wouldn't but your are talking unchangeable genetic fact, and from a
Bibli
>cal perspective
>neither one of those things are "'wrong" but Levitican law does hold that
homose
>xuality is a
>sin.
It also commands that a man who lies with another man shall be put to death.
>Now considering according to Christianity we are ALL sinners--that doesn't
>make what you
>are any worse than anyone else, it makes you jus as wrong as everyone else..
Except that other sinners are not put to death because of their sins.
Regards,
--
Brett Evill
(The opinions expressed above are not those of the Bureau of Transport
Economics, the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services, or the
Australian Commonwealth Government.)
Sidhain
> It also commands that a man who lies with another man shall be put to death.
>
> >Now considering according to Christianity we are ALL sinners--that doesn't
> >make what you
> >are any worse than anyone else, it makes you jus as wrong as everyone else..
>
> Except that other sinners are not put to death because of their sins.
>
> Regards,
>
>
Actually if you read more of the Bible, they seem to say that all will be put to death for
their sins, except for those who serve Christ and repent their sins....at least some religions
see the Spiritual death rather than the physical. Some religious doctrines say otherwise.
Me personally I'm not saying anymore about this, I'm going back to read stuff about
gaming...mostly.
A. F. Simpson
> No I wouldn't but your are talking unchangeable genetic fact, and from a Biblical perspective
> neither one of those things are "'wrong" but Levitican law does hold that homosexuality is a
> sin. Now considering according to Christianity we are ALL sinners--that doesn't make what you
> are any worse than anyone else, it makes you jus as wrong as everyone else..
OTOH, I can't help but notice that 'shellfish eater' isn't listed in any
of the Central Casting books as evil deviant behaviour...
love
Anna
Frank J. Perricone
> > Would you approve of a game where blacks and Jews were depicted
> > as monsters, if that was the author's beliefs?
>
> No I wouldn't but your are talking unchangeable genetic fact,
So then it'd be okay to say that all Moslems or musicians or roleplayers
are monsters, then. More than okay, "brave", so long as it's what you
believed. And appropriate to include statements to that effect in a gaming
book, no less. Seems to me someone lost sight of something somewhere along
the way here.
--
* Frank J. Perricone * hawt...@sover.net * http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn
Prism: http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn/Prism/
Just because we aren't all the same doesn't mean we have nothing in common
Just because we have something in common doesn't mean we're all the same
chromiu...@my-deja.com
"A. F. Simpson" <af...@le.acluk> wrote:
> Sidhain wrote:
> OTOH, I can't help but notice that 'shellfish eater' isn't listed in
any
> of the Central Casting books as evil deviant behaviour...
>
> love
> Anna
>
everybody knows it is. Duh...
:)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
S. John Ross
| of the Central Casting books as evil deviant behaviour...
|
[pencils in "grooves on shellfish" as a "Darkside Trait" in his copy ...]
Cool.
Seriously, everybody needs to use that as subtle foreshadowing in a game.
Have the Secret Villain character dining on shellfish. Later when he
slaughters half the party, just explain that hey, they WERE warned. Obvious
Bigtime Sinner, right there :)
Michael Cule
>>
>> Would you approve of a game where blacks and Jews were depicted
>> as monsters, if that was the author's beliefs?
>> --
>
>No I wouldn't but your are talking unchangeable genetic fact, and from a
>Biblical perspective
>neither one of those things are "'wrong" but Levitican law does hold that
>homosexuality is a
>sin. Now considering according to Christianity we are ALL sinners--that doesn't
>make what you
>are any worse than anyone else, it makes you jus as wrong as everyone else..
>
You have some information about the research into the causes of
homosexuality that the rest of us don't or are you just making an
assumption?
Far as I know there is evidence that there *may* be some sort of genetic
or developmental effect behind homosexuality. Nothing certain yet. But
you appear to be assuming it's been proven that gays are making a
choice.
--
Michael Cule
A. F. Simpson
> Seriously, everybody needs to use that as subtle foreshadowing in a game.
> Have the Secret Villain character dining on shellfish. Later when he
> slaughters half the party, just explain that hey, they WERE warned. Obvious
> Bigtime Sinner, right there :)
I think my player would kill me if I did something like that. I'm
pretty sure there's a verse in Leviticus which makes it OK to kill GMs
under those circumstances, or maybe to sell them into slavery in the
nations to the north and to the south. And as that's Scotland or
France, I'm not risking it.
> || S. John Ross
love
Anna
S. John Ross
game.
| > Have the Secret Villain character dining on shellfish. Later when he
| > slaughters half the party, just explain that hey, they WERE warned.
Obvious
| > Bigtime Sinner, right there :)
|
| I think my player would kill me if I did something like that. I'm
| pretty sure there's a verse in Leviticus which makes it OK to kill GMs
| under those circumstances,
Well, if there isn't, there probably should be :) We should suggest it for
inclusion in the new WotC edition, once they buy the Bible and convert it to
d20.
| or maybe to sell them into slavery in the
| nations to the north and to the south. And as that's Scotland or
| France, I'm not risking it.
Eeek!
Doug Berry
"S. John Ross" <sj...@io.com>, wrote thusly:
>Seriously, everybody needs to use that as subtle foreshadowing in a game.
>Have the Secret Villain character dining on shellfish. Later when he
>slaughters half the party, just explain that hey, they WERE warned. Obvious
>Bigtime Sinner, right there :)
Just have him wearing a cotton/poly blend shirt!
Leviticus 19:19
You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two
kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds
of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material
mixed together.
Doug Berry
Michael Cule <mi...@room3b.demon.co.uk>, wrote thusly:
>You have some information about the research into the causes of
>homosexuality that the rest of us don't or are you just making an
>assumption?
>
>Far as I know there is evidence that there *may* be some sort of genetic
>or developmental effect behind homosexuality. Nothing certain yet. But
>you appear to be assuming it's been proven that gays are making a
>choice.
<sarcasm>
Oh, yeah.. I chose to be part of despised minority that has its
basic rights curtailed all over the US, and is regularly attacked
just for existing. I additionally chose to enjoy sex with men,
something that makes most straight guys gag, as a conscious
decision when I was 11.
</sarcasm>
Anyway, since I'm bi, everybody thinks I'm a pervert. :)
Doug Berry
"Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." <rich...@erols.com>, wrote thusly:
>S. John Ross wrote:
>>
>> Slipping zingers into the middle of a gaming supplement isn't taking a
>> stand, it's pure yellow cowardice.
>
>Um, what'd I miss?
>
>I would think it takes more courage to express your view
>(especially if unpopular) than to not do so.
Rather than speaking in a public forum, such as a gaming mag
interview, he instead listed several forms of sexual divergence
as *evil* traits in the first printings of the "Heroes for.."
series.
This links being gay, or being a transvestite with evil in the
minds of gamers who might be very young, and might not know
anybody who is gay. Worse, it might affect a gay teenage gamer,
who is already battling with his sexual identity in a most
unsympathetic world; confirming that he is somehow bad for having
these feelings.
Did you know that gay teenagers have the highest rate of suicides
in the US? They get thrown out their homes, abused, sent to
"treatment centers" and even killed by their "good Christian"
families.
I used to volunteer at a shelter for these kids who make it to
SF. The stories they told were horrifying in a way that
Lovecraft couldn't manage.
So I get a little upset when people like Paul Jaquays make
sanctimonious little digs like that. He wasn't even that good an
artist, IMHO.
S. John Ross
| Anyway, since I'm bi, everybody thinks I'm a pervert. :)
[Throws rotten tomatoes] Get off the fence! Make up your mind!
Gah. Sorry. I got caught up in the moment.
[peers closely, keeping his distance, checking for poly/cotton blends or a
crab mallet]
Frank T. Sronce
>
> | Anyway, since I'm bi, everybody thinks I'm a pervert. :)
>
> [Throws rotten tomatoes] Get off the fence! Make up your mind!
>
> Gah. Sorry. I got caught up in the moment.
>
> [peers closely, keeping his distance, checking for poly/cotton blends or a
> crab mallet]
>
> || S. John Ross
How did that quote go? "I have some friends who'll sleep with anything
that moves. I don't like to limit myself." :-)
Kiz
chromiu...@my-deja.com
Doug Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Anyway, since I'm bi, everybody thinks I'm a pervert. :)
>
You think you got it bad? Merely because I'm a pervert, everybody thinks
I'm bi! ;)
Doug Berry
"Frank T. Sronce" <fsr...@myriad.net>, wrote thusly:
> How did that quote go? "I have some friends who'll sleep with
>anything that moves. I don't like to limit myself." :-)
Reminds of the time I finally slept with my first girlfriend...
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Jim Davies
snip
>It also commands that a man who lies with another man shall be put to death.
>
>>Now considering according to Christianity we are ALL sinners--that doesn't
>>make what you
>>are any worse than anyone else, it makes you jus as wrong as everyone else..
>
>Except that other sinners are not put to death because of their sins.
I'm going to kick myself for getting caught in a religion thread, but
I thought I'd just stick this gem in here. It came from
uk.games.roleplay on 2nd June 2000, courtesy of
gra...@DELETETHISaffordable-leather.co.uk, to whom my thanks:
>Hi there,
>
>Following the recent thread about Religion and RPGs, I found this in
>another newsgroup and thought it might give people something useful
>the next time the god botherers bother us...
>
>*****************************
>
>Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I
>have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge
>with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
>homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus
>18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need
>some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and
>how to best follow them.
>
>When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
>pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors.
>They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with
>this?
>
>I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in
>Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
>price for her?
>
>I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
>period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how
>do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
>
>Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are
>around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but
>not Canadians. Can you clarify?
>
>I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
>clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
>kill him myself?
>
>A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
>abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than
>homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
>
>Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
>defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses.
>Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
>
>I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
>you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
>eternal and unchanging.
>
>**********************
>
>Cheers,
>Graham.
Jim Davies
------------------------------------------
Spamfilter: remove all clothing to reply.
This does not affect your statutory rights.
Doug Berry
"Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." <rich...@erols.com>, wrote thusly:
>Yes, Doug, but how is that "cowardly"?
Well, I never said it was cowardly, that was someone else.
But I can see that. Until that book, I never knew that PJ was
that much of a fundementalist. I'd seen him at many conventions,
even spoken with him a few times, and he never gave any hint of
his beliefs.
Instead, he sneaks them into a table, a calls entire groups of
people evil.
Jason L Blair
Jason L Blair
Kelly St.clair
S. John Ross <sj...@io.com> wrote:
>|
>| I personally liked the fact that he took a stand on his beleifs, even if
>those beleifs did not
>| mirror my own.
>
>Slipping zingers into the middle of a gaming supplement isn't taking a
>stand, it's pure yellow cowardice.
I am reminded of how Mike Pondsmith chose to promote his strong anti-drug
stance in CYBERPUNK, by making the drug-creation system so harsh that no
sane being would dose themselves with the results. I mean, even the
neo-beer "Smash" had nasty debilitating side effects. And people drink
this stuff by the case?
He too had a soapbox paragraph, in the sidebar on that page. I think he
should have just left out his deliberately broken rules and put "DON'T"
in 72 point type in the space. Or maybe one of those FBI logos with a
caption of "Winners Don't Do Drugs" that were so popular back in the
early 90s.
This bait-and-switch ticked ME off, and I've never had anything harder
than a bottle of Woodchuck cider.
--------------
Kelly St.Clair
kel...@efn.org
Brendan Murphy
writes
>"S. John Ross" wrote:
>
>> Seriously, everybody needs to use that as subtle foreshadowing in a game.
>> Have the Secret Villain character dining on shellfish. Later when he
>> slaughters half the party, just explain that hey, they WERE warned. Obvious
>> Bigtime Sinner, right there :)
>
>pretty sure there's a verse in Leviticus which makes it OK to kill GMs
>nations to the north and to the south. And as that's Scotland or
>France, I'm not risking it.
>
You could be consoled by whisky up north or wine down south. It would be
worse if they sent you west.
--
Brendan
Arbane the Terrible
wrote:
>> I don't mind that he's religious, what I minded was seeing what I
>> am, bisexual, being labeled as evil.
>>
>> Would you approve of a game where blacks and Jews were depicted
>> as monsters, if that was the author's beliefs?
>> --
>
>No I wouldn't but your are talking unchangeable genetic fact, and from a Biblical perspective
>neither one of those things are "'wrong" but Levitican law does hold that homosexuality is a
>sin. Now considering according to Christianity we are ALL sinners--that doesn't make what you
>are any worse than anyone else, it makes you jus as wrong as everyone else..
That same book in the Bible also forbids shaving, tattoos, wearing
mixed fabric, eating shellfish, and crossbreeding cattle, but I
haven't heard many God-botherers trying to outlaw THOSE.
(Oddly enough, Leviticus doesn't forbid _female_ homosexuality.
Lucky gals...)
Do You believe That?
ObRPG: IIRC, both Torg's Cyberpapcy and Ars Magica have worlds where
Dark Ages Christianity is _literally_ true. Any other published
worlds like that?
Bokman7757
Lucky gals...) >>
Well, of course. What kind of a just God would outlaw something like that? :)
Darel Finkbeiner
Doug Berry wrote:
> And lo, it came to pass on Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:35:16 -0400 that
> "Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." <rich...@erols.com>, wrote thusly:
>
> >Yes, Doug, but how is that "cowardly"?
>
> Well, I never said it was cowardly, that was someone else.
>
> But I can see that. Until that book, I never knew that PJ was
> that much of a fundementalist. I'd seen him at many conventions,
> even spoken with him a few times, and he never gave any hint of
> his beliefs.
>
> Instead, he sneaks them into a table, a calls entire groups of
> people evil.
> --
Just a quick question:
Did the subject ever come up while talking to him? Do you make some
comment about it and he didn't flinch, but then puts it in a book
later? Or did it just never come up, and it turns out he would've said
something about it had it actually entered conversation? Are you
judging him because he is judging someone else? Is that, in any way,
hypocritical?
(ok, barrage of questions... anyway, I doubt he hides what he thinks,
but from what I've seen posted, he doesn't run around bashing people
over the head with it. IMHO that's a good thing, because everyone is
entitled to his opinion, but I'd rather not have to throw people off my
doorstep because their being bitchy about it.)
Frank J. Perricone
Actually he simply saved that for the New Testament, though it's a good
deal more vague. Check out Romans 1:26-27.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Romans+1:26-27&language=english&version=NIV
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> And lo, it came to pass on Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:35:16 -0400 that
> "Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." <rich...@erols.com>, wrote thusly:
>
> >Yes, Doug, but how is that "cowardly"?
>
> Well, I never said it was cowardly, that was someone else.
I know.
But it is the question you responded to. :(
>
> But I can see that. Until that book, I never knew that PJ was
> that much of a fundementalist. I'd seen him at many conventions,
> even spoken with him a few times, and he never gave any hint of
> his beliefs.
>
> Instead, he sneaks them into a table, a calls entire groups of
> people evil.
So basically, are you saying he's a coward for not also stating his
views
elsewhere?
That I'd buy.
But I still don't see the specific action of including your
views in one medium as an act of cowardice.
S. John Ross
| than a bottle of Woodchuck cider.
Exactly. "Bait and Switch" is a perfect metaphor for the tactic. I get the
same greasy feeling from it that I got as a kid from anti [pick one: drugs,
vandalism, shoplifting, eating junk food] commercials designed to pretend
they were fun cartoons or rock videos - or from movies that pretend to be
Cool Action Flicks but are just thinly-disguised Serious Anti-[pick one:
war, racism, liberal, conservative, etc] propaganda ...
Or, in sum: If you think you've got the facts, grow the balls.
Doug Berry
"Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." <rich...@erols.com>, wrote thusly:
>But I still don't see the specific action of including your
>views in one medium as an act of cowardice.
but he didn't say "Under my religious beliefs, transvestism,
bisexuality, homosexuality, transexualism, etc., are sins."
Instead, he simply listed them as evil.
Now, I know that most gamers are smart enough not to get their
moral center from RPGs, but it was that assumption that because
I'm bi, I'm evil. That pissed me off royally.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> And lo, it came to pass on Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:32:05 -0400 that
> "Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." <rich...@erols.com>, wrote thusly:
>
> >But I still don't see the specific action of including your
> >views in one medium as an act of cowardice.
>
> but he didn't say "Under my religious beliefs, transvestism,
> bisexuality, homosexuality, transexualism, etc., are sins."
> Instead, he simply listed them as evil.
>
> Now, I know that most gamers are smart enough not to get their
> moral center from RPGs, but it was that assumption that because
> I'm bi, I'm evil. That pissed me off royally.
Points:
a) Arrgggghh! No one's answered the qusetion!
The guy may be a bigot, but a coward?
b) I'll have to look it up, but I thought the listing was "darkside"
not "evil".
I recall other "negative behaviors" being on that list that would not
be considered "evil".
c) Yeah, his editorial, IIRC, labelled homosexuality as "sinful",
but that ain't by definition "evil" either.
Summary:
I admire PJ's courage in expressing an unpopopular belief that he
holds because he thinks its message will help people avoid eternal
peril.
But...
I don't agree with him.
(Hey, can we slag all the companies now that put in those
"We don't believe in or advocate magic (or drug use)" disclaimers
even though a good number of their employees practice "magic"
(or use drugs)?)
Lizard
wrote:
>| This bait-and-switch ticked ME off, and I've never had anything harder
>| than a bottle of Woodchuck cider.
>
>Exactly. "Bait and Switch" is a perfect metaphor for the tactic. I get the
>same greasy feeling from it that I got as a kid from anti [pick one: drugs,
>vandalism, shoplifting, eating junk food] commercials designed to pretend
>they were fun cartoons or rock videos - or from movies that pretend to be
>Cool Action Flicks but are just thinly-disguised Serious Anti-[pick one:
>war, racism, liberal, conservative, etc] propaganda ...
>
>Or, in sum: If you think you've got the facts, grow the balls.
>
Just to play devils advocate here, are you saying that there must be a
wall between 'entertainment' and 'social commentary', and that one
should never use 'light' media as forums to express serious issues or
explore the creators views on politics, philosophy, etc? This would
come as a shock to creators as divergent as Robert Heinlein and Alan
Moore, both of whom use (used, in Heinleins case) their works of art
as pulpits for their politics.
And can anyone argue that Central Casting is more preachy than
Werewolf?
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
chromiu...@my-deja.com
Frank J. Perricone <hawt...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2000 06:03:54 GMT, bokma...@aol.com (Bokman7757) wrote:
>
good
> deal more vague. Check out Romans 1:26-27.
>
> http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Romans+1:26-
27&language=english&version=NIV
>
> --
> * Frank J. Perricone * hawt...@sover.net *
http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn
> Prism: http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn/Prism/
> Just because we aren't all the same doesn't mean we have nothing in
common
> Just because we have something in common doesn't mean we're all the
same
>
rarely live up to the original. ;)
S. John Ross
| The guy may be a bigot, but a coward?
It has been discussed pretty thoroughly here. Which part still confuses you?
--
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> | a) Arrgggghh! No one's answered the question!
> | The guy may be a bigot, but a coward?
>
> It has been discussed pretty thoroughly here.
When?
> Which part still confuses you?
See above.
(What's so wrong with a thumbnail answer from the accuser?)
S. John Ross
| > It has been discussed pretty thoroughly here.
|
| When?
In sundry other posts in this very thread.
| > Which part still confuses you?
|
| See above.
See my other posts on the matter.
| (What's so wrong with a thumbnail answer from the accuser?)
What's wrong with the more detailed answers I've already provided?
Lizard
>Ahh yes. The New Testament. "The Bible part II". I find that sequels
>rarely live up to the original. ;)
Hm. Better character development in the second part -- Jesus is much
more interesting than Moses, and the literary technique of telling the
same story from four differing perspectives is interesting. Less
reliance on showy 'special effects'. However, there's a real problem
in consistency with the original characters from the original. God is
TOTALLY out of character with the way he was written in the first
book! He should be the Hairy Thunderer...instead, he comes off as a
Cosmic Creampuff. The God of the first book would be screaming "Son? I
HAVE NO SON!" at the way that wimp Jesus acts, and then he'd probably
go kill a few million Romans just for kicks. But they had to wimp him
out TOTALLY to let the Romans kill Jesus. Sigh. Typical example of an
author sacrificing character on the altar of plot convenience.
Avram Grumer
<liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:44:02 GMT, chromiu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Ahh yes. The New Testament. "The Bible part II". I find that sequels
> >rarely live up to the original. ;)
>
> Hm. Better character development in the second part -- Jesus is much
> more interesting than Moses, and the literary technique of telling the
> same story from four differing perspectives is interesting....
Oh, I dunno. I find Moses the more complex character. He's got flaws
(like impatience). And at one point he gets to argue with God and win.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"Some people need to learn that the Internet changes everything.
And some people need to learn that it doesn't." -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> | (What's so wrong with a thumbnail answer from the accuser?)
>
> What's wrong with the more detailed answers I've already provided?
Simply that I never saw them.
(if they existed at all....)
Not everyone reads everything you know.
(Yeah I could deja but it's a big thread.)
Flag the answer, reprovide it, or don't support undefended accusations.
(Undefended in this case means:
Telling the new guy something as though you've already demonstrated
it to _him_.)
Seriously though, if accusation are to be remade to a new audience then
the accusers should also expect to defend them to the new audience.
"I told everyone else before you got here" is silly...
S. John Ross
| > What's wrong with the more detailed answers I've already provided?
|
| Simply that I never saw them.
This is on the list of _your_ problems. It is not on the list of mine.
| (if they existed at all....)
God, now you're just trolling, aren't you?
| Not everyone reads everything you know.
No, but people demanding that I post something that I've already posted
should have the courtesy to read _that._ It's a tiny slice of "everything"
and you're a tiny slice of "everyone."
| (Yeah I could deja but it's a big thread.)
Cry me a river. Mister Bait-and-Switch is a big coward. It takes a big
thread. If you aren't interested enough in the subject to read the thread,
what's the point of me adding a Custom Message Just For You?
| Seriously though, if accusation are to be remade to a new audience then
If you saw the observation, you had ample opportunity to read the
expansions. The observation was posted first. If your server isn't picking
up the whole thread, gripe to them, not me.
| the accusers should also expect to defend them to the new audience.
I don't consider it an accusation; I consider it an observation.
Observations don't require defense, much less _reposts_ for people who can't
be bothered to read what they're criticizing. If you think he's not a
coward, feel free to post a detailed essay as to why. Please sum up all your
previous posts on the matter for my sake. What's that? You don't feel like
posting a long rehash to explain something that you feel is pretty clear to
somebody who's opinion you could give a shit about? Now you know how I feel.
Welcome to my killfile.
Justin Bacon
<sid...@earthlink.net> writes:
>No I wouldn't but your are talking unchangeable genetic fact, and from a
>Biblical perspective
>neither one of those things are "'wrong" but Levitican law does hold that
>homosexuality is a
>sin. Now considering according to Christianity we are ALL sinners--that
>doesn't make what you
>are any worse than anyone else, it makes you jus as wrong as everyone else..
1. No all Christians believe that everyone is a sinner. Some Christians
actually *aren't* hypocrites and really do believe that's Christ death wiped
clean our slate of original sin.
2. I don't care whether it's in the Bible or Billy Bob's Guide to Hating Other
People or Mein Kampf.
3. People have used Bible quotes to oppress womens, blacks, and a thousand
other minorities. Many other Christians, however, aren't hypocrites and
actually look to the words of Christ before passing judgment upon others using
their own narrow prejudices.
>The man has a right to free speech, even if it isn't a "popular" opinion.
No one said he didn't have the right to say whatever the hell he felt like.
Guess what? Douglas *also* has the right to say that he considers the book
offensive and its author a narrow-minded bigot.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
<grid...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Leviticus 19:19
>You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two
>kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds
>of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material
>mixed together.
My favorite bit about these homosexual debates is this: Either right before or
right after one of the quotes the homophobes love to quote, there is a section
in which we are told that if a child speaks back to their parents they are to
be stoned.
The hypocrisy of fundamentalists is legendary, IMO.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> | > What's wrong with the more detailed answers I've already provided?
> |
> | Simply that I never saw them.
>
> This is on the list of _your_ problems. It is not on the list of mine.
Then why respond?
>
> | (if they existed at all....)
>
> God, now you're just trolling, aren't you?
Nah, I was demonstrating the effectiveness of a statement that isn't
supported.
>
> | Not everyone reads everything you know.
>
> No, but people demanding that I post something that I've already posted
> should have the courtesy to read _that.
I will when you show where it is.
(Plus "ask" only equals "demand" if you're, like, way defensive about
something.)
> _ It's a tiny slice of "everything"
> and you're a tiny slice of "everyone."
You never posted it did you?
>
> | (Yeah I could deja but it's a big thread.)
>
> Cry me a river. Mister Bait-and-Switch is a big coward.
Well, I saw that post.
It was silly.
But I never saw the one saying why printing your opinion is cowardly.
> It takes a big
> thread. If you aren't interested enough in the subject to read the thread,
I'm interested in the interesting parts.
> what's the point of me adding a Custom Message Just For You?
What's the point of continuing to support an accusation against someone
without continuing to demonstrate any validly to the accusation?
>
> | Seriously though, if accusation are to be remade to a new audience then
>
> If you saw the observation, you had ample opportunity to read the
> expansions. The observation was posted first.
Not the one I saw.
> If your server isn't picking
> up the whole thread, gripe to them, not me.
You never posted it did you?
>
> | the accusers should also expect to defend them to the new audience.
>
> I don't consider it an accusation; I consider it an observation.
> Observations don't require defense,
Well, they're stronger with it.
Ok, at this point I have:
"S. John's definition of "cowardice" is someone who disagrees with him."
> much less _reposts_ for people who can't
> be bothered to read what they're criticizing.
I read what I'm criticizing.
An undefended accusation of cowardice that makes little sense.
Given evidence of why this view is held (other than the big bad
fascist writer hurt my little feelings) might actually sway me.
I have NO idea why you think his printing his opinion is an act
of cowardice.
> If you think he's not a
> coward, feel free to post a detailed essay as to why.
I don't know the man.
But no one has listed (as far as I've seen) any thing that
would lead me to believe he is a coward.
That's as detailed as my point requires.
If you want to walk around saying he's a coward tell us why.
> Please sum up all your
> previous posts on the matter for my sake.
Done.
> What's that? You don't feel like
> posting a long rehash to explain something that you feel is pretty clear to
> somebody who's opinion you could give a shit about?
Didn't need to.
Any salient point can be made concisely.
> Now you know how I feel.
No, I don't.
I wish I did.
I simply asked how you felt.
But you can't be bothered to tell me.
(If you ever even posted it...)
I'm sorry your emotions are so in control of you that you can't explain
them.
Maybe therapy would help.
> Welcome to my killfile.
Coward.
(Note to self:
Yeah that Pokenomicon thing looks cool, too bad one of the creators
just joined the list of loopy people whose minds are so closed as to
not merit support.)
Klyfix
>
>| > The first editions were filled with PJ's own religious views. I
>| > did not appreciate being told that being bisexual was an evil
>| > thing, and really did not appreciate that he was passing this
>| > odious crap onto to younger gamers.
>| >
>|
>| I personally liked the fact that he took a stand on his beleifs, even if
>those beleifs did not
>| mirror my own.
>
>Slipping zingers into the middle of a gaming supplement isn't taking a
>stand, it's pure yellow cowardice.
>
Hmm, I'm recalling when I looked through one of the books and
saw the "political correctness warning" thing and thinking that
the friend of mine who owned it was remarkably tolerant of
it. The truth, as it turned out, was that he'd not noticed it
until I'd pointed it out and he was quite upset when he saw it.
While I don't think a game suppliment is really a good venue for
spreading conservative religious doctrines, and I find the notion that
homosexuality is a "Dark Side Trait" to be a bit stupid, I do
question the notion that it's "pure yellow cowardice." Why?
If someone puts forth an atheistic or pagan veiw in a game
suppliment is that also "cowardice?"
V. S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Eckzylon: http://m1.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
"I wear the cheese; it does not wear me. - BtVS, "Restless"
S. John Ross
| spreading conservative religious doctrines, and I find the notion that
| homosexuality is a "Dark Side Trait" to be a bit stupid, I do
| question the notion that it's "pure yellow cowardice." Why?
| If someone puts forth an atheistic or pagan veiw in a game
| suppliment is that also "cowardice?"
Depends entirely on how they do it. Slipping in a zinger, pulling a
bait-and-switch - that's cowardice, because it's using something that's sold
as a game supplement as something _other_ than a game supplement, to sneak
in a soapbox under the guise of something else. Simply: If you need to
_disguise_ your political statements, you're a coward. If you think you've
got the facts, grow the balls.
Writing a game supplement that _reflects the views of the designer_ is a
different matter, and it's almost inevitable (unless the designer is faking
it, which is yet another form of cowardice, so ...)
It's a judgement call. But since he included his "PC Warning" and then
altered the content of later printings, it takes it way out of the gray area
as far as Jaquays is concerned. He's not just a coward, he's a backpedaling
coward.
Hell, he belongs HERE ... The virtual land where the backpedaling cowards
roam free :)
The gaming industry is peopled almost entirely by Fools and Cowards. I've
always been a proud member of the former group, and my disgust with the
latter (who are, perhaps inevitably, the only ones with any money) is
well-documented, here and elsewhere :)
chromiu...@my-deja.com
tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
> >The man has a right to free speech, even if it isn't a "popular"
opinion.
>
> No one said he didn't have the right to say whatever the hell he felt
like.
> Guess what? Douglas *also* has the right to say that he considers the
book
> offensive and its author a narrow-minded bigot.
And everybody else has a right to state, that they feel otherwise, and
so on and so forth, and we can just keep running in circles here, can't
we?
I think everybody here pretty much agrees, that not ALL christians are
hypocrites. Statistically, it is more than likely, that there are in
fact some christians out here among the posters. And very few people
consider themselves hypocrites.
Anyway, CC is still lots of fun. And let's face it: Every written work
is likely to show some evidence of the author's feelings and
prejudices. PJ is merely letting us know, where he's coming from. And
although I don't have the books near me at the moment (I'm "working"),
I don't recall him saying anything like "People who practice sex in any
way other than the way my wife and I do, are evil and wicked!", but
merely that he considers it "wrong". I don't agree with him in any way,
I just think the whole thing is being blown way out of proportion.
BTW, the first printings of the first editions of Palladium's "Teenage
Mutant Ninja Turtles", "Heroes Unlimited" and "Palladium FRPG" had
Homosexuality (and other "sexual deviations") listed as an insanity.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> Depends entirely on how they do it. Slipping in a zinger, pulling a
> bait-and-switch - that's cowardice, because it's using something that's sold
> as a game supplement as something _other_ than a game supplement, to sneak
> in a soapbox under the guise of something else. Simply: If you need to
> _disguise_ your political statements, you're a coward.
Damn, he did explain it.
Didn't think he would.
Spin:
I don't think PJ set out to publish a doctrinaire piece of propaganda.
I got the feeling that he wanted to include a broad range of human
experience, but his moral views would not let him include those things
he saw as "bad" as "playable" without including a disclaimer.
(Again, akin to all the books that say "we don't encourage or
participate in magic or drug use".)
I think SJ sees a Macheiavellian plot to convert kiddies where there is
none.
Personally?
I prefer that authors consider the mortal implications of their work.
Unfortunately, different authors have different levels of tact and
empathy. :(
> Writing a game supplement that _reflects the views of the designer_ is a
> different matter, and it's almost inevitable (unless the designer is faking
> it, which is yet another form of cowardice, so ...)
Hm, "Writing a game supplement that _reflects the views of the
designer".
That's what I think he did.
Were it a true "bait and switch" I would have expected far more sermons
in it.
> It's a judgement call. But since he included his "PC Warning" and then
> altered the content of later printings, it takes it way out of the gray area
> as far as Jaquays is concerned. He's not just a coward, he's a backpedaling
> coward.
Well, I kinda agreed he's a coward for taking it out.
>
> Hell, he belongs HERE ... The virtual land where the backpedaling cowards
> roam free :)
Mirror move.
> The gaming industry is peopled almost entirely by Fools and Cowards. I've
> always been a proud member of the former group,
Welcome to the latter.
Bokman7757
although I don't have the books near me at the moment (I'm "working"),
I don't recall him saying anything like "People who practice sex in any
way other than the way my wife and I do, are evil and wicked!", but
merely that he considers it "wrong". I don't agree with him in any way,
I just think the whole thing is being blown way out of proportion. >>
However, one could argue that this leads to a design flaw of sorts.
There are tables (at least one) with results leading to the "sexual deviation"
section- but when you get there it says that he doesn't want you playing them,
therefore he hasn't even bothered to put in a list. The question of course
becomes, if he doesn't want such activities being role-played, why have that
section to begin with? I for one wouldn't consider a "sexual deviation" section
necessary, because that's the sort of thing a player or GM will work out on his
own.
As it is however, what you basically have in the book is a dead end. "Your
character develops a sexual deviation, except I don't really think that's
appropriate and you should probably just reroll anyway." You see the problem.
Ken St-Cyr
> My favorite bit about these homosexual debates is this: Either right before or
> right after one of the quotes the homophobes love to quote, there is a section
> in which we are told that if a child speaks back to their parents they are to
> be stoned.
I remember in high school me and my friends talking back to our
respective parents. We were always stoned.
- Ken
Well, I wasnt' really. I never inhaled.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
kens...@cs.pdx.edu "That machine has got to be destroyed"
*bleat* (From Beyond)
World of the Carnelian Coast: http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~kenstcyr/coast.html
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> On 26 Aug 2000, Justin Bacon wrote:
>
> > right after one of the quotes the homophobes love to quote, there is a section
> > in which we are told that if a child speaks back to their parents they are to
> > be stoned.
>
> respective parents. We were always stoned.
>
> - Ken
>
> Well, I wasnt' really. I never inhaled.
Explains the blue complexion.
But how can you still be typing?
Justin Bacon
St-Cyr <kens...@sirius.cs.pdx.edu> writes:
>I remember in high school me and my friends talking back to our
>respective parents. We were always stoned.
ROFL!
Capital punishment through dope! ;)
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Klyfix
<sj...@io.com> writes:
>
>| While I don't think a game suppliment is really a good venue for
>| spreading conservative religious doctrines, and I find the notion that
>| homosexuality is a "Dark Side Trait" to be a bit stupid, I do
>| question the notion that it's "pure yellow cowardice." Why?
>| If someone puts forth an atheistic or pagan veiw in a game
>| suppliment is that also "cowardice?"
>
>Depends entirely on how they do it. Slipping in a zinger, pulling a
>bait-and-switch - that's cowardice, because it's using something that's sold
>as a game supplement as something _other_ than a game supplement, to sneak
>in a soapbox under the guise of something else. Simply: If you need to
>_disguise_ your political statements, you're a coward. If you think you've
>got the facts, grow the balls.
>
>Writing a game supplement that _reflects the views of the designer_ is a
>different matter, and it's almost inevitable (unless the designer is faking
>it, which is yet another form of cowardice, so ...)
>
Hmm, I think I kinda see where you're coming from, sort of. On the other
hand, couldn't someone produce a game suppliment that is rather blantantly
attempting to put forth some manner of opinion, very up-front about it, but
still be somewhat honorable and honest? Maybe something where the
characters are fighting to establish a true Marxist or Libertarian state,
or something. Perhaps not the best way to put forth a view, I suppose,
but not necessarily dishonorable.
>It's a judgement call. But since he included his "PC Warning" and then
>altered the content of later printings, it takes it way out of the gray area
>as far as Jaquays is concerned. He's not just a coward, he's a backpedaling
>coward.
>
This I'm a bit unclear on; did he remove the offensive bits later on or
something?
Klyfix
(Bokman7757) writes:
>
>However, one could argue that this leads to a design flaw of sorts.
>
>There are tables (at least one) with results leading to the "sexual
>deviation"
>section- but when you get there it says that he doesn't want you playing
>them,
>therefore he hasn't even bothered to put in a list. The question of course
>becomes, if he doesn't want such activities being role-played, why have that
>section to begin with? I for one wouldn't consider a "sexual deviation"
>section
>necessary, because that's the sort of thing a player or GM will work out on
>his
>own.
>
>As it is however, what you basically have in the book is a dead end. "Your
>character develops a sexual deviation, except I don't really think that's
>appropriate and you should probably just reroll anyway." You see the problem.
>
Yesss, if the designer feels something shouldn't be played then it shouldn't
be in the book in the first place.
On the other hand, I can see where someone might well include a distasteful
character trait because it is something very much appropriate in a given
context, but will note that it could be a problem in game play and/or
be troubling for some players.
S. John Ross
| Hmm, I think I kinda see where you're coming from, sort of. On the other
| hand, couldn't someone produce a game suppliment that is rather blantantly
| attempting to put forth some manner of opinion, very up-front about it,
but
| still be somewhat honorable and honest?
Sure. Dragonraid was entirely up-front about being a Christian Propaganda
RPG, for example. Cheesy. Creepy. But not cowardly :)
Central Casting had a track record as Thing X. It had been Thing X for a
long time. X was well-liked (I'm certainly a fan). Then the new stuff comes
out and it's X with something slipped in, like a razorblade in an apple.
That's a far cry from Dragonraid or other honest propaganda. What Jaquays
did was cowardly, unprofessional, and simply a very poor design decision.
| This I'm a bit unclear on; did he remove the offensive bits later on or
| something?
They were "softened" somewhat in later printings; somebody mentioned it
earlier in the thread.
chromiu...@my-deja.com
bokma...@aol.com (Bokman7757) wrote:
> << And
> although I don't have the books near me at the moment (I'm "working"),
> I don't recall him saying anything like "People who practice sex in any
> way other than the way my wife and I do, are evil and wicked!", but
> merely that he considers it "wrong". I don't agree with him in any way,
> I just think the whole thing is being blown way out of proportion. >>
>
>
> There are tables (at least one) with results leading to the "sexual deviation"
> section- but when you get there it says that he doesn't want you playing them,
> therefore he hasn't even bothered to put in a list. The question of course
> becomes, if he doesn't want such activities being role-played, why have that
> section to begin with? I for one wouldn't consider a "sexual deviation" section
> necessary, because that's the sort of thing a player or GM will work out on his
> own.
>
> As it is however, what you basically have in the book is a dead end. "Your
> character develops a sexual deviation, except I don't really think that's
> appropriate and you should probably just reroll anyway." You see the problem.
>
Well, a friend's copy actually, but that's hardly relevant. I believe
this copy is a First Printing. It does not contain any disclaimers or
moral statements although "Sexual Disorders" are considered "Darkside
Traits". Interestingly, the advice on whether or not to include these in
a game is actually quite good: "Take care in presenting and roleplaying
these disorders, since a flippant, careless, or callous stance may
embarass, annoy or offend othr players and the GMs alike."
Apart from the use of the word "disorders", this actually seems to be
reasonably good advice. Anyway, a true foaming-at-the-mouth homophobe
would almost certainly not have even included the possibility, that a
Hero could possibly be anything but a regular old heterosexual.
Anyway, labelling somebody a "yellow coward" on usenet on the basis of a
few words written in a gaming supplement without offering said person a
chance to defend himself hardly qualifies as the voice of sweet
moderation...
S. John Ross
| few words written in a gaming supplement without offering said person a
| chance to defend himself hardly qualifies as the voice of sweet
| moderation...
(A) I'm neither sweet nor moderate. I'm honest. Deal with it, or killfile me
so you don't have to face my honesty. Either way, honest is what I am and
honest is what I'll stay. Jaquays is a coward and I'll keep saying it as
long as it's relevant. I'll also, as an aside, point out that, in being a
coward, he resembles about 75% of the gaming industry, so he's in good
company. But that's the 75% that makes my working life hell, so I'll just
vent a bit if it's all the same to you. Or if it isn't. You will now begin
dealing with this.
(B) This is a public forum. We don't _offer_ people chances to post. They
simply do or don't. Since Jaquays already _wrote_ a defense of what he did
in his books, I'm not sure what you think is missing.
Karen J. Cravens
>Anyway, labelling somebody a "yellow coward" on usenet on the basis of a
>few words written in a gaming supplement without offering said person a
>chance to defend himself hardly qualifies as the voice of sweet
>moderation...
Indeed. I'd almost say it qualifies as cowardice...
--
Karen Cravens (sil...@phoenyx.net)
Phoenyx Play-by-Email Roleplaying - http://www.phoenyx.net/
"Yare [sic] unfit to be called human."
-- S. John Ross ego-surfs and doesn't like what he finds
Lizard
>Apart from the use of the word "disorders", this actually seems to be
>reasonably good advice. Anyway, a true foaming-at-the-mouth homophobe
>would almost certainly not have even included the possibility, that a
>Hero could possibly be anything but a regular old heterosexual.
Let's put it this way -- suppose it listed 'Having sex in anything
other than missionary position, with your wife, and then only to
reproduce' as a 'disorder' morally equivalent to pedophilia or
beastiality?
Joseph Michael Bay
>chromiu...@my-deja.com wrote in <8oc3r1$9qs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>>Anyway, labelling somebody a "yellow coward" on usenet on the basis of a
>>few words written in a gaming supplement without offering said person a
>>chance to defend himself hardly qualifies as the voice of sweet
>>moderation...
>Indeed. I'd almost say it qualifies as cowardice...
Except USENET is not the one-way medium that books are.
--
J o e B a y - o - B o y G e n i u s
CANCER (June 22-July 22): The stars think that's a nice place you've got,
Stanford and it would be a shame if anything should happen to it.
Califr0nia Like a fire, or something like that. Things burn, you know.
Gary Johnson
: ObRPG: IIRC, both Torg's Cyberpapcy and Ars Magica have worlds where
: Dark Ages Christianity is _literally_ true. Any other published
: worlds like that?
"Dark Ages Christianity" ...?
Anyway, Lace and Steel's setting was an early modern version of Europe
(complete with centaurs) which had a "nice" Christianity where "bad
things" like the Crusades and the Inquisition didn't happen, and Dragon
Warriors' setting had the "True Faith", which was clearly derivative of
medieval Christianity (saintly relics, the saviour Gatanades was martyred
on a cross, etc).
Cheers,
Gary Johnson
Home Page: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg
X-Men Campaign: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/xmen/xmen.htm
Selentia Campaign: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/selentia/selentia.htm
Potestas System: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/potestas/potestas.htm
Klyfix
<sj...@io.com> writes:
>
>| Hmm, I think I kinda see where you're coming from, sort of. On the other
>| hand, couldn't someone produce a game suppliment that is rather blantantly
>| attempting to put forth some manner of opinion, very up-front about it,
>but
>| still be somewhat honorable and honest?
>
>Sure. Dragonraid was entirely up-front about being a Christian Propaganda
>RPG, for example. Cheesy. Creepy. But not cowardly :)
>
>Central Casting had a track record as Thing X. It had been Thing X for a
>long time. X was well-liked (I'm certainly a fan). Then the new stuff comes
>out and it's X with something slipped in, like a razorblade in an apple.
>That's a far cry from Dragonraid or other honest propaganda. What Jaquays
>did was cowardly, unprofessional, and simply a very poor design decision.
>
Ahh, okay, that makes some sense. The friend I mentioned had bought a
few of the books before he got the one with the whole "PC Warning" thing;
the one for Modern folk, I think. I'd certainly agree that it was a "poor
design
decision." yes.
On the other hand, I could see a game setting where certain traits or
characteristics would bear a stigma of some sort, but that would
vary. I'm thinking of a bit in "The Forever War" where the protagonist,
upon being brought out of suspended animation, finds out that the
norm now is homosexuality and he can't be in the same military
unit as his wife 'cause there's a limit of one "pervert" per group.
For a game, the "stigma" would be a social function as opposed
to what Mr. Jaquays seems to assume, a Universal Moral or
Natural Law. Not a "Darkside Trait" but a "Social Stigma" or
something.
Darel Finkbeiner
Justin Bacon wrote:
No offense, but it seems perfectly consistent to me. They quote the bit about
homosexuality saying that those people should be put to death. But do we see them
running around slaughtering gays? (ok, maybe some loonies do). So it seems
natural to bring up the point about children and yet not kill them, either.
Maybe you disagree with them, but they *are* fairly consistent.
Just an observation. (The hypocrisy of the "far-right" is no greater than that of
the "moderates" or "liberals".)
Darel Finkbeiner
Justin Bacon wrote:
> 3. People have used Bible quotes to oppress womens, blacks, and a thousand
> other minorities. Many other Christians, however, aren't hypocrites and
> actually look to the words of Christ before passing judgment upon others using
> their own narrow prejudices.
>
Many people have used screwdrivers to maim and kill other people.
What's your point, exactly?
S. John Ross
| characteristics would bear a stigma of some sort, but that would
| vary. I'm thinking of a bit in "The Forever War" where the protagonist,
| upon being brought out of suspended animation, finds out that the
| norm now is homosexuality and he can't be in the same military
| unit as his wife 'cause there's a limit of one "pervert" per group.
| For a game, the "stigma" would be a social function as opposed
| to what Mr. Jaquays seems to assume, a Universal Moral or
| Natural Law. Not a "Darkside Trait" but a "Social Stigma" or
| something.
Yes, there are MANY societies in which homosexuality carries a social
stigma. Whichever society Jaquays is a part of being an example, presumably
:(
--
Sidhain
> Yes, there are MANY societies in which homosexuality carries a social
> stigma. Whichever society Jaquays is a part of being an example, presumably
> :(
>
Sometimes it's more than a social stigma--I mean there are still laws which make it a crime in
the U.S.
Hell their are still Laws which make certain consensual sexual acts illegal between married
couple--(Sodomy for example isn't just illegal for homosexuals, but heterosexuals in many
states in the US--So I guess there is SOME equality--bad equality is still equality--right?)
Karen J. Cravens
<8od0gu$a...@elaine15.Stanford.EDU>:
>Except USENET is not the one-way medium that books are.
It is when the person being spoken of doesn't read it.
S. John Ross
which make it a crime in
| the U.S.
True. And I live in Texas, which is one of the "unequal sodomy states."
Here, "unnatural" (yeah, right) sex is perfectly legal for het sex, but
illegal for same-sex.
Avram Grumer
<sj...@io.com> wrote:
> Yes, there are MANY societies in which homosexuality carries a social
> stigma. Whichever society Jaquays is a part of being an example, presumably
> :(
Sure, but there are many societies in which having a certain skin color or
nationality or religion carries a stigma. Did the Central Castings book
in question cover the World War 2 era? If so, did it list being of
Japanese ancestry in America as a "Dark Side" trait? How about being
black in the pre-civil-rights American south?
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"Some people need to learn that the Internet changes everything.
And some people need to learn that it doesn't." -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden
S. John Ross
| > stigma. Whichever society Jaquays is a part of being an example,
presumably
| > :(
|
| Sure, but there are many societies in which having a certain skin color or
| nationality or religion carries a stigma.
Yes, absolutely. How does this relate to the topic at hand?
| Did the Central Castings book
| in question cover the World War 2 era? If so, did it list being of
| Japanese ancestry in America as a "Dark Side" trait? How about being
| black in the pre-civil-rights American south?
Of course not. Did you just come into the middle of the thread?
Doug Berry
silve...@phoenyx.net (Karen J. Cravens), wrote thusly:
>jm...@Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote in
><8od0gu$a...@elaine15.Stanford.EDU>:
>
>>Except USENET is not the one-way medium that books are.
>
>It is when the person being spoken of doesn't read it.
Mr. Jaquays is free to join in.
Now, as a writer, I expect people to discuss my work, even when
I'm not around to defend it and myself.
Since I started this dustup, let me make myself clear. I don't
care if Paul Jaquays thinks I'm a demon in humans flesh for being
bi. What I objected to was seeing an important part of my
identity being labeled as an evil thing in a game book. I know
of no other game that has ever done this.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"We are GURPS. You will be assimilated. We will add
your distinctive setting and background to our own. |
Resistance is futile."
Darel Finkbeiner
Doug Berry wrote:
> And lo, it came to pass on Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:56:18 -0500 that
> silve...@phoenyx.net (Karen J. Cravens), wrote thusly:
>
> >jm...@Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote in
> ><8od0gu$a...@elaine15.Stanford.EDU>:
> >
> >>Except USENET is not the one-way medium that books are.
> >
> >It is when the person being spoken of doesn't read it.
>
> Mr. Jaquays is free to join in.
>
> Now, as a writer, I expect people to discuss my work, even when
> I'm not around to defend it and myself.
>
> Since I started this dustup, let me make myself clear. I don't
> care if Paul Jaquays thinks I'm a demon in humans flesh for being
> bi. What I objected to was seeing an important part of my
> identity being labeled as an evil thing in a game book. I know
> of no other game that has ever done this.
>
> --
I have no idea why Mr. J. might object to, but I've seen many, if not
all, game books that have a bias towards something. I can't honestly
think of a game book right this minute that does not have similar
"disparaging remarks" (or whatever you want to call this) about
someone's lifestyle. In fact, D&D3e pretty much brands anyone who
thinks of themselves before others as "evil". I would call that
offensive. Most corporate executives would probably take offense at
being called evil simply because they would rather help themselves than
someone else. And just because someone bothers to put other people
first they get to be called "good". I find that extremely biased and
cowardly how they "snuck" that in.
Lizard
>
> In article <8odvih$al9ad$1...@ID-40196.news.cis.dfn.de>, "S. John Ross"
> <sj...@io.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, there are MANY societies in which homosexuality carries a social
> > stigma. Whichever society Jaquays is a part of being an example, presumably
> > :(
>
> Sure, but there are many societies in which having a certain skin color or
> in question cover the World War 2 era? If so, did it list being of
> Japanese ancestry in America as a "Dark Side" trait? How about being
> black in the pre-civil-rights American south?
>
"evil". Jaquays (sp) used it as such in at least one case, and this gets
him (rightfully) scorned.
"Bigotry" is a social stigma in most gamer circles. I'd also call it a
darkside trait.
Blackberry
2000 12:02:00 -0700 reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>That's the nail on the head. "Socially disapproved" is not a synonym for
>"evil". Jaquays (sp) used it as such in at least one case, and this gets
>him (rightfully) scorned.
>
>"Bigotry" is a social stigma in most gamer circles. I'd also call it a
>darkside trait.
Not to mention the fact that the book is presuming that it is "socially
disapproved" and/or "evil" for the character's culture -- no matter what culture
or what universe.
--------------------
"It's enough to make you wonder sometimes if you're on the right planet."
-- Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Brian -- le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com -- remove "NOSPAM"
Doug Berry
Darel Finkbeiner <myt...@mailandnews.com>, wrote thusly:
>I have no idea why Mr. J. might object to, but I've seen many, if not
>all, game books that have a bias towards something. I can't honestly
>think of a game book right this minute that does not have similar
>"disparaging remarks" (or whatever you want to call this) about
>someone's lifestyle. In fact, D&D3e pretty much brands anyone who
>thinks of themselves before others as "evil". I would call that
>offensive. Most corporate executives would probably take offense at
>being called evil simply because they would rather help themselves than
>someone else. And just because someone bothers to put other people
>first they get to be called "good". I find that extremely biased and
>cowardly how they "snuck" that in.
The difference is that PJ explicitly stated that being gay, or
bi, or transexual is evil. This is not a vague thing like
"putting yourself before others" (and I'd argue that definition)
but something that existist in the real world. There are people
who are gay, bi, transexual.. including me.
He isn't saying that this philisophical position is bad, he is
calling entire classes of people evil, just for being what we
are.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> | Did the Central Castings book
> | in question cover the World War 2 era? If so, did it list being of
> | Japanese ancestry in America as a "Dark Side" trait? How about being
> | black in the pre-civil-rights American south?
>
Oooh, Avram, please answer that one!
(Just to further a side bet...)
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> That's the nail on the head. "Socially disapproved" is not a synonym for
> "evil". Jaquays (sp) used it as such in at least one case, and this gets
> him (rightfully) scorned.
Did he?
I mean did he label "Darkside" as "evil"?
My recollection is merely that a character possessing mainly darkside
traits
is evil.
(Yeah, correlation is: Someone possessing only the "homosexual" trait is
evil, and therefor homosexuality must be evil, but that's alogic jump
that isn't made nor required by the book.)
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> The unfortunate translation of Lizard's Vogon Poetry reading from Mon, 28 Aug
> 2000 12:02:00 -0700 reached theears of the unsuspecting...
> >
> >"evil". Jaquays (sp) used it as such in at least one case, and this gets
> >him (rightfully) scorned.
> >
> >darkside trait.
>
> Not to mention the fact that the book is presuming that it is "socially
> disapproved" and/or "evil" for the character's culture -- no matter what culture
> or what universe.
That's actually a good point for many of the traits.
I suppose the case could be made for that assumption in "Now"
but not in the other two...
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> Since I started this dustup, let me make myself clear. I don't
> care if Paul Jaquays thinks I'm a demon in humans flesh for being
> bi. What I objected to was seeing an important part of my
> identity being labeled as an evil thing in a game book. I know
> of no other game that has ever done this.
Being bi = being evil?
I can't think of any that have that either.
But I can think of behaviors that other games label as evil even
though many cultures embrace them.
Some of those behaviors are important parts of the identities
of some of the rest of here.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> The difference is that PJ explicitly stated that being gay, or
> bi, or transexual is evil. This is not a vague thing like
> "putting yourself before others" (and I'd argue that definition)
> but something that existist in the real world. There are people
> who are gay, bi, transexual.. including me.
>
> He isn't saying that this philisophical position is bad,
Um, actually he is.
In his view those aspects are _choices_.
> he is
> calling entire classes of people evil, just for being what we
> are.
Which in this case would be similar to calling Nazi's bad,
or Christians bad, or Gamers bad...
(From PJ's perspective...)
Avram Grumer
OK, but what do you mean by "come into the middle"? I'd been skimming the
thread for a bit, but I hadn't gone back and read every post in it.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> In article <39AB0A...@erols.com>, rich...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > S. John Ross wrote:
> > >
> > > | Did the Central Castings book
> > > | in question cover the World War 2 era? If so, did it list
> > > | being of Japanese ancestry in America as a "Dark Side" trait?
> > > | How about being black in the pre-civil-rights American south?
> > >
> > > Of course not. Did you just come into the middle of the thread?
> >
> > Oooh, Avram, please answer that one!
> >
> > (Just to further a side bet...)
>
> OK, but what do you mean by "come into the middle"? I'd been skimming the
> thread for a bit, but I hadn't gone back and read every post in it.
That's answers my question.
Thanks!
(More indepth answer by e-mail...)
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Just a pet peeve.
Mr. Ross seems to believe that we are responsible for having read
EVERYTHING
in this thread if we are at all interested in it.
Seemed a bizarre assumption so I needled him about.
Got killfiled for my trouble.
His response to you just furthered my view that he is a lazy obstinate
coward.
Seriously though, I'd made the point that not everyone reads everything,
yet he felt having once explained a position exempted him from having to
defend it later to new readers.
He's pulling a similar tact with you.
Loopy.
Oh well, thanks!
S. John Ross
| Now, as a writer, I expect people to discuss my work, even when
| I'm not around to defend it and myself.
Exactly. Being a writer means you're putting yourself up for public
critique; it's part of the game. Karen J. Cravens, who's decided to take on
a High Moral Stance regarding this sort of thing, has (suprise) said Nasty
Things about _me_ to folks on website message boards that I don't read or
participate in [insert thanks to the helpful fan who pointed it out to me a
few weeks ago]. This is her _right_ -- I'm a writer, and writers get
discussed - even attacked - all the time. Of course, I'll also take this
opportunity to call Karen a hypocrite. ;)
S. John Ross
| thread for a bit, but I hadn't gone back and read every post in it.
The point is that you seemed to be agreeing with our points about Jaquays,
but you were phrasing your agreement in a manner that suggested that you
_believed_ you were _disagreeing._ If that makes any sense. Anyway, this
suggests to me that, somewhere along the line, you missed something :)
--