TheRPGSite

FULL DISCLOSURE: I received a free copy of Carcosa in exchange for writing this review.  I am a huge fan of old school D&D, Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos and the sword and sorcery genre.   I am the target market for Carcosa and predisposed toward a setting that combines my favorites.


SUPPLEMENT V: CARCOSA
Back in the disco 70s, Gary Gygax and his TSR crew published four supplements for the original Dungeons and Dragons game.   Thirty something years later in 2008, author Geoffrey McKinney publishes the unofficial fifth supplement entitled Carcosa.  Like Greyhawk and Blackmoor, this supplement presents alternate rules and a fresh new setting for your D&D adventures.   Thanks to RPGNow, new players can discover the original D&D books on PDF without paying a king's ransom and even better, there are free "retro-clones" like Swords & Wizardry, Microlite74, Labyrinth Lord and Basic Fantasy available online that are 99% compatible with Carcosa.   Fans of the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, AD&D, and Castles & Crusades will have an easy time converting the new rules.

Obviously, naming the book "Supplement V" invokes nostalgia.  The booklet is 96 pages, measures 8.5 x 5.5 with a beige cardstock cover so Carcosa nicely matches the other OD&D books.  The cover has an evocative image of a strange ruined city "of non-Euclidian geometry" under a pale green moon.   There is no interior artwork except the two page hand-drawn campaign map in the center of the book.  All the text is laid out cleanly with an easy to read font.   It is clearly homage to the early days of DIY gaming where RPG fans produced supplements in their garage without any need for glossy art and slick pages.  Instead, Carcosa rivets you with a raw vibrancy so missing from many current products.

Carcosa is not Tolkeinesque high fantasy.    This setting is far away from Middle Earth, Shannara or the Forgotten Realms of the Renaissance Faire.   Carcosa is the twisted kindred of Conan's Hyborea and Elric's Melnibone.  This setting is Swords and Sorcery, or better yet, Swords against Sorcery.   The gameplay espoused in Carcosa is completely old school.  If you are unsure what that means, google an article by Matthew Finch called A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming.


Carcosa introduces the Sorcerer class to OD&D whose only magic comes in the form of incredibly powerful rituals to control a variety of weird and terrible Cthulhoid entities.   The Sorcerer can banish, invoke, conjure, bind, imprison and torment these entities and force them to do his bidding.  Ritual magic is complex, requiring many hours effort with strange implements at odd locations under the right astrological conditions.   So instead of Magic Missile, you can cast The Ninth Tracing of the Measureless Void to gain forbidden lore from weird entities beyond the galaxy.  The Sorcerer class can wear armor and use any weapons, just like a Fighting Man.  His XP requirements are much higher so his level progression is slower.   There are no elves, dwarves, hobbits, standard magic-users or clerics in Carcosa so character choices are limited to Fighting Men or Sorcerers.  I am excited to tell you more, but first let us get clear about these rituals.  

Most of these rituals require human sacrifice.  Some of these rituals require child sacrifice.  A few of these rituals require the rape and torture of children.    The Primal Name of the Worm requires the Sorcerer to drown a baby and rend its corpse.  An eleven year old girl must be raped eleven times and strangled with her own hair to Summon the Amphibious Ones.  And there are a few other rituals with equally disturbing requirements.  Please note that you can play a Sorcerer who does not commit any atrocities, but you are limited to binding rituals.  

I have run many Stormbringer and Warhammer games where innocent blood was spilled, torture was committed in the name of power and romps with pleasure slaves were commonplace.   I have zero problems with gratuitous sex and over-the-top gore in my entertainment.  However, the rape and torture of children is not something I accept at my game table.   But before anyone jumps on their high horse and starts pontificating, remember that Carcosa is a fictional place with fictional characters.   More importantly, if you have the energy to crusade against immorality in RPGs, please use that energy to crusade against the real rape and real torture of real children that is happening right now in the real world.  Okay with that behind us, back to the game review!


Carcosa is populated by humans, monsters and Cthulhoid gods.   Humans are broken down into thirteen races, determined by the hue and shade of their skin.   Yes, the Snake Men who created humanity made sure that your hero, his family and all his friends were color coded spell components for their bizarre rituals.   There are Green Men, Red Men, Blue Men, Purple Men, Yellow Men, Bone Men, Black Men, Orange Men, Brown Men, and White Men along with three other colors Jale, Dolm and Ulfire that do not exist on our earth.  Every skin color is deeply pronounced so a White Man is not a Caucasian or even an albino, but completely stark white.   Oddly enough, humans of different colors can not interbreed and generally segregate themselves.  There is no racial hatred, but considering the horrifying rituals that specify sacrifice of particular races, there is an understandable suspicion of strangers.

Alignment is simplified into the character's stance toward the Lovecraftian gods.  Lawfuls oppose the Great Old Ones, Neutrals avoid them and Chaotics would aid them and may worship them.   All other behaviors are outside the purview of alignment and characters of opposite alignments can mostly usually get along because few Lawfuls are truly active in their opposition and few Chaotics are casually open about their desire to serve Hastur the Unspeakable.  

There are no orcs in Carcosa.  The only classic D&D monsters roaming Carcosa are the slimes, oozes and puddings Gary Gygax imagined during a bad case of sniffles.  Instead, we get two dozen creatures with names such as Deep Gibbering Madness, the Violet Mist, and the Squamous Worm of the Pit plus the better known Cthulhoid horrors such as Deep Ones, B'yakhee and Mi-Go.  Many monster descriptions include quotes from Lovecraft's stories which add a fun authenticity.   Rounding out the list are Sword & Sorcery favorites such as giant jungle ants, lake monsters, mummy brains entombed beneath radioactive deserts and misshapen phosphorescent dinosaurs.  Oh, and a random table for mutations for extra variety.  James Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator would be a great book to use alongside to create even more unique terrors.


Many sword and sorcery authors occasionally blend science-fiction elements into their stories.  In this "Swords Versus Space Men" subgenre, both fools and heroes discover dangerous far future technology.   Space aliens (think Grays from X-Files) have crashed on Carcosa and brought along a plethora of devices from Silver Age comics and Saturday matinees.   There are random creation tables to make sure these items are downright weird, like a cannon that fires pulses of zirconium plus a random robot generator.  Don't forget the cyborg spawn of Shub-Niggurath!   In my campaign, all alien tech would be made out of malleable nano-plastic without working parts or any metal.  Plus, I would avoid mundane descriptions like "force field" or "space suit" to continually enhance the Great Unknown.    

The Space Aliens in Carcosa add a Gamma World aspect to the game, but they are not integral to the setting and easily omitted if you want a "pure" fantasy campaign.   In addition to the Space Alien technology, there are the amazing artifacts of the Great Race and Primordial Ones.   These range from benign Elder Signs to a crater whose fumes create gaseous monsters to the Spatial Transference Void which is "a hole in existence."   The price for attaining some artifacts makes Vecna's Body Part Emporium look like an easy bargain.

The book finishes with short descriptions of notable features within all 400 numbered hexes of the campaign map.   These descriptions range from "0409: 2 of the Great Race" and "0615: Village of 340 Ulfire Men ruled by 'the Unbearable Poignancy', a chaotic Champion" to "1104: Deep rifts run for miles.  Smoke continually rises from the invisible depths.  Hideous, semi-human screams and chants can be heard far below."  If you get inspired by Judges Guild products, these brief notes may spark many adventuring ideas.  

They make me wonder.  Are those two of the Great Race are always in 0409?  If slain, do another two appear?   Do they like each other or are they doomed to be trapped together by fate?  What relationship do they have with the village of Green Men in nearby 0308 ruled by some warrior called "the Speaker of all Truths"?   Since "the Unbearable Poignancy" is chaotic, is he (or she) already a mythos cultist?   If so, which god?  If so, what plans are being laid out for the village of Ulfire Men and do they know what their ruler is really planning?  Hmm...which unspeakable ritual requires a whole bunch of Ulfire sacrifices?   If these musings are fun for you, chances are good that Carcosa will be a worthwhile purchase.

At the end of the day, I would love to play a campaign in Carcosa...with a few changes.  It is one of the most engaging, creative and provocative fantasy settings I have read and certainly takes D&D light years away from the standards of dungeon-crawling.   Remember Pat Pulling and her idiotic Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons crusade from the 1980s?   She's spinning in her grave because Carcosa is the sum of all her fears.    My response is spin you wretched old hag!!  And spin some more!  Carcosa has several disturbing passages in its 96 pages, but for me this is greatly outweighed by its bounty of fresh ideas.

Carcosa is available in both print and soon PDF.   Visit the author's website at http://carcosa-geoffrey.blogspot.com/ which has information on how to order the book.   Also, Geoffrey's blog has many discussions on the origins and evolution of his Carcosa campaign setting.

My copy should arrive any day now... and I'm not sure what's going to be more entertaining... the book itself... or the shitstorm that it's going to cause. :D

And thanks for the plug!

Want!

Holy Cow. I must possess this gaming accoutrement. Thanks for the great review.

Just two classes is a bit of a bummer, though. Or are the human races mechanically differentiated? Are there Thief "races"?

That looks very cool.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I read the blog and I'm of two minds, particularly given the recent fuss.

If you go to the blog and read the quoted sections from The Book of Ebon Bindings and the literary antecedents, you can tell they are pastiches of grimoires, which acts as a distancing mechanism. The narrator/author of the rules is a fictional character if you will, and the "real" author is slyly commenting on their decadence and depravity.

The language of the quoted actual rules from Carcosa on the other hand seems rather more straightforward, so it's missing that ironic quality, perhaps unintentionally, with the result being a bit creepy in real terms

On the other hand, yes, it sure sounds interesting. I can't imagine playing an evil sorcerer in the game. Somewhere in another thread someone said that, of course, PCs would be fighters (and good sorcerers?), which would be genre-appropriate. But then again, the mapping of "PC" onto "character in a novel", even "protagonist" is problematic.

(Sorry to be cryptic, gotta run.)

The author has already been taken to task for his extreme campaign journals on Dragonsfoot which feature very graphic depictions of pederasty and human sacrifice. For those of you who look askance at recent indie game extremism (Poison'd, Maid, etc.) you'll want to give this one a wide berth. And for good reason, the stuff in question isn't from a 3rd party playtest session - the slime is dripping right from the author himself, in faux Gygaxian prose no less. Despite his claims to being inspired by Lovecraft and MAR Barker the real inspiration for this smut is internet fetish porn and Poppy Z. Brite-style gore.

I see what you mean, El. The BoEB is fine be me as well, as would be Carcosa assuming PCs are the enemies of sorcerers. AFAIAC the whole maiden sacrifice thing is all good so long as the game is not designed such that

a) PCs get their rocks off on it;

b) PC get their rocks off on both it and their own tormented soul as it struggles to find salvation, or some shit.

EDIT: Given Kellri's post, maybe I'll wait just a tiny bit longer till I hit that paypal button...

Is this even being published by someone? Or is this the guy self-publishing without so much as a company name?

Also, how much of this game is the guy reveling in his own quasi-erotic fantasies?
Is the idea that these aforementioned "rituals" that require child sacrifice are there for evil wizards to use, or for the PCs to eagerly get to doing? Does this evil come with a cost for the sorcerer, or does it make him superpowerful?

It sounds to me like this guy has some serious (mythusmage-level) issues.

RPGPundit

To be honest, given the blog and the review, it sounds about 95% kosher to me. The guy is a long-time Dragonsfoot regular, and that the book is self-published is neither here nor there. That he found Sorcerer inspiring may or may not set off the creep-o-meter.

That said, Kellri, would you post a link to those DF campaign journals? I did a search, but there are just too many Carcosa posts coming up.

EDIT yet again: Never mind, here's the thread:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=25010

Elsewhere he says the PCs in his game are usually sorcerers themselves, and usually of LE/LN alignment.

In other words, they're getting their rocks off.

I think this is borderline, I understand Casey's objections, but I also think that unlike certain other examples it can be converted into something acceptable easily enough.

Had a quick look at the DF thread. Ick. That's enough for me.

Quote from: Spinachcat;257313A few of these rituals require the rape and torture of children.    The Primal Name of the Worm requires the Sorcerer to drown a baby and rend its corpse.  An eleven year old girl must be raped eleven times and strangled with her own hair to Summon the Amphibious Ones.

And why, exactly, is this necessary?

Just checking.


TGA

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257431And why, exactly, is this necessary?

Verisimilitude ? Or maybe the guy thinks Eli Roth is a cinematic god....

Regards,
David R

That dragonsfoot Campaign Journal (graphically describing a group of PCs raping and murdering an 11-year-old girl) is actually a significantly sanitized version of what was originally posted. That's what pushes this product over the line from "edgy" and "mature" to reprehensible sick fucking shit that makes me both angry and nauseous to even think about -- not that it includes graphic depictions of human sacrifice a la The Book of Ebon Bindings (though, admittedly, even that would probably have been enough to keep me from buying it), but that it graphically depicts the rape and murder of children as an act to be performed onstage by player characters. That a lot of the other stuff in the book actually sounds kinda cool if anything makes it even worse -- "here's a bunch of cool-sounding stuff to lure you into giving me your money so I can tell you all about my child-rape fantasies." The fuck you will!

Anybody read that chapter in Salammbo (http://www.classicreader.com/book/631/13/) where they sacrifice all the kids for rain?

Hey, look:

QuoteFor mature audiences only. Most of the sorcerous rituals described in Supplement V: CARCOSA include the murder, torture, and/or rape of persons of all ages (from infants up to the elderly).

He's an everythingphile!

Quote from: JimLotFP;257337My copy should arrive any day now... and I'm not sure what's going to be more entertaining... the book itself... or the shitstorm that it's going to cause. :D

And thanks for the plug!

Hey Flame Princess, here's a nice edgy avatar you can use while working your way through your new 'role-playing' material:

(http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/qq300/quetzalplace/t1home_cole_puffinburger_ap_impact_.jpg)

You know, I think sorcerers as depicted in this supplement would be cool villains in a campaign (the freakish rituals for the spells could, in fact, end up giving cool ideas for clues - "this girl wasn't just strangled, she was strangled *with her own hair* - I'm telling you, this is the work of Zaramand the Dreadful!"), but I'd balk at having them as PCs.

Shame, because the basic idea behind the supplement sounds awesome. I kind of dislike "the PCs are all eeeeevil" campaigns and I suspect that the fact that this supplement seems to have sprung from such a thing will contaminate it for me - there'll be a fundamental incompatability of attitude and approach, aside from the content issues. I might look at the free PDF once it's out, but my expectations are not high.

Calling it Supplement V is more than a little grandiose -talk about putting yourself on a pedestal. Unless Mr. McKinney had something to do with the first four supplements, that is.

Also, aren't we past the stage now where we have to use idiotic shibboleths like "a book of rules options for the original fantasy role playing game made in 1974"? I thought Kenzer had blown that one out of the water long ago: Nobody's going to sue you for producing a product 'compatible with Original D&D'.

Send me a copy, I'm on my last toilet roll.

What a fuckstick. This is what comes of not excluding people from the hobby.

Quote from: noisms;257470Also, aren't we past the stage now where we have to use idiotic shibboleths like "a book of rules options for the original fantasy role playing game made in 1974"? I thought Kenzer had blown that one out of the water long ago: Nobody's going to sue you for producing a product 'compatible with Original D&D'.

Wasn't the whole point of OSRIC the idea that you could put out a product "compatible with OSRIC" and not get sued, while you were supposed to know that really meant compatible with AD&D? Turns out there was no need to do it, as nominative use is perfectly OK under trademark law.

Quote from: The_Shadow;257474Wasn't the whole point of OSRIC the idea that you could put out a product "compatible with OSRIC" and not get sued, while you were supposed to know that really meant compatible with AD&D? Turns out there was no need to do it, as nominative use is perfectly OK under trademark law.

Exactly - so the author needs to grow some balls and just come out and say 'This is an unofficial Supplement V for Original D&D'.

So if it's NPCs commiting sick twisted rituals it's OK and if it's PC it's not OK...?

Quote from: Kyle AaronThis is what comes of not excluding people from the hobby.

And what are you going to do about it... Burn their rulebooks, DDoS their sites, kick their faces, sacrifice them to Satan?

Actually I would rather have the type of discussion that went on in the DF thread linked to - disclaimer warnings and people commenting they would not mind playing this type of game if members of their crew were agreeable to the idea -instead of the juvenile "vibeing off players" and deep discussions about dysfunctional family units that went on in the Poision'd threads.

Regards,
David R

Knowing Geoffrey for an intelligent and very well-educated poster, I guess I can safely say that his motivation was producing a work of pulp fantasy in the vein of M.A.R. Barker's Tékumel (c.f. the Book of Ebon Bindings), and not gross-out for its own sake. What I find relevant is that he seems to play games with very little player-PC identification - seeing characters as playing pieces that get discarded and battered instead of being emphasised with (see his Gamma World report on DF).

However, I strongly agree that important lines have been crossed which I personally would never even have come near, and that this, for all intents and purposes, will sink the work, no matter how great it is otherwise. And that is a pity. But no matter how clinically approached and authentic, some subjects are not for exploration.

Quote from: Melan;257482What I find relevant is that he seems to play games with very little player-PC identification - seeing characters as playing pieces that get discarded and battered instead of being emphasised with (see his Gamma World report on DF).

I find this very interesting Melan. I have not come across this type of play (?) motivation of play (?) before. Do you have the link to the Gamma World AP on DF ? Or is it easy to find ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droog;257459Anybody read that chapter in Salammbo (http://www.classicreader.com/book/631/13/) where they sacrifice all the kids for rain?

Did it work?

I think this thread (http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=metaalpha&action=display&thread=792) was it (scroll down a bit). Although I recall a lengthier report, so there may be another one elsewhere.

Quote from: Zachary The First;257487Did it work?

Yes, it did. (http://www.classicreader.com/book/631/14/)

QuoteThe Carthaginians had not re-entered their houses when the clouds accumulated more thickly; those who raised their heads towards the colossus could feel big drops on their foreheads, and the rain fell.

It fell the whole night plentifully, in floods; the thunder growled; it was the voice of Moloch; he had vanquished Tanith; and she, being now fecundated, opened up her vast bosom in heaven's heights. Sometimes she could be seen in a clear and luminous spot stretched upon cushions of cloud; and then the darkness would close in again as though she were still too weary and wished to sleep again; the Carthaginians, all believing that water is brought forth by the moon, shouted to make her travail easy.

The rain beat upon the terraces and overflowed them, forming lakes in the courts, cascades on the staircases, and eddies at the corners of the streets. It poured in warm heavy masses and urgent streams; big frothy jets leaped from the corners of all the buildings; and it seemed as though whitish cloths hung dimly upon the walls, and the washed temple-roofs shone black in the gleam of the lightning. Torrents descended from the Acropolis by a thousand paths; houses suddenly gave way, and small beams, plaster, rubbish, and furniture passed along in streams which ran impetuously over the pavement.

Amphoras, flagons, and canvases had been placed out of doors; but the torches were extinguished; brands were taken from the funeral-pile of the Baal, and the Carthaginians bent back their necks and opened their mouths to drink. Others by the side of the miry pools, plunged their arms into them up to the armpits, and filled themselves so abundantly with water that they vomited it forth like buffaloes. The freshness gradually spread; they breathed in the damp air with play of limb, and in the happiness of their intoxication boundless hope soon arose. All their miseries were forgotten. Their country was born anew.

They felt the need, as it were, of directing upon others the extravagant fury which they had been unable to employ against themselves. Such a sacrifice could not be in vain; although they felt no remorse they found themselves carried away by the frenzy which results from complicity in irreparable crimes.

Quote from: Fritzs;257478So if it's NPCs commiting sick twisted rituals it's OK and if it's PC it's not OK...?

Yes, because:

1.  NPC action like this almost always occurs offstage, and when it is onstage it is traditionally assumed that players are trying to stop it rather than participating.

2.  By protagonizing such behaviour you are making acceptable in your social setting the acting out of fantasies that are, in my opinion, over the line of human decency.  

Quote from: Fritzs;257478And what are you going to do about it... Burn their rulebooks, DDoS their sites, kick their faces, sacrifice them to Satan?

My vote is for mocking and shunning them?  What do you plan to do?  Got your PayPal account ready, I assume?


TGA

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;2575162.  By protagonizing such behaviour you are making acceptable in your social setting the acting out of fantasies that are, in my opinion, over the line of human decency.

But the mass slaughter common in RPGs... that must be perfectly OK to fantasize about. Very decent.

Here is what the author has to say on the subject. (http://carcosa-geoffrey.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-carcosan-sorcery-is-way-it-is.html)

Quote from: noisms;257470Calling it Supplement V is more than a little grandiose -talk about putting yourself on a pedestal. Unless Mr. McKinney had something to do with the first four supplements, that is.
 

All the other stuff aside, this sort of hubris really turns me off.  If I write a sonnet, I don't go around calling myself Shakespeare's successor. Unless Gygax or Arneson personally endorsed a product as a direct extension of their original products, calling something Supplement V is seriously dickish.

Quote from: Melan;257482What I find relevant is that he seems to play games with very little player-PC identification - seeing characters as playing pieces that get discarded and battered instead of being emphasised with (see his Gamma World report on DF).

And yet his actual play description takes the form of a detailed piece of fiction from the POV of the PCs.  It is not detached at all.  It was not the "yeah, we do what is necessary" that the players apparently limited themselves to. Even in its sanitized version it is filled with prurient details that speak to the GMs fantasy fulfillment, if not that of their entire group.

Quote from: Melan;257482However, I strongly agree that important lines have been crossed which I personally would never even have come near, and that this, for all intents and purposes, will sink the work, no matter how great it is otherwise. And that is a pity. But no matter how clinically approached and authentic, some subjects are not for exploration.

This is a difficult topic for me, and I have had to carefully consider my reactions.  I am a big fan of Sword & Sorcery.  I am a big fan of Tekumel.  I do not as a rule shy away from difficult moral issues in my gaming.  At all.  This just crosses the line of basic human decency.  I know this is notion is unfashionable to some, but I believe that there are limits to what can be explored in this hobby without the serious risk of losing some of your humanity.

Am I a prude? Hardly.  A book-burning moral crusader?  Nope.  A hypocrite because I have played and enjoyed playing in Tekumel games as an amoral priest of change who certainly participated in terrible acts (all offstage in the pursuit of power) and took human slavery as being granted?  Perhaps.

But I believe that the explicit fantasy of participating in child sexual abuse is unacceptable to me as a human being.  If it isn't to you, then I will not stop you from buying this product, but you have my pity.


TGA

Quote from: Kellri;257417Despite his claims to being inspired by Lovecraft and MAR Barker the real inspiration for this smut is internet fetish porn and Poppy Z. Brite-style gore.

Some fans of Lovecraft fail to understand that Lovecraft's merit comes from implying, rather than describing. He suggests bizarre, horrific stuff, and leaves it at that.

However, these fans take the graphic scenarios dredged up from their own imaginations and then package them as Lovecraftian horror. They completely miss the point. Nobody is interested in sharing their explicit horror scenes, except other fetishists.

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

Hey, you are the one apparently defending the fantasization of the sexual abuse of a child.  If I am guilty of nothing more than a little hypocrisy, then I can live with that.


TGA

Quote from: Fritzs;257478So if it's NPCs commiting sick twisted rituals it's OK and if it's PC it's not OK...?

It's the difference between the PCs, as cops, tracking down a pedophile and the players creating PCs to play-out their own NAMBLA fantasies.

Melan you seem like you know your around the DF community, what is the consensus there regarding a supplement like this ?

Regards,
David R

Since even nuancing the picture can/will get you branded as a child rape-apologist, and I really, really do not want to go there, I will bow out of this subject here or on other forums. It is not discussable. It is not defendable. It is foolish. And it is a shame.

That is my last comment. See you guys in other discussions.

QuoteBut I believe that the explicit fantasy of participating in child sexual abuse is unacceptable to me as a human being.

The thing is that some of us don't really see what we do as 'fantasies'. That's reserved for those who are in it for wish-fulfillment.

People doing this stuff aren't necessarily wanting to be able to do it in real life.

Quote from: The Good AssyrianThis just crosses the line of basic human decency. I know this is notion is unfashionable to some, but I believe that there are limits to what can be explored in this hobby without the serious risk of losing some of your humanity.

After rading this I held my head betweem my hands and creamed like I just saw hell for about ten seconds... then I colapsed laughting.

Man, seriously, there is no "humanity" score, that you might lose if you... imagine bad stuff, or even if you fap to it. Even if you are sadistic canibalstistic commie nazi massmurdered necrophiliac pederast, who has ruined thousands lives in order to satisfy your twisted desires you are still human being. Real world isn't fucking White Wolf game. Actually these twisted fantasies are, among many other things, also part of "humanity". That centranly doesn't mean you must imagine yourself raping kids, but doing so doesn't make you any less human.

I think, less White Wolf would be good for you...

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257527This is a difficult topic for me, and I have had to carefully consider my reactions.  I am a big fan of Sword & Sorcery.  I am a big fan of Tekumel.  I do not as a rule shy away from difficult moral issues in my gaming.  At all.  This just crosses the line of basic human decency.  I know this is notion is unfashionable to some, but I believe that there are limits to what can be explored in this hobby without the serious risk of losing some of your humanity.

Am I a prude? Hardly.  A book-burning moral crusader?  Nope.  A hypocrite because I have played and enjoyed playing in Tekumel games as an amoral priest of change who certainly participated in terrible acts (all offstage in the pursuit of power) and took human slavery as being granted?  Perhaps.

But I believe that the explicit fantasy of participating in child sexual abuse is unacceptable to me as a human being.  If it isn't to you, then I will not stop you from buying this product, but you have my pity.

When you talk like this, The Good Assyrian, I am much more inclined to listen and appreciate your point of view.  

I have played evil characters, but the most evil they got was backstabbing other party members and killing supposedly "good" NPC's and generally in pretty standard D&D killing (i.e. non-graphic depletion of hit points, quickly).  The few times we had to interrogate someone for info, we always ended up backing off.  I think now that I might be able to play an evil sorceror doing all that stuff if it was off-camera, but I kind of doubt it.  I like the idea of the totally maddened magician deep into evil for power's sake, but actually roleplaying out the details of that would probably freak me out.

On the other hand, the inclusion of elements of evil and truly cruel behaviour are a staple of fiction.  I just read The Vendetta (http://olmansfifty.blogspot.com/2008/10/46-vendetta-by-nick-quarry.html) for instance, a 70s paperback novel about a mafia war in the 30s, a direct descendant of the pulps.  There is a scene where a gang invades the country house of their opponent.  A rich socialite that the leader had been sleeping with is there and after killing all the men, they rape her on the front lawn.  It's a rough scene and it's set up showing her as horny and impatient as she waits for the gangster boss to come back (before the invaders arrive).  The actual raping is a couple of sentences, but the part where she is dragged out and forced to strip on the front lawn in front of all the invading men is quite drawn out.  Classic '70s mysogyny but I would say something that helped make the book tough and intense.

I would say there is room in certain RPGs for that kind of thing, if that is the content level the group has agreed on.  The PCs roleplaying out the rape, I agree would be utterly unfun for me or anyone I play with, but I could see someone playing the gangster boss who orders that the violation take place.

So, in this case we have a self-important asshat who calls his house rules "Supplement V" so he can get people to buy his disgusting piece of filth supplement.

Between this and the maid game, and the people here who are actually expressing excitement over buying these things, I'm thinking more and more Pundit was right.  People seem intent on sexualizing the hobby (even if they aren't all from the forge), and I'm starting to wonder if I'd rather just leave than be associated with people like that.

Did the Gary Gygax original supplements have all those human races of different colours?

I'm the author of the book. On my blog I give a detailed explanation of why Carcosa's sorcery is so grisly:
http://carcosa-geoffrey.blogspot.com/

Short version:

1. The tone and level of graphic violence is exactly that of M. A. R. Barker's The Book of Ebon Bindings. If any line has been crossed, Prof. Barker already crossed it 30 years ago.

2. Most sorcerers on Carcosa are evil. They do evil things.

3. Nobody at my game table has ever played the human sacrifice element out in detail. Here is how a horrific ritual was actually played-out at the table:

Judge: The appointed time has come for the Writhing Sacrifice.

Sorcerer player: OK, we give her to the fighters to prepare her.

Judge (to the fighters): Do you do it?

Fighter player: We do what has to be done.

Judge: OK, and how about the rest of the ritual?

Sorcerer player: I don't forget to put that white-thing in her mouth before the knife is plunged.

Yogthag player: And I plunge the knife. Kassogtha [the entity being summoned], here you come! Ha ha!

Quote from: walkerp;257564When you talk like this, The Good Assyrian, I am much more inclined to listen and appreciate your point of view.

Thanks.

Quote from: walkerp;257564I have played evil characters, but the most evil they got was backstabbing other party members and killing supposedly "good" NPC's and generally in pretty standard D&D killing (i.e. non-graphic depletion of hit points, quickly).  The few times we had to interrogate someone for info, we always ended up backing off.  I think now that I might be able to play an evil sorceror doing all that stuff if it was off-camera, but I kind of doubt it.  I like the idea of the totally maddened magician deep into evil for power's sake, but actually roleplaying out the details of that would probably freak me out.

Ditto.  What I object to is not the playing of evil or amoral character, or exploring moral systems different than my own.  In fact, I have gone into those territories many, many times in my gaming life.  What I object to is, specifically graphic child abuse.  It serves no purpose that can be considered healthy, in my opinion.

Quote from: walkerp;257564On the other hand, the inclusion of elements of evil and truly cruel behaviour are a staple of fiction.  I just read The Vendetta (http://olmansfifty.blogspot.com/2008/10/46-vendetta-by-nick-quarry.html) for instance, a 70s paperback novel about a mafia war in the 30s, a direct descendant of the pulps.  There is a scene where a gang invades the country house of their opponent.  A rich socialite that the leader had been sleeping with is there and after killing all the men, they rape her on the front lawn.  It's a rough scene and it's set up showing her as horny and impatient as she waits for the gangster boss to come back (before the invaders arrive).  The actual raping is a couple of sentences, but the part where she is dragged out and forced to strip on the front lawn in front of all the invading men is quite drawn out.  Classic '70s mysogyny but I would say something that helped make the book tough and intense.

Quite.  But it is fiction, and there is a detachment from the events that the reader has that does not exist when the participant is initiating and participating in the narrative, as in an RPG.  I think that it is a big difference.

Quote from: walkerp;257564I would say there is room in certain RPGs for that kind of thing, if that is the content level the group has agreed on.  The PCs roleplaying out the rape, I agree would be utterly unfun for me or anyone I play with, but I could see someone playing the gangster boss who orders that the violation take place.

EDIT: I didn't actually address your point.  Yes, I believe that each group has a social contract that may include things that I consider really unfun, whether it be mindless dungeon crawl slaughter or grpahic rape.  As adults, that is for us to choose.  But when people bring it into a public forum by publishing a game or posting an AP, then they should be prepared for the heat. END EDIT

To be clear, I do not advocate the banning or destruction of such products.  I do advocate the public shunning of them.


TGA

Quote from: Fritzs;257560After rading this I held my head betweem my hands and creamed like I just saw hell for about ten seconds... then I colapsed laughting.

I can live with that.


TGA

Quote from: droog;257547The thing is that some of us don't really see what we do as 'fantasies'. That's reserved for those who are in it for wish-fulfillment.

People doing this stuff aren't necessarily wanting to be able to do it in real life.

I agree to a point Droog, in that I do not automatically draw a parallel between role-playing and wish-fulfillment fantasy, although you must admit that there are often strong connections.  And when the subject is sex, particularly forbidden sex like child abuse, there is much less of a wall of separation between these goals in my opinion.

Look, you are actually one of my favorite posters here because of your puckish ability to challenge assumptions of culture, but sometimes I think that as a result you don't fully consider that some of the standards of our culture are valid and useful.  I chafe at restrictions that others place on my thinking, but I also believe that to have no standards is just as dangerous to one's being as having those standards dictated to you.


TGA

I have a couple of issues here, which is a shame as the stated objectives of the designer (to create a more S&S feel) are ones I have huge sympathy for.

1)  The spell descriptions are not ones that I would personally feel comfortable using in my game.  I'm not making a comment here on others, just that I personally would not be comfortable using some of those descriptions, I would be even less so were players carrying out the more extreme rituals rather than off-screen NPCs.

2)  Just Fighting Men and Sorcerors is pretty limited, and means someone will almost certainly play a Sorceror.  Sorcerors need not be evil, but if they're not they lose most of their abilities, therefore the odds are anyone playing a Sorceror will eventually be tempted to evil (arguably a feature, not a bug).  That's fine, save it takes me into 1) above again, with a player at the table having to bring those rituals into the game.

Which is a bugger, as his description of what he wants the magic to be sounds damn cool, I'm just not persuaded you need go quite as far as he has to get to where he ostensibly wanted to go.

Anyway, two problems, both practical.  Spinachcat, how fixable are the more extreme rituals?

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257586Quite.  But it is fiction, and there is a detachment from the events that the reader has that does not exist when the participant is initiating and participating in the narrative, as in an RPG.  I think that it is a big difference.

I agree that it is a big difference, but I'm not so sure about how it is different.  For instance, wouldn't one generally feel more comfortable about consuming impure stuff in the privacy of their own home?  Is it possible that someone may actually be more restricted in how far they go if they are sitting around with a bunch of other people who might be shocked at their behaviour, then if they are  by themselves or in front of a computer screen.

How different is the engagement when reading child porn (or looking at it) versus acting it out with other people?  I think that for someone who is wired that way, either activity would be just as bad for them (in that it may encourage the actual behaviour or loosen whatever disciplines were preventing them from acting on their proclivities).

As I type this, though, I realize that there seems to be this underlying sense that there is a loosely-organized group of "lawncrappers" who tend and prefer to do their nasty things together.  But when you think about it, it seems like most pedophiles must be pretty solitary.  I would imagine that the networks that keep getting busted out there thrive mainly on the internet, where you can pass data (and money) but that they rarely actually hang out together.  

Kind of a harsh subject that I don't like thinking about too much actually.

Quote from: Balbinus;257602Anyway, two problems, both practical.  Spinachcat, how fixable are the more extreme rituals?

It's fluff. You could swap out "sacrifice x person in y manner" in favor of "eat exactly 45 of your favorite potato chips" and nothing changes but the atmosphere. The effects of most of the rituals are even described as fluff, with very little in the way of game mechanics at all.

All of the rituals involve either summoning Great Big Cthuloid Monsters With Weird Names, controlling them, or dispelling them. You're not killing girls to cast regular D&D spells - they don't exist in Carcosa.

I'm the author.

1. The level of grisly detail of my book is exactly that of M. A. R. Barker's The Book of Ebon Bindings. Any line that has been crossed was already crossed by Prof. Barker 30 years ago.

2. Carcosan sorcerers are evil. They do evil things.

3. No one at my table has ever gone into detail on human sacrifice during the game. For example, when a PC performs a ritual requiring human sacrifice it goes something like this:

Judge: The sun has just set.

Player: OK, we do what has to be done. We utilize all the material components as described in the ophidian runes, and we kill the sacrifice in the required manner.

That's it.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257596II chafe at restrictions that others place on my thinking, but I also believe that to have no standards is just as dangerous to one's being as having those standards dictated to you.

But from my point of view it has nothing to do with standards. If I put child abuse into a game, it's because I think it's appropriate to do so. Maybe it makes the game R instead of PG, but so what? I happen to be an adult.

In fact, I don't believe I've ever used that plot element as either a GM or player (I did have a chr who pushed a kid over), but I'm not ruling it out. It's fiction. Some fiction goes to ugly places, and sometimes it's better for it.

I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be a slippery slope to perdition. Perhaps I just have some faith in the strength of my own character.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257617Testing.

(My previous post never showed up.)

Probably got hit by the spam filter.  The mods are pretty good about following up on that problem.


TGA

Quote from: Melan;257518Here is what the author has to say on the subject. (http://carcosa-geoffrey.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-carcosan-sorcery-is-way-it-is.html)

Uh huh. This sounds like a petty excuse to me.  "Its not my fault that the Carcossan sorcery system is full of virgin-rape! It was invented by the Snake men! They did it!"

Huh? Nevermind that this doesn't even hold up as a rational argument (why the fuck would a bunch of snake-men be interested in raping, as opposed to just killing, human sacrifice victims?!), YOU invented the fucking snake-men, you cunt.

Nor does this explain why you feel the need for the protagonist PCs to play the guys who do these rituals (as opposed to say, horrific NPC villains), nor does it explain why you felt the need to be so elaborate in describing the particular method of rape and murder of young girls in your "rituals" (rather than just saying "this ritual requires human violation and sacrifice").

So yeah, bullshit justifications.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;257423To be honest, given the blog and the review, it sounds about 95% kosher to me. The guy is a long-time Dragonsfoot regular, and that the book is self-published is neither here nor there. That he found Sorcerer inspiring may or may not set off the creep-o-meter.

Wait, what? "He found Sorcerer inspiring"?
What Sorcerer are we talking about here? Ron Edwards' Sorcerer?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Geoffrey;257617I'm the author.

1. The level of grisly detail of my book is exactly that of M. A. R. Barker's The Book of Ebon Bindings. Any line that has been crossed was already crossed by Prof. Barker 30 years ago.

2. Carcosan sorcerers are evil. They do evil things.

3. No one at my table has ever gone into detail on human sacrifice during the game. For example, when a PC performs a ritual requiring human sacrifice it goes something like this:

Judge: The sun has just set.

Player: OK, we do what has to be done. We utilize all the material components as described in the ophidian runes, and we kill the sacrifice in the required manner.

That's it.

Thank you for coming here to give us your POV.  

A question, however.  Although you say that your players never go into grisly detail in your sessions, why did you feel the need to create a actual play thread in which you describe their actions in prurient detail in fiction based on their POV?  And that was the edited version.  Can you see where this might call into question your detachment, or lack thereof, from truly vile wish fulfillment fantasies?


TGA

Quote from: RPGPundit;257653Wait, what? "He found Sorcerer inspiring"?
What Sorcerer are we talking about here? Ron Edwards' Sorcerer?

RPGPundit

That's correct.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257617I'm the author.

1. The level of grisly detail of my book is exactly that of M. A. R. Barker's The Book of Ebon Bindings. Any line that has been crossed was already crossed by Prof. Barker 30 years ago.

"It's ok, someone else did it before me" is a stupid defense...

Quote from: Geoffrey;257617I'm the author.

1. The level of grisly detail of my book is exactly that of M. A. R. Barker's The Book of Ebon Bindings. Any line that has been crossed was already crossed by Prof. Barker 30 years ago.

2. Carcosan sorcerers are evil. They do evil things.

3. No one at my table has ever gone into detail on human sacrifice during the game. For example, when a PC performs a ritual requiring human sacrifice it goes something like this:

Judge: The sun has just set.

Player: OK, we do what has to be done. We utilize all the material components as described in the ophidian runes, and we kill the sacrifice in the required manner.

That's it.

Thanks, I may pick it up in pdf, I've not decided yet.  It depends how kitbashable it is, if it's at all faithful to the original books it should be very much so of course.

Quote from: RPGPundit;257649Huh? Nevermind that this doesn't even hold up as a rational argument (why the fuck would a bunch of snake-men be interested in raping, as opposed to just killing, human sacrifice victims?!), YOU invented the fucking snake-men, you cunt.

Nor does this explain why you feel the need for the protagonist PCs to play the guys who do these rituals (as opposed to say, horrific NPC villains), nor does it explain why you felt the need to be so elaborate in describing the particular method of rape and murder of young girls in your "rituals" (rather than just saying "this ritual requires human violation and sacrifice").

So yeah, bullshit justifications.

RPGPundit

1. The Snake-Men never raped humans. Rather, the Snake-Men required some of their human slaves to rape others of their human slaves to work the Snake-Men's sorcery.

2. Whether or not a player plays a sorcerer is completely up to him. Whether or not a player of a sorcerer ever performs any of the rituals requiring human sacrifice is completely up to him.

3. My model was M. A. R. Barker's The Book of Ebon Bindings (a work published in 1978 for TSR's 1975 game, Empire of the Petal Throne). The level of detail of murder, rape, and torture is the same in the two works.

Quote from: Balbinus;257656That's correct.

So it does all link back to the Forge, after all...

EDIT: No wait, the author claims Barker as his primary influence.

Geoffrey,

I'd be grateful if you could take a look at my post 39 and let me know if you have any thoughts on issue 2 there.

Thanks if so.

Quote from: JimLotFP;257615It's fluff. You could swap out "sacrifice x person in y manner" in favor of "eat exactly 45 of your favorite potato chips" and nothing changes but the atmosphere. The effects of most of the rituals are even described as fluff, with very little in the way of game mechanics at all.

Hardly the point.  I could swap out a lavishly detailed description of hundreds of raped and mutilated women and children on a battlefield with 'it looks like a teddy bear picnic'.  The original text was still reprehensible.

Similarly, I could swap out FATAL's anal circumference table with a chart for the number of unicorns and butterflies that are in attendance at Princess Prissy Pants' Octember tea cotillion, but that doesn't change the fact that the original authours wrote FATAL and not 'Dancing in the Meadow of Sweetness and Light'.

Quote from: jgants;257665So it does all link back to the Forge, after all...

EDIT: No wait, the author claims Barker as his primary influence.

In my view, Edwards draws heavily on sources such as Barker for his Sorceror & Sword (or on common sources possibly, it's a while since I read it).  I don't see a conflict there.

Quote from: Balbinus;257656That's correct.

So he's a Forger after all??!

Oh, that's rich.

And he was "inspired" by Edwards' Sorceror?
Motherfucking case-closed, bitches! :cool:

RPGPundit

Quote from: StormBringer;257671Hardly the point.  I could swap out a lavishly detailed description of hundreds of raped and mutilated women and children on a battlefield with 'it looks like a teddy bear picnic'.  The original text was still reprehensible.

Similarly, I could swap out FATAL's anal circumference table with a chart for the number of unicorns and butterflies that are in attendance at Princess Prissy Pants' Octember tea cotillion, but that doesn't change the fact that the original authours wrote FATAL and not 'Dancing in the Meadow of Sweetness and Light'.

Your point is valid, but I'd note he was responding to a query of mine, and his response was to the point of my query.

Quote from: RPGPundit;257675So he's a Forger after all??!

Oh, that's rich.

And he was "inspired" by Edwards' Sorceror?
Motherfucking case-closed, bitches! :cool:

RPGPundit

Would I then be correct in assuming you won't be bringing out a Carcosa supplement for FtA?

Quote from: Geoffrey;2576643. My model was M. A. R. Barker's The Book of Ebon Bindings (a work published in 1978 for TSR's 1975 game, Empire of the Petal Throne). The level of detail of murder, rape, and torture is the same in the two works.

Yeah, except that I've seen the Book of Ebon Bindings. It was a supplement, basically a spellbook, written as an imitation of a "Sorcerous Grimoire" in an almost academic level of detail. It wasn't written from the point of view of saying "look how cool it is to play these evil sorcerers! You get to strangle 11 year old girls with their own hair!"

It certainly wasn't written from the point of view of the average Tekumel PC being the one who'd do these rituals. Whereas it seems in your game, the average magic-user has little option but to do so, unless he wants to be powerless (what with there being no regular D&D spells in the game- oh, and only 2 classes).

Also, my memory escapes me, but did Prof. Barker's original work anywhere specify the ages of the virgin sacrifices in question? Or go into detail about exactly how many times they were supposed to be raped before being murdered?

RPGPundit

Quote from: droog;257620But from my point of view it has nothing to do with standards. If I put child abuse into a game, it's because I think it's appropriate to do so. Maybe it makes the game R instead of PG, but so what? I happen to be an adult.

In fact, I don't believe I've ever used that plot element as either a GM or player (I did have a chr who pushed a kid over), but I'm not ruling it out. It's fiction. Some fiction goes to ugly places, and sometimes it's better for it.

I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be a slippery slope to perdition. Perhaps I just have some faith in the strength of my own character.

I respect that position, and agree that adult themes in a game are not a problem for me.  But if you did include graphic child abuse and then write a AP thread or a game featuring those elements, then I reserve the right to publicly skewer you for it.  


TGA

Quote from: Geoffrey;2576641. The Snake-Men never raped humans. Rather, the Snake-Men required some of their human slaves to rape others of their human slaves to work the Snake-Men's sorcery.

Like humans require cattle to rape other cattle before we can have a steak?  You said their interest in humans was no more than our interest in herd animals.

Quote2. Whether or not a player plays a sorcerer is completely up to him. Whether or not a player of a sorcerer ever performs any of the rituals requiring human sacrifice is completely up to him.

So, you provide the details, but disavow responsibility for the outcome?  One charced with incitement to riot is no less culpable for any crimes committed than the rioters themselves.

Quote3. My model was M. A. R. Barker's The Book of Ebon Bindings (a work published in 1978 for TSR's 1975 game, Empire of the Petal Throne). The level of detail of murder, rape, and torture is the same in the two works.

Everything not forbidden is compulsory, then?  You are required to cross that line because someone else did 30yrs ago?

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257654Thank you for coming here to give us your POV.  

A question, however.  Although you say that your players never go into grisly detail in your sessions, why did you feel the need to create a actual play thread in which you describe their actions in prurient detail in fiction based on their POV?  And that was the edited version.  Can you see where this might call into question your detachment, or lack thereof, from truly vile wish fulfillment fantasies?


TGA

Personally, I have never had a good time reading campaign journals. That's why I fictionalized the account, to make it something more readable. I included the grisly detail so as to underscore just how wicked Yogthag and his band were. That makes the deaths of Yogthag and company all the more satisfying. In short, it was poetic justice. Those wicked reprobates who abused and murdered the girl got what they deserved.

As for vile wish fulfillment fantasies, I never think that a man who imagines dark things must himself be wicked. For example, I don't think H. R. Giger must be a bad man because his art is so dark. Neither do I think that a man who imagines good and noble things must himself be righteous. It is all merely imagination.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257682But if you did include graphic child abuse and then write a AP thread or a game featuring those elements, then I reserve the right to publicly skewer you for it.  

Hope you do a better job of it than some of the idiots in this thread.

I have to admit, I never heard of the Barker supplement before.  It sounds repulsive as well, and the kind of thing that didn't help back in the Pat Pulling days.

Quote from: droog;257686Hope you do a better job of it than some of the idiots in this thread.

He's asked some interesting questions in fairness.

Quote from: droog;257686Hope you do a better job of it than some of the idiots in this thread.

I make no promises!  :D


TGA

Quote from: Balbinus;257676Your point is valid, but I'd note he was responding to a query of mine, and his response was to the point of my query.

So noted.

I was simply mentioning that, while 'fixing' the passages is possible, it's not really a remedy to the problem of having those passages to begin with.  I know you already understood that point, but I wanted to clarify.

Quote from: Balbinus;257666Geoffrey,

I'd be grateful if you could take a look at my post 39 and let me know if you have any thoughts on issue 2 there.

Thanks if so.

Do you mean post #39 in this thread? David R posted number 39. Please point me to the post you mean, and I'll be happy to share my thoughts. :)

Quote from: Geoffrey;257692Do you mean post #39 in this thread? David R posted number 39. Please point me to the post you mean, and I'll be happy to share my thoughts. :)

Sorry Geoffrey, my mistake, 49.

Quote from: StormBringer;257691So noted.

I was simply mentioning that, while 'fixing' the passages is possible, it's not really a remedy to the problem of having those passages to begin with.  I know you already understood that point, but I wanted to clarify.

I don't like the sound of those passages, my interest though is in how much I can ignore them and still get something useful to me from it, given how fond I am of S&S material and how poorly it tends to be served.

Quote from: RPGPundit;257681Yeah, except that I've seen the Book of Ebon Bindings. It was a supplement, basically a spellbook, written as an imitation of a "Sorcerous Grimoire" in an almost academic level of detail. It wasn't written from the point of view of saying "look how cool it is to play these evil sorcerers! You get to strangle 11 year old girls with their own hair!"

It certainly wasn't written from the point of view of the average Tekumel PC being the one who'd do these rituals. Whereas it seems in your game, the average magic-user has little option but to do so, unless he wants to be powerless (what with there being no regular D&D spells in the game- oh, and only 2 classes).

Also, my memory escapes me, but did Prof. Barker's original work anywhere specify the ages of the virgin sacrifices in question? Or go into detail about exactly how many times they were supposed to be raped before being murdered?

RPGPundit

M. A. R. Barker's The Book of Ebon Bindings is full of unflinching, clinical detail of human sacrifice, torture, and rape. Neither his book nor mine has the attitude of "Kewl! Blood and sex! Yeah!" Let us compare two passages from each work:

From the section on how to summon Gereshma'a, He of the Mound of Skulls (pp. 28-29 of The Book of Ebon Bindings): "In each of these three spaces let sacrifices be bound: in the northern pentagon a male human, in the western a female, and in the eastern an infant of not more than seven years...Then shall the evocator praise the Demon Lord and make the sacrifices. The infant shall be held head downward, and its belly shall be slit with the Ku'nur [the jag-edged sacrificial knife of the temple of Sarku'. When the blood is drained, the body shall be flung outside the diagramme."

From the ritual of The Primal Name of the Worm (p. 29 of Supplement V: CARCOSA): "This one-hour ritual requires the sorcerer to stand in cold, waist-deep water and to there drown a Jale male baby. He must rend the corpse with his own hands and spill the blood upon a stone taken from the phosphorescent cave in hex 0607."

From the section on how to summon Ka'ing (p. 66 of The Book of Ebon Bindings): "[T]wo of the evocators shall go to a female sacrifice, and while one engages in sexual congress with her, the other will slay her with a garrote made from her own hair. Then the other female sacrifice shall be treated in the same wise, and thereafter two female evocators shall perform the same act with the two male sacrifices, save that the garrotes shall be of the hair of the evocatresses instead."

From the ritual of Summon the Amphibious Ones (p. 31 of Supplement V: CARCOSA): "This eleven-hour ritual can be completed only on a fog-shrouded night. The sorcerer must obtain the root of potency found only in ruined apothecaries of the Snake-Men. The sacrifice is a virgin White girl eleven years old with long hair. The sorcerer, after partaking of the root, must engage in sexual congress with the sacrifice eleven times, afterwards strangling her with her own hair. As her life leaves her body, 10-100 of the Amphibious Ones will coalesce out of the mists."

(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17705/17705-h/images/133a.jpg)
"I have sent for your smelling salts my lady."

Quote from: Balbinus;257678Would I then be correct in assuming you won't be bringing out a Carcosa supplement for FtA?

You would be quite correct.

Holy shit, you know, I had worried occasionally that my writing for my own setting for FtA! (The Setting) might have some questionable stuff in it.  I go into some detail in cultural areas about the sexual mores of some of these cultures, and in a few cases they were fairly non-standard (some races in The Setting are fairly alien to man, and some places are fairly horrible by modern standards of living).

You know, stuff like "In the Bowlands among the nobility a young woman's virginity is considered sacrosanct, but its common among the peasantry for young people to fool around", or "landrest is so cosmopolitan that all varieties of romantic and sexual unions are common", or "children on the streets of diablo's point are lucky if they find their way into the Thieves' guild, the rest are usually doomed to a life of begging, petty crime, or prostitution".

But boy was I naive.  There is nothing that comes even close to the sort of shit that we've seen in the last two weeks, between Maid and now this game.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Balbinus;257694I don't like the sound of those passages, my interest though is in how much I can ignore them and still get something useful to me from it, given how fond I am of S&S material and how poorly it tends to be served.

To that point, I would speculate that you would have likely gotten more use out of it were it not to contain such passages at all.  With those passages intact, I will hazard a guess you will be unlikely to locate or retain a group if you use it as written, and one with your abilities should be able to glean as much or more from the source material with little effort.

Quote from: Balbinus;257602Just Fighting Men and Sorcerors is pretty limited, and means someone will almost certainly play a Sorceror.  Sorcerors need not be evil, but if they're not they lose most of their abilities, therefore the odds are anyone playing a Sorceror will eventually be tempted to evil (arguably a feature, not a bug).

In my home campaign some players have played wicked sorcerers. Things work out something like this:

1. The sorcerer starts searching for a way to bind a given Cthulhoid entity. After must effort, the sorcerer will learn what is required:

A. the specific time at which the ritual will work

B. the specific place at which the ritual will work

C. the material components required

D. the type of sacrifice(s) necessary for the ritual to work

Oftentimes, upon learning "D", the player will cease his quest to bind the Cthulhoid entity. Sometimes the wickedness required is too much. The price is too high. Other times, the player will procure all the necessities and perform the ritual. It plays out something like this:

Judge: The specified time for the ritual has arrived.

Player: I do everything required to perform the ritual.

That's it.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257711Oftentimes, upon learning "D", the player will cease his quest to bind the Cthulhoid entity. Sometimes the wickedness required is too much. The price is too high. Other times, the player will procure all the necessities and perform the ritual. It plays out something like this:

Judge: The specified time for the ritual has arrived.

Player: I do everything required to perform the ritual.

That's it.

So, your argument that the need to include such details is to deter players from pursuing it, or if they do, they will ignore it anyway?

Quote from: Geoffrey;257697M. A. R. Barker's The Book of Ebon Bindings is full of unflinching, clinical detail of human sacrifice, torture, and rape. Neither his book nor mine has the attitude of "Kewl! Blood and sex! Yeah!" Let us compare two passages from each work:

From the section on how to summon Gereshma'a, He of the Mound of Skulls (pp. 28-29 of The Book of Ebon Bindings): "In each of these three spaces let sacrifices be bound: in the northern pentagon a male human, in the western a female, and in the eastern an infant of not more than seven years...Then shall the evocator praise the Demon Lord and make the sacrifices. The infant shall be held head downward, and its belly shall be slit with the Ku'nur [the jag-edged sacrificial knife of the temple of Sarku'. When the blood is drained, the body shall be flung outside the diagramme."

From the ritual of The Primal Name of the Worm (p. 29 of Supplement V: CARCOSA): "This one-hour ritual requires the sorcerer to stand in cold, waist-deep water and to there drown a Jale male baby. He must rend the corpse with his own hands and spill the blood upon a stone taken from the phosphorescent cave in hex 0607."

From the section on how to summon Ka'ing (p. 66 of The Book of Ebon Bindings): "[T]wo of the evocators shall go to a female sacrifice, and while one engages in sexual congress with her, the other will slay her with a garrote made from her own hair. Then the other female sacrifice shall be treated in the same wise, and thereafter two female evocators shall perform the same act with the two male sacrifices, save that the garrotes shall be of the hair of the evocatresses instead."

From the ritual of Summon the Amphibious Ones (p. 31 of Supplement V: CARCOSA): "This eleven-hour ritual can be completed only on a fog-shrouded night. The sorcerer must obtain the root of potency found only in ruined apothecaries of the Snake-Men. The sacrifice is a virgin White girl eleven years old with long hair. The sorcerer, after partaking of the root, must engage in sexual congress with the sacrifice eleven times, afterwards strangling her with her own hair. As her life leaves her body, 10-100 of the Amphibious Ones will coalesce out of the mists."

Yeah, again, I can see where (I think) Prof. Barker was going with his book, the style of his writing being in imitation of ancient grimoires, and his book having been crafted in the context of a sophisticated fantasy world he created (tekumel) that he's famous (in the gaming world) for. As a sourcebook, not as his primary work.

You, on the other hand, have come out of nowhere, and this is the first thing you fixated on.

It feels a little like someone claiming that because there's some mention of incest in The Silmarillion (I don't remember if there is, but let's say there was, for arguments sake) then it justifies him writing elf-incest-porn on his blog.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StormBringer;257719So, your argument that the need to include such details is to deter players from pursuing it, or if they do, they will ignore it anyway?

That's part of it.

The level of detail does indeed make player characters LESS LIKELY to perform human sacrifice.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257685Personally, I have never had a good time reading campaign journals. That's why I fictionalized the account, to make it something more readable. I included the grisly detail so as to underscore just how wicked Yogthag and his band were. That makes the deaths of Yogthag and company all the more satisfying. In short, it was poetic justice. Those wicked reprobates who abused and murdered the girl got what they deserved.

To be frank, your answer seems a bit disingenuous, Geoffrey.  Most people would not find the AP more interesting or readable by your inclusion of this sort of content.  One is forced to consider the possibility that it made it more readable to you alone, which is the source of my concern.  For that matter, why include the details at all?  The same effect could have been achieved without them, and you apparently edited out the *really* questionable parts by the time I got to read it, which again makes me wonder why you included them in the first place.  Forgive me, but your explanation that it underscores poetic justice just doesn't ring true.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257685As for vile wish fulfillment fantasies, I never think that a man who imagines dark things must himself be wicked. For example, I don't think H. R. Giger must be a bad man because his art is so dark. Neither do I think that a man who imagines good and noble things must himself be righteous. It is all merely imagination.

Thoughts do not make one wicked.  Actions do.  But it is also true that those who surrender themselves to these most vile of fantasies often act out on them.  I see the results of the damage this does to children every day, and I do not take it lightly.  Neither should you.


TGA

Quote from: StormBringer;257709To that point, I would speculate that you would have likely gotten more use out of it were it not to contain such passages at all.  With those passages intact, I will hazard a guess you will be unlikely to locate or retain a group if you use it as written, and one with your abilities should be able to glean as much or more from the source material with little effort.

You may be right, at the risk of breaking the internet with this next statement, I don't know.

Quote from: RPGPundit;257721You, on the other hand, have come out of nowhere, and this is the first thing you fixated on.

Actually, only 18 out of 96 pages (or 19%) in my book describe the sorcerous rituals. It is some of the book's detractors who are fixating on it.

For that matter, in the majority of game sessions in my Carcosa campaign, no PC performs a sorcerous ritual. It's merely one aspect of the setting.

Quote from: RPGPundit;257721It feels a little like someone claiming that because there's some mention of incest in The Silmarillion (I don't remember if there is, but let's say there was, for arguments sake) then it justifies him writing elf-incest-porn on his blog.

That would be "The Children of Hurin", which Tolkien actually cribbed from Finnish mythology.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257729That's part of it.

The level of detail does indeed make player characters LESS LIKELY to perform human sacrifice.

Wouldn't it be better to expunge that kind of detail and use a more neutral description like "the ritual wracks the minds, bodies, and spirits of everyone involved in the casting, usually killing those of lesser constitution in horrible ways"?

I mean, if you are speaking out against these atrocities, it seems better to relegate those rituals to NPCs only.  They would then be the target of the PCs wrath, and lavish details wouldn't be entirely necessary.  I mean, players don't really need to be filled with actual disgust, anger, and righteous indignation to effectively play, do they?

RPGPundit: So, it's OK, if prof.Barker write sick thing, but bad if someone you dislikred o the same. Anyway, what you have written about your setting is tame, if you think, that it's "questionable" you are prude.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257740Actually, only 18 out of 96 pages (or 19%) in my book describe the sorcerous rituals. It is some of the book's detractors who are fixating on it.

For that matter, in the majority of game sessions in my Carcosa campaign, no PC performs a sorcerous ritual. It's merely one aspect of the setting.

And I am sure you pick-up Playboy for the articles.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257736But it is also true that those who surrender themselves to these most vile of fantasies often act out on them.

What does this even mean? Have you got statistics? What's 'surrendering'? Is it downloading porn, flashing at the bus stop, ogling teenage cleavage or ordering Maid? Does 'acting out' mean 'becoming a serial killer'? Or 'wanking in public'?

Quote from: Fritzs;257746RPGPundit: So, it's OK, if prof.Barker write sick thing, but bad if someone you dislikred o the same. Anyway, what you have written about your setting is tame, if you think, that it's "questionable" you are prude.

Are you drunk?

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257736To be frank, your answer seems a bit disingenuous, Geoffrey.  Most people would not find the AP more interesting or readable by your inclusion of this sort of content.  One is forced to consider the possibility that it made it more readable to you alone, which is the source of my concern.  For that matter, why include the details at all?  The same effect could have been achieved without them, and you apparently edited out the *really* questionable parts by the time I got to read it, which again makes me wonder why you included them in the first place.  Forgive me, but your explanation that it underscores poetic justice just doesn't ring true.

I 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.

Quote from: StormBringer;257744Wouldn't it be better to expunge that kind of detail and use a more neutral description like "the ritual wracks the minds, bodies, and spirits of everyone involved in the casting, usually killing those of lesser constitution in horrible ways"?

I mean, if you are speaking out against these atrocities, it seems better to relegate those rituals to NPCs only.  They would then be the target of the PCs wrath, and lavish details wouldn't be entirely necessary.  I mean, players don't really need to be filled with actual disgust, anger, and righteous indignation to effectively play, do they?

I'm not sure about that, making it vague makes it more likely to be used surely?  I can see that the detail might actually deter the in game act.

Quote from: StormBringer;257744Wouldn't it be better to expunge that kind of detail and use a more neutral description like "the ritual wracks the minds, bodies, and spirits of everyone involved in the casting, usually killing those of lesser constitution in horrible ways"?

I mean, if you are speaking out against these atrocities, it seems better to relegate those rituals to NPCs only.  They would then be the target of the PCs wrath, and lavish details wouldn't be entirely necessary.  I mean, players don't really need to be filled with actual disgust, anger, and righteous indignation to effectively play, do they?

I think that more neutral descriptions would make the PCs more likely to engage in human sacrifice. The tone of the setting necessitates making sorcery rare precisely because it is so horrific.

As a player, I personally am filled with more fire when hunting down a mass murderer and a rapist. I'd be less engaged if the DM said, "The guy did some very bad things (details undisclosed)."

Quote from: droog;257749What does this even mean? Have you got statistics? What's 'surrendering'? Is it downloading porn, flashing at the bus stop, ogling teenage cleavage or ordering Maid? Does 'acting out' mean 'becoming a serial killer'? Or 'wanking in public'?

It means that in almost very case, those who victimize children start out as it being a fantasy.  Much in the same way that those who become serial killers fantasize about killing, which then escalates to the mutilation of animals, and then escalating to the actual killing of human beings  I am not an expert by any means, but I suspect that the act of fantisazation allows for the de-humanization of the victim.  And I see a lot of this potential de-humanization in the actual play that I read, and I don't think it is a good thing.

Let me be clear: I do not believe that "bad thoughts" are the same as "bad deeds".  I do think that it must be recognized that bad thoughts do have a role in bad deeds.


TGA

Quote from: Balbinus;257737You may be right, at the risk of breaking the internet with this next statement, I don't know.

Looks like the internet is holding together for now, so I will follow up with: I look forward to reading what you discover.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257760It means that in almost very case, those who victimize children start out as it being a fantasy.  Much in the same way that those who become serial killers fantasize about killing, which then escalates to the mutilation of animals, and then escalating to the actual killing of human beings  I am not an expert by any means, but I suspect that the act of fantisazation allows for the de-humanization of the victim.  And I see a lot of this potential de-humanization in the actual play that I read, and I don't think it is a good thing.

Let me be clear: I do not believe that "bad thoughts" are the same as "bad deeds".  I do think that it must be recognized that bad thoughts do have a role in bad deeds.


TGA

I've been playing D&D since 1980. I have never seen anyone engage in violence, occultism, deviance, etc. because of his involvement with D&D or with other RPGs. The only thing some D&D players of my acquaintance have been guilty of is neglecting their homework in order to play some more D&D. :)

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257760I am not an expert by any means, but I suspect that the act of fantisazation allows for the de-humanization of the victim.  And I see a lot of this potential de-humanization in the actual play that I read, and I don't think it is a good thing.

Man, if it was that straightforward just about all the roleplayers I know would have become mass murderers by now.

You're arguing in a circle. Those who fantasise about abusing children may go on to actually abuse children. Um, sure. But there's a gaping void between sexual fantasy and playing a game which is essentially about creating fiction.

Quote from: StormBringer;257762Looks like the internet is holding together for now, so I will follow up with: I look forward to reading what you discover.

I may be more sensitive to these matters than many of my group, so we'll see where we get to.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257758I think that more neutral descriptions would make the PCs more likely to engage in human sacrifice. The tone of the setting necessitates making sorcery rare precisely because it is so horrific.

Even 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'?

QuoteAs a player, I personally am filled with more fire when hunting down a mass murderer and a rapist. I'd be less engaged if the DM said, "The guy did some very bad things (details undisclosed)."

How does 'filled with fire' help you enjoy a game more?  And is 'rends babies and rapes 11yr olds for 11 hours then murders them' distinctly more effective than 'mass murderer and child-rapist'?

Quote from: droog;257771Man, if it was that straightforward just about all the roleplayers I know would have become mass murderers by now.

You're arguing in a circle. Those who fantasise about abusing children may go on to actually abuse children. Um, sure. But there's a gaping void between sexual fantasy and playing a game which is essentially about creating fiction.

Are you not basically arguing here against someone being squicked out?

I mean, the only difference between his position and mine on that content is that I just said I wasn't personally happy with it and didn't elucidate further.  Well, that and that I might buy the game despite that particular point.

Quote from: Balbinus;257774Are you not basically arguing here against someone being squicked out?

They've had their say.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257760It means that in almost very case, those who victimize children start out as it being a fantasy.  Much in the same way that those who become serial killers fantasize about killing, which then escalates to the mutilation of animals, and then escalating to the actual killing of human beings  I am not an expert by any means, but I suspect that the act of fantisazation allows for the de-humanization of the victim.  And I see a lot of this potential de-humanization in the actual play that I read, and I don't think it is a good thing./QUOTE]

So I see several directions from this.

1) a pedophile is going to follow this progression no matter what, so it doesn't matter what content they are exposed to.
2) a pedophile may follow this progression, but if discovered early and not exposed to material that exacerbates his problem, may learn to control himself and not ever actually do the bad things.
3) a non-pedophile may actually start to become a pedophile by engaging in consumption of this pedophiliac fantasies.  
4) a non-pedophile can properly separate between fantasy and reality and distance themselves from the fantasy presented and thus won't be encouraged to act out on the fantasies.

If 1 and 4 are true, then it doesn't really matter what the content of an RPG is, in terms of actual social damage.  If 2 and 3 are true, then we should be concerned.

I suspect it's more of a range, but I don't really know.

Quote from: Balbinus;257755I'm not sure about that, making it vague makes it more likely to be used surely?  I can see that the detail might actually deter the in game act.

(I missed this one earlier)

I would say that fluff has a negligible effect on player actions when compared to mechanics.  'The ritual will cost 3d6 SAN, you will lose half your hit points, and your CON will be at 3 for two weeks'  will be a greater deterrent than the descriptions in Carcosa, which the authour admits are ignored by his own players.

Judge: The specified time for the ritual has arrived.
Player: I do everything required to perform the ritual.

Quote from: droog;257771Man, if it was that straightforward just about all the roleplayers I know would have become mass murderers by now.

What the hell are you saying here droog, you mean playing heroic fantasy does not make one heroic?

Regards,
David R

I'm so sorry David....

Quote from: walkerp1) a pedophile is going to follow this progression no matter what, so it doesn't matter what content they are exposed to.

Not 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.

Quote from: walkerp2) a pedophile may follow this progression, but if discovered early and not exposed to material that exacerbates his problem, may learn to control himself and not ever actually do the bad things.

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.

Quote from: walkerp3) a non-pedophile may actually start to become a pedophile by engaging in consumption of this pedophiliac fantasies.

One cannot become pedophile, pedophile is born taht way.

[QUOTE="walkerp]4) a non-pedophile can properly separate between fantasy and reality and distance themselves from the fantasy presented and thus won't be encouraged to act out on the fantasies.[/QUOTE]

That's true.

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

Well, all I've got to judge your intent by is a very dodgy AP thread and your first game ever published that devotes 19% of the text to gratuitous and unnecessary detail of child abuse.  Throw me a bone here, man.  Why should I believe you?  

You don't even seem all that concerned about what this makes you look like.  Can you see what part you, yourself have played in this by your frankly ham-handed presentation of the material?  You didn't even apparently properly label the original AP thread as containing objectionable material, and were later forced into editing it (god knows what details you had to remove) and giving a proper warning to readers.  When you first wrote it, didn't you realize that it would be offensive to the vast majority of the readers?  Was it simply that you were too thick to realize that this stuff is simply not acceptable to most people and you didn't think to use the ol' social editor?  Or was it that you, personally, don't consider the material offensive and were caught by surprise by the reaction?  Do you think that this negative reaction is groundless?

I apologize for sounding harsh, but just level with us about how you see the material.  Obviously, you consider it appropriate for your game table, which is your right, but why do you think this level of detail is appropriate for a published product, and for public actual play discussion?  And I don't buy your "you have to know the depths of their evil to feel good about their deaths" argument.  That can be done without the gratuitous detail, and you know it.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257754I 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.

If that is your intent, then why make it explicitly about PC actions?  You designed the game so that players can specifically participate in these things.  If this is all about the just desserts of evil, then why make the Sorceror a PC class at all.  By protagonizing this class, you have defeated your stated purpose.


TGA

Quote from: StormBringer;257778(I missed this one earlier)

I would say that fluff has a negligible effect on player actions when compared to mechanics.  'The ritual will cost 3d6 SAN, you will lose half your hit points, and your CON will be at 3 for two weeks'  will be a greater deterrent than the descriptions in Carcosa, which the authour admits are ignored by his own players.

Judge: The specified time for the ritual has arrived.
Player: I do everything required to perform the ritual.

You may well be right, certainly mechanics require less effort on the GM's part than fluff.

I once stopped PCs lynching a bad guy merely by describing the scene in detail and making him pathetic.  It worked well, but it was a lot more work than saying "you'll each take 1d6 san if you go through with this".  I mean, on that occasion it was worth the work, but it was more work.

Quote from: droog;257771Man, if it was that straightforward just about all the roleplayers I know would have become mass murderers by now.

You're arguing in a circle. Those who fantasise about abusing children may go on to actually abuse children. Um, sure. But there's a gaping void between sexual fantasy and playing a game which is essentially about creating fiction.

You re correct, droog.  I am not an expert on the subject.  It is obviously too complex a topic to be covered in an Internet discussion forum with any justice, and I apologize.  

I will only say that the content of the actual play and the game throw up some red flags in my, non-expert, mind.


TGA

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

Insert "I didn't play D&D for all those years without learning a little something about courage" joke here, right?   ;)

TGA

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257787Well, all I've got to judge your intent by is a very dodgy AP thread and your first game ever published that devotes 19% of the text to gratuitous and unnecessary detail of child abuse.  Throw me a bone here, man.  Why should I believe you?  

You don't even seem all that concerned about what this makes you look like.  Can you see what part you, yourself have played in this by your frankly ham-handed presentation of the material?  You didn't even apparently properly label the original AP thread as containing objectionable material, and were later forced into editing it (god knows what details you had to remove) and giving a proper warning to readers.  When you first wrote it, didn't you realize that it would be offensive to the vast majority of the readers?  Was it simply that you were too thick to realize that this stuff is simply not acceptable to most people and you didn't think to use the ol' social editor?  Or was it that you, personally, don't consider the material offensive and were caught by surprise by the reaction?  Do you think that this negative reaction is groundless?

Most 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.

For my part, I have no interest in persecuting anyone for what they think.

The moment they actually write something (publicly), however, they've gone beyond just "thinking". I'm not for persecuting anyone for what they think or even how they feel; I am for persecuting anyone who takes the action of writing certain thoughts out in the format of my hobby, and tries to present these thoughts as a part of the hobby.

Because then that directly impacts me. So damn right I'll do something about it.

RPGPundit

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

Drohem: I've been told this by people who know far ore about it, than me or you... you know, psychologists, policemans, podophiles...

Pedophilia is diagnosis, not crome, child molesing is crime.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo damn right I'll do something about it.

Yeah... enjoy the feeling of being totaly powerless.

Quote from: Fritzs;257836Drohem: I've been told this by people who know far ore about it, than me or you... you know, psychologists, policemans, podophiles...

Pedophilia is diagnosis, not crome, child molesing is crime.

Yes, you really are that stupid.

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.

Are you just fucked in the head? Seriously....

CavScout: Once again: Pedophilia=/=child molesing. Pedophilia is diagnosis. Only about 2-10% of child molesitng cases are commited by molesters diagnosed as pedophiles.

Quote from: Fritzs;257848CavScout: Once again: Pedophilia=/=child molesing. Pedophilia is diagnosis. Only about 2-10% of child molesitng cases are commited by molesters diagnosed as pedophiles.

Please, continue to tell us how pedophiles love children, and hence aren't as bad as we think, and that only child molesters deserve our scorn. Jesus man... you actually said that since pedophiles love children they can't rape them!

Quote from: Geoffrey;257754I 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.

Then you showed poor taste and judgement. Millions of Lovecraft readers didn't need explicit details to hate and fear Yog-Sothoth. 'Unflinching' details are neither brave nor necessary; they're aesthetically gratuitous and they appeal only to those who have crude or jaded sensibilities.

Quote from: CavScoutand hence aren’t as bad as we think

You are born as pedophile... you can use medication to lower the sex urge, you can use cognitive behavioral  and, belive it or not, even roleplaying therapies to become... not a tread to society and kids. And you can alleways castrate yourself, chemicaly for limited pamout of time, or mechanicaly forever. So, pedophiles aren't demons in the disguise of humans. Rather people with very big problem to deal with.

Quote from: CavScoutyou actually said that since pedophiles love children they can’t rape them!

Would you rape someone you love...? OK, yes, there is some chance, but the chance that you will choose random victim or someone you loathe is far greater.

Quote from: Fritzs;257866Would you rape someone you love...? OK, yes, there is some chance, but the chance that you will choose random victim or someone you loathe is far greater.

I wouldn't rape someone, love or not. Your rationalization for accepting pedophiles [is] fucked.

Fritzs, you've argued yourself into a corner that you can't defend.

Bite the bullet, accept, just this once, that you've lost the argument, and move on. Winning an argument isn't worth the gymnastics you're involved in.

Quote from: Fritzs;257836Drohem: I've been told this by people who know far ore about it, than me or you... you know, psychologists, policemans, podophiles...

Your statements go against pretty much everything I've ever heard from psychologists or police professionals, though I'm not surprised to hear pedophiles make that argument.

There's a reason sex offenders aren't allowed to view pornographic material when they are in prison / on parole.

Quote from: Fritzs;257866You are born as pedophile... you can use medication to lower the sex urge, you can use cognitive behavioral  and, belive it or not, even roleplaying therapies to become... not a tread to society and kids. And you can alleways castrate yourself, chemicaly for limited pamout of time, or mechanicaly forever. So, pedophiles aren't demons in the disguise of humans. Rather people with very big problem to deal with.



Would you rape someone you love...? OK, yes, there is some chance, but the chance that you will choose random victim or someone you loathe is far greater.

Castration is not a cure.  

Yes, pedophiles are demons in human guise.

Yes, pedophiles rape those that they claim to love.

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

In fact, you are.  If you are not a party to these rituals, by the authour's admission, you are restricted from casting the spells that permit interaction with the game world.

It is precisely the same as getting a group together, then relaying to them that in order to cast a fireball for the day, you have to rape two children, then burn them to death.  If you don't partake of such rituals, you won't be able to cast any spell above 2nd level.

Quote from: Drohem;257880Castration is not a cure.  

Yes, pedophiles are demons in human guise.

Yes, pedophiles rape those that they claim to love.

Terrorists, too!

Quote from: walkerp;257896Terrorists, too!

I fail to see your point.  I made no remarks regarding terrorists.

Quote from: Drohem;257897I fail to see your point.  I made no remarks regarding terrorists.

Both examples of the kind of emotion-based reasoning that ends up hurting people a lot worse than the actual danger.

When you say things like pedophiles are demons in human form, it's clear that you are not paying attention to details of vocabulary or the complexities of psychology that are being put forth and instead just feel like spewing out a bunch of righteous fire.

Quote from: David R;257834Stormbringer, 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

Part of it is a simple plea to focus on what is good about human nature.  But I believe that the focus on our darker parts causes some psychological trauma, the least of which is cognitive dissonance between our essentially good nature, and the darkness we all struggle against.  If we only look to our darker natures, the good parts become anemic and atrophy, until even mundane thoughts bend away from others to ourselves alone.  Seeking the least of our own gratifications or avoidance of the smallest of inconveniences becomes the impetus for the banal malfeasance we perpetrate every day.  Cutting someone off in traffic to gain those few extra seconds at the next light, watching someone belittle their spouse with morbid fascination, walking past someone obviously struggling with too many bags of groceries to hear the bags scatter across the parking lot...  All the while congratulating ourselves for not driving so slowly, or for staying out of other people's business, or for not being so stupid with our own grocieres.

I guess you aren't finding a point to discuss because I don't really have one.  Just a statement of belief, as to why, aside from the content itself, I think these kinds of games are damaging to us all.  We can recognize the darkness, we can examine its boundries; when we start to delve into it too deeply, we risk losing sight of our better selves.  We carry the attitude with us for the rest of the day, or the rest of the week.  Sometimes, for the rest of our lives.

Quote from: jgantsThere's a reason sex offenders aren't allowed to view pornographic material when they are in prison / on parole.

Yes, there is some therapy for them I have no idea if it involves watching porn or not but probably not... Well, there is some difference between being imprisoned and being free, but with deviant urges you really don't want to fulfil.

Quote from: DrohemCastration is not a cure.

Why...? It removes the problem, like, let's say amputating leg with carcer. of course on could argue that only sure way to solve the porblem oce and for all is placing hole in pedophiles head using bullet. Anyway that's what demons in disguise of humans deserve, isn't it...?

So, if you are ever diagnosed, or diagnose yourself as pedophile, should you do your citizen duty and kill yourself, because you are not human...?

Quote from: walkerp;257898Both examples of the kind of emotion-based reasoning that ends up hurting people a lot worse than the actual danger.

When you say things like pedophiles are demons in human form, it's clear that you are not paying attention to details of vocabulary or the complexities of psychology that are being put forth and instead just feel like spewing out a bunch of righteous fire.

What "details of vocabulary or the complexities of psychology that are being put forth" are you talking about?  I've seen nothing of sort here thus far.

My comment that pedophiles are demons in human guise was not meant literally, if that's what you are thinking.  I am no religious zealot.  I do not believe in the Judo-Christian God.

However, it was born out of righteous fire.  My grandfather molested myself, my mother, my uncle, my little brother, and my little sister.  He even molested a 12-year-old distant cousin when he went home to visit before he died in his mid-seventies.  It boggles my mind that someone would make the claim that pedophiles don't rape children because they love them.  My grandfather claimed to love all of us in his family, yet he destroyed all these lives in one way or another be raping us.

Quote from: Drohem;257906What "details of vocabulary or the complexities of psychology that are being put forth" are you talking about?  I've seen nothing of sort here thus far.

My comment that pedophiles are demons in human guise was not meant literally, if that's what you are thinking.  I am no religious zealot.  I do not believe in the Judo-Christian God.

However, it was born out of righteous fire.  My grandfather molested myself, my mother, my uncle, my little brother, and my little sister.  He even molested a 12-year-old distant cousin when he went home to visit before he died in his mid-seventies.  It boggles my mind that someone would make the claim that pedophiles don't rape children because they love them.  My grandfather claimed to love all of us in his family, yet he destroyed all these lives in one way or another be raping us.

Your grandfather was a child-molester and a rapist.  He was also a pedophile.  The former is a smaller subset of the latter.  A pedophile is a much larger group and while probably mostly morally reprehensible, not necessarily all violent rapists.  That's what I'm talking about when I mean details of vocabulary.  It's the point Fritzs was trying to make.

There are pedophiles who have desires to rape children but have not done so.  What do we do with them?

Quote from: SoulBringerwe risk losing sight of our better selves.

I don't risk anything, I have no better self, I am pure destiled evil in human form.

Quote from: Fritzs;257905Why...? It removes the problem, like, let's say amputating leg with carcer. of course on could argue that only sure way to solve the porblem oce and for all is placing hole in pedophiles head using bullet. Anyway that's what demons in disguise of humans deserve, isn't it...?

Castration does not remove the problem.

Quote from: walkerp;257908That's what I'm talking about when I mean details of vocabulary.  It's the point Fritzs was trying to make.

There are pedophiles who have desires to rape children but have not done so.  What do we do with them?

There was no sophistication or subtly of vocabulary in the point that Fritz was trying to make.  

In reference to your last question and Fritzs' last post, I think that you can already guess my answer.

Quote from: Drohem;257919Castration does not remove the problem.

From what I understand, this is true.  It can actually exacerbate the problem as the psychological urge is still there, but not the physical outlet.  So the outlet can turn to other behaviours like physical cruelty.  It's a bad scene all around.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257769I've been playing D&D since 1980. I have never seen anyone engage in violence, occultism, deviance, etc. because of his involvement with D&D or with other RPGs. The only thing some D&D players of my acquaintance have been guilty of is neglecting their homework in order to play some more D&D. :)

Yes, I don't buy at all the idea that this material will make anyone "go bad" who wasn't already bad.  The problem is that what it can do is attract some of those "already bad" to the hobby, by suggesting that here we think that kind of stuff is normal and acceptable.

RPGPundit

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?

Oh, Jesus Fuck.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Drohem;257880Yes, pedophiles are demons in human guise.

Drohem, let's be careful not to go to the other extreme here; Fritzs' going to one extreme of stupidity in his statements is not dealt with by going to another extreme of stupidity.

RPGPundit

EDIT: With all due respect to your experiences, and I'm sorry to hear about them; and I can understand why you'd have very strong negative feelings about them (and no doubt about games like this one or Maid that feature this stuff, however peripherally or not).  Still, you get no where by suggesting that this issue is not an issue of humanity.  Fritzs' statement was the height of stupidity and worth ridiculing; and given your experiences I can understand why your first reaction might have been to write what you wrote, but that just opens the door for the apologists out there to make all kinds of ongoing stupid statements in their "favour".

Quote from: RPGPundit;257929Drohem, let's be careful not to go to the other extreme here; Fritzs' going to one extreme of stupidity in his statements is not dealt with by going to another extreme of stupidity.

RPGPundit

Yeah, I hear you.  As I explained to Walkerp, that was not meant literally, or from any religious-based point of view.  That response mirrored the stupidity of the original statement.

I tried really hard to stay out of the Maid discussion regarding children and sex.  However, the statements made by Fritz here were just so incrediblely stupid that I could not bite my tongue any longer on the subject.

Quote from: Fritzs;257909I don't risk anything, I have no better self, I am pure destiled evil in human form.

After seeing you ride to the defense of pedophiles everywhere, I don't doubt it.

I wrote this on the DF boards:

Quote from: jfallEither way, what's most intriguing to me is the fact that people are so diametrically opposed over something as fringe as a game "supplement". It's crazy!

I think that Geoffrey has every right to publish what he likes. Buy it or don't, that's your right. At least that's the way it "used" to work in the good ol U.S. of A.

Personally though, threatening Geoff with posts that claim he might be persecuted legally by shipping his product across state lines is repugnant. It's plain crazy.

Criticize the work if you like, but don't demonize the author.

A bit of cuts and this is what I think.

Another guy said:

QuoteI'll say it for the record: Geoffrey... you are a disgusting, mentally ill excuse for a human being for which no punishment is too severe. You're hiding behind the curtain of "fiction" in order to write about some pretty sick . I want nothing to do with you in any form whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I'm thinking of pointing the FBI your direction and see what their reaction might be to the whole matter. In any case, legal or no, you've ceased to exist as a homo sapien in my book.

I think that this is pre-jugding someone with no proof. Pointing fingers is also bad, and inmmoral, more if based just on some review of an RPG product.

I'm a Catholic and though I may not share those particular lines of the supplement, I don't think I'm in the position of condemning someone and set me up as a superior moral person, because I'm probally not. The product also has a lot more than this passages, and it's very good game material. Each is responsible for what he o she uses in his own campaing. Do not set yourself as the police of what should or not should be published in an RPG product and mind your own morals.

Geoffrey has been a very nice, polite, civil and friendly member of our community. I think he at least deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Quote from: Balbinus;257788You may well be right, certainly mechanics require less effort on the GM's part than fluff.

I once stopped PCs lynching a bad guy merely by describing the scene in detail and making him pathetic.  It worked well, but it was a lot more work than saying "you'll each take 1d6 san if you go through with this".  I mean, on that occasion it was worth the work, but it was more work.

Certainly, this sounds like an occasion where the effort in making up the fluff paid off in spades.

I would assume that Frodo didn't fail his sans pitie check or some Pendragon-like Passion roll to stay his hand in killing Gollum, for example.  It was the wretchedness of the creature that prevented him from being killed; by all accounts, it would have been justified, but Frodo's (Bilbo's, Gandalf's, &c.) basic nature prevented him from doing so, a point made by your group as well.

Quote from: CavScout;257975After seeing you ride to the defense of pedophiles everywhere, I don't doubt it.

I don't know, I think maybe Fritz is just really, really naive.  I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But it's difficult...

I've got a question for Geoffrey about his methodology for the spells under discussion, if he's willing to answer it.

Was it necessary to make them graphic and thus controversial content? RPGs like Call of Cthulhu have had rituals that summoned and bound Lovecraftian Horrors without going into graphic detail about the rituals themselves to dissuade PCs from using them, instead using other game mechanics to show the cost of such rituals to the PC casting them. So why did you decide to go for the controversial content?

Quote from: jgants;257987I don't know, I think maybe Fritz is just really, really naive.  I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But it's difficult...

He seems to have to much "research" into the subject to claim the mantle of naiveté.

Quote from: jeff37923;257993I've got a question for Geoffrey about his methodology for the spells under discussion, if he's willing to answer it.

Was it necessary to make them graphic and thus controversial content? RPGs like Call of Cthulhu have had rituals that summoned and bound Lovecraftian Horrors without going into graphic detail about the rituals themselves to dissuade PCs from using them, instead using other game mechanics to show the cost of such rituals to the PC casting them. So why did you decide to go for the controversial content?

What I don't get is this plus the aspect, as I understand it, that it all but encourage PCs to engage in the acts if they want to progress in power.

Quote from: CavScout;258000What I don't get is this plus the aspect, as I understand it, that it all but encourage PCs to engage in the acts if they want to progress in power.

I hadn't caught on to that, but it does make a good question. Why put spells or rituals that you want to dissuade players from using in a setting that requires them to do so to advance in power in the game?

Quote from: jeff37923;258005I hadn't caught on to that, but it does make a good question. Why put spells or rituals that you want to dissuade players from using in a setting that requires them to do so to advance in power in the game?

His "explanation" of I did it so player would be encouraged to participate rings hollow to me. If you, as the game designer, didn't want players to participate you would have made it NPC only.

I am preparing my Carcosa campaign.   I will post about it next week.   If this makes you seethe with outrage, please visit the Dragonsfoot review forum to see the message I left for you.

I like the book and the author has been open on his blog and his forum posts regarding why he made the choices he made.   I disagree with some of the author's choices and I will be altering them for my campaign.   Oh, there will be blood, but no rape of children.   Will vile sorcerers throw babies into snake pits?  Hell yeah.  Will there be in-game, story-motivated repercussions for PC sorcerers who throw babies into snake pits?  Double hell yeah.

I like that most of the rituals require human sacrifice.  It draws the line sharply between Good and Evil in a world where these concepts do not exist.  In Carcosa, there is only those who seek power, those who are preyed upon and a miniscule few who stand righteously.

Magic is evil in Sword and Sorcery tales.  In Carcosa, you can be a righteous Sorcerer and never murder anyone by only doing Rituals of Banishing.   Banishing is a major achievement because it rids the world of one of the Cthulhoid horrors and invoking them back to Carcosa is a dangerous effort.  Most invoking rituals put the sorcerer in grave peril.

You could easily play a group of sword swinging warriors and a Lawful sorcerer devoted to making Carcosa safe for Men.  You could travel the world slaying any sorcerer devoted to Chaos and destroying every last vestige of the Snake Men and thus end the tyranny of the Old Ones...or would the heroes become tempted by the sweet lure of power?  

The fact that there are only two classes and one race is liberating.   Carcosa is a world like our own where humans have different skin colors and some people may declare attributes associated with that skin color.  However, the rules are clear than no skin color race gets any mechanical difference...except Bone Men are kinda creepy and folktales assume Jale Men are adept at sorcery.  

As for two classes, the Sorcerer comes with a big decision for the player...and the other players as well.  As for the Fighting Man, having one non-Sorcerer class means players need to take a moment to non-mechanically differentiate his character.   And isn't that exactly the Old School ethos of chargen?

Quote from: Geoffrey;257617I'm the author.

1. The level of grisly detail of my book is exactly that of M. A. R. Barker's The Book of Ebon Bindings. Any line that has been crossed was already crossed by Prof. Barker 30 years ago.

3. No one at my table has ever gone into detail on human sacrifice during the game.

Thanks for stopping by and fielding questions in this thread. Threads like this and your site have been helpful in making up my mind re: Carcosa.

1) I already covered this on the old DF thread so no need to rehash here, except to say that we disagree on Barker's level of detail & tone esp. re: yours.
3) the group I play Tekumel with, who would be the group I'd potentially buy this for, is very very immersive. The combination of for PCs + detail & subject matter -> No go, no way.

As for me personally, I wish that you had instead chosen to go with the style of your editing of the AP thread over on DF, perhaps even more edited than that. Even if Carcosa is in many ways a campaign notebook. It's your product so your choice to make, but my money to choose not to spend on Carcosa.

Quote from: StormBringer;257902I guess you aren't finding a point to discuss because I don't really have one.  Just a statement of belief, as to why, aside from the content itself, I think these kinds of games are damaging to us all.  We can recognize the darkness, we can examine its boundries; when we start to delve into it too deeply, we risk losing sight of our better selves.  We carry the attitude with us for the rest of the day, or the rest of the week.  Sometimes, for the rest of our lives.

I mentioned one of my players in the "Fragile" thread. He would agree with you. And I don't think you are alone in this belief. I don't however share it. I can appreciate the reasons why it is brought up in conversations like these, but like I said to TGA, it's dodgy too refutable nature , just muddies the waters and detracts from the overall point of the discussion - the merit or lack there of, of the work in question. Better to concentrate on the objectionable nature of the content itself, than apply such "beliefs" to the nature of escapism. Suffice to say, I know many people who are attracted to the darker aspects of human nature as expressed in various mediums, but who themselves are not "corrupted" or influenced by their choice of entertainment, as to the way they see the world and their role/responsibility in it.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;258015I mentioned one of my players in the "Fragile" thread. He would agree with you. And I don't think you are alone in this belief. I don't however share it. I can appreciate the reasons why it is brought up in conversations like these, but like I said to TGA, it's dodgy too refutable nature , just muddies the waters and detracts from the overall point of the discussion - the merit or lack there of, of the work in question. Better to concentrate on the objectionable nature of the content itself, than apply such "beliefs" to the nature of escapism. Suffice to say, I know many people who are attracted to the darker aspects of human nature as expressed in various mediums, but who themselves are not "corrupted" or influenced by their choice of entertainment, as to the way they see the world and their role/responsibility in it.

Regards,
David R

Understood, and thanks for clarifying your position.

I'm not advocating the view that someone's first trip into Hot Topic is an irreversible slide into drugs, devil worship, and debauchery.  If you multiply the little jabs and pokes people take at each other all day by the number of people interacting, say, 3billion at any given time, well, I think the root cause of human misery isn't hard to find.

Of course, there are some truly wicked people on the local level and on the national stage, but I think they already stand outside the normal flow of ill-will circulating among people.  Although, they can be considered part of the current, for sure.

Anyway, I agree that the content itself is reprehensible without my maudlin ramblings as re-inforcement, so hopefully that hasn't coloured anyone's opinion of my argument overmuch.

Quote from: RPGPundit;257681Yeah, except that I've seen the Book of Ebon Bindings. It was a supplement, basically a spellbook, written as an imitation of a "Sorcerous Grimoire" in an almost academic level of detail.

Link to cover image of BoEB (http://www.tekumel.com/tita/images/BookEbonL.jpg)

From the (red or black depending on edition) cover with gold sigils on it's the faux Necronomicon of Tekumel and Tahb'n's ;) Change Demon Guide. There would have been a corresponding book on the other side of the Tekumel orthodox pantheon (http://www.tekumel.com/world_gods.html), for Demons of Stability, The Book of Ivory somethings but it's never been published and AFAIK never been written. Demons in this case meaning extra-dimensional (and/or alien) beings, Stability being roughly equivalent to Law, Change (which the BoEB covers) being roughly equivalent to Chaos. Though certainly there are plenty that we would call demonic, on both sides.

But this being Tekumel both sides co-exist with open strife being forbidden for centuries. The typical Change worshiper is pretty much the same as any human on Tekumel and are more concerned about their family, taxes and job than anything else. The typical Change spell caster, NPC or PC, (most priests do not cast spells), even if they cast spells using rituals instead of just drawing on spell power, would not use the rituals in BoEB nor have the ability (or knowledge) to even attempt casting them. BoEB is bigtime Summon Thing Most Likely Best Not Summoned Even If You Want To / Have To stuff. Inner circle high level temple spells. You do not fire up one of these spells or need one of these demons on hand to cast Tekumel's equivalent of Fireball, Create Undead or planar travel.

BoEB is Tekumel 301+ stuff IMO & has a mature statement on the back cover (and interior IIRC). There are no rules and even the stated demon powers are undefined in the book. Where they are defined elsewhere (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=1918&it=1&filters=0_0_0&manufacturers_id=57) it's along the lines of:

Quote from: Tekumel Demonic Powers PDFOBNUBILATION beclouding a region so as to cause a fearsome gloom
REFLUENCE causing time to flow backwards
RENDERING reducing a victim to a dry and desiccated shell removing all of the body fluids and fat
TRANSPORTATION taking a person from location to another even across planes

Things I learned from this thread:

1. Fritzs gives Eurotrash a bad name.

2. droog invokes Flaubert, pure Comedy Gold.

3. El and Pundy are spot on re. BoEB.

4. So the Dragonsfoot "AP" post was heavily edited. That's enough for me--I won't get Carcosa, which is a damn shame because it does otherwise sound like one of the coolest D&D settings ever written.

5. I shouldn't have included the Edwards reference. I almost didn't because I *knew* the fucker would post exactly what he did:

Quote from: RPGPundit;257675So he's a Forger after all??!

Oh, that's rich.

And he was "inspired" by Edwards' Sorceror?
Motherfucking case-closed, bitches! :cool:

RPGPundit

Quote from: StormBringer;257985Certainly, this sounds like an occasion where the effort in making up the fluff paid off in spades.

I would assume that Frodo didn't fail his sans pitie check or some Pendragon-like Passion roll to stay his hand in killing Gollum, for example.  It was the wretchedness of the creature that prevented him from being killed; by all accounts, it would have been justified, but Frodo's (Bilbo's, Gandalf's, &c.) basic nature prevented him from doing so, a point made by your group as well.

He was an old guy who'd pretended to be a shaman in an RQ game, because the PCs trusted him a valued but badly wounded ally died, who they could otherwise have got to safety.  He was just a fraudster, taking money for minor cures, who got in over his head.

When they went back for him he cried and wet himself from fear, they had to pull him out of his hut with him begging the whole way.  In the end, they couldn't do it, despite the fact he had by the laws and customs of the land merited the penalty and he had caused a good man's death.  There was a big in character argument, it produced some good roleplaying.

It's not something I'd usually bother with, normally I'd just have the guy whacked and go on to the next scene (in a heroic fantasy type game obviously), but I thought for once it would be cool to make it a bit more tragic than that, for a change of pace.  Also, I figured it could work with an old fake shaman dude, whereas the "the kobolds all have babys, do you kill them too you babykillers?" thing some GMs pull just pisses me off.  "Dude, I'm playing a heroic fantasy game, kobolds don't have fucking babies or if they do they're offscreen."

Not remotely relevant to this thread though.

The setting really needs a thief or rogue class too.  S&S classically has three character types, not two.  Warrior (Fahfrd, Conan), Rogue (Grey Mouser, Cugel), sorceror (bad guys I'm too tired to remember and Elric).

Quote from: Spinachcat;258009I am preparing my Carcosa campaign.   I will post about it next week.   If this makes you seethe with outrage, please visit the Dragonsfoot review forum to see the message I left for you.

I reserve the right to be outraged in the forum of my choice.

Will you write it up in the Craft of Gameplay forum, yeah?  I'd be curious to hear how it works for you in practice.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257740Actually, only 18 out of 96 pages (or 19%) in my book describe the sorcerous rituals. It is some of the book's detractors who are fixating on it.

If I took a shit on your couch, only 5% of your couch will have my shit on it. But you will still refrain from sitting anywhere on the couch, I would think, and you would probably not invite me back to your house.

"It's only some of the couch's detractors who are fixating on the shit on it."

Get back in your basket, Bilal.

Honestly, I prefer the term Couchshitter to Lawncrapper. After all the former is used pretty often in gaming.

Edit: Then we can throw around the generic, he's a Cocksmock Couchshitter, which should explain it all.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Spinachcat;258009I am preparing my Carcosa campaign.   I will post about it next week.   If this makes you seethe with outrage, please visit the Dragonsfoot review forum to see the message I left for you.

I like the book and the author has been open on his blog and his forum posts regarding why he made the choices he made.   I disagree with some of the author's choices and I will be altering them for my campaign.   Oh, there will be blood, but no rape of children.   Will vile sorcerers throw babies into snake pits?  Hell yeah.  Will there be in-game, story-motivated repercussions for PC sorcerers who throw babies into snake pits?  Double hell yeah.

I like that most of the rituals require human sacrifice.  It draws the line sharply between Good and Evil in a world where these concepts do not exist.  In Carcosa, there is only those who seek power, those who are preyed upon and a miniscule few who stand righteously.

Magic is evil in Sword and Sorcery tales.  In Carcosa, you can be a righteous Sorcerer and never murder anyone by only doing Rituals of Banishing.   Banishing is a major achievement because it rids the world of one of the Cthulhoid horrors and invoking them back to Carcosa is a dangerous effort.  Most invoking rituals put the sorcerer in grave peril.

You could easily play a group of sword swinging warriors and a Lawful sorcerer devoted to making Carcosa safe for Men.  You could travel the world slaying any sorcerer devoted to Chaos and destroying every last vestige of the Snake Men and thus end the tyranny of the Old Ones...or would the heroes become tempted by the sweet lure of power?  

The fact that there are only two classes and one race is liberating.   Carcosa is a world like our own where humans have different skin colors and some people may declare attributes associated with that skin color.  However, the rules are clear than no skin color race gets any mechanical difference...except Bone Men are kinda creepy and folktales assume Jale Men are adept at sorcery.  

As for two classes, the Sorcerer comes with a big decision for the player...and the other players as well.  As for the Fighting Man, having one non-Sorcerer class means players need to take a moment to non-mechanically differentiate his character.   And isn't that exactly the Old School ethos of chargen?

Well put. Let's take as an example your "group of sword swinging warriors and a Lawful sorcerer devoted to making Carcosa safe for Men." Imagine that this group is striving to defeat some Cthulhoid entity and CANNOT do so without sorcery. Further suppose that the material components to dispel that entity are impossible to procure in short order. Then suppose the Lawful sorcerer comes across a ritual to bind that particular Cthulhoid entity, BUT it requires the sacrifice of six Blue Men.

It raises a quandary. The sorcerer doesn't want to sacrifice innocents, but if he doesn't the Cthulhoid horror will kill a LOT more than six men. So do the ends justify the means? Will he kill six innocents to save 6,000 from Cthulhu?

I think it makes for an interesting game.

Quote from: jeff37923;257993I've got a question for Geoffrey about his methodology for the spells under discussion, if he's willing to answer it.

Was it necessary to make them graphic and thus controversial content? RPGs like Call of Cthulhu have had rituals that summoned and bound Lovecraftian Horrors without going into graphic detail about the rituals themselves to dissuade PCs from using them, instead using other game mechanics to show the cost of such rituals to the PC casting them. So why did you decide to go for the controversial content?

When I first started preparing the book earlier this year, I experimented with presenting the sorcerous rituals devoid of anything that has caused controversy. But they seemed thin and weak to me. My gut told me to present them as published.

Quote from: jeff37923;258005Why put spells or rituals that you want to dissuade players from using in a setting that requires them to do so to advance in power in the game?

I like the dilemmas it poses. On Carcosa, all too often the price of sorcerous power is the loss of one's own humanity. A sorcerer has to weigh the potential gain in power against the danger to his own life and to his own humanity.

Quote from: Spinachcat;258009I am preparing my Carcosa campaign.   I will post about it next week.   If this makes you seethe with outrage, please visit the Dragonsfoot review forum to see the message I left for you.

I think that your challenge to those of us disturbed by this product to do something positive and donate to the charities you mentioned is an excellent one!  Maybe something positive will come out of this mess. Perhaps Geoffrey will also agree to donate some or all of the profit derived from Carcosa to one of those worthy charities.  It would go along way to allaying some of the concerns that some people have about his motivations.

How about it Geoffrey?

Quote from: Spinachcat;258009I like the book and the author has been open on his blog and his forum posts regarding why he made the choices he made.   I disagree with some of the author's choices and I will be altering them for my campaign.   Oh, there will be blood, but no rape of children.   Will vile sorcerers throw babies into snake pits?  Hell yeah.  Will there be in-game, story-motivated repercussions for PC sorcerers who throw babies into snake pits?  Double hell yeah.

I like that most of the rituals require human sacrifice.  It draws the line sharply between Good and Evil in a world where these concepts do not exist.  In Carcosa, there is only those who seek power, those who are preyed upon and a miniscule few who stand righteously.

Magic is evil in Sword and Sorcery tales.  In Carcosa, you can be a righteous Sorcerer and never murder anyone by only doing Rituals of Banishing.   Banishing is a major achievement because it rids the world of one of the Cthulhoid horrors and invoking them back to Carcosa is a dangerous effort.  Most invoking rituals put the sorcerer in grave peril.

You could easily play a group of sword swinging warriors and a Lawful sorcerer devoted to making Carcosa safe for Men.  You could travel the world slaying any sorcerer devoted to Chaos and destroying every last vestige of the Snake Men and thus end the tyranny of the Old Ones...or would the heroes become tempted by the sweet lure of power?

That is the real tragedy of this situation.  I agree with Melan when he said that what could have been an outstanding Sword & Sorcery product was ruined by the totally unnecessary inclusion of material the author should have known would draw sharp criticism.  Again, all for no reason.

I am a huge fan of S&S.  It is my default genre for fantasy roleplay. I have written articles about it (and posted them on this forum) which in no way shied away from the sometimes dark themes that are integral to this genre.  Playing amoral characters doesn't bother me, playing "evil" characters doesn't bother me, but the elements that Geoffrey consciously decided to include for no reason that he has cared to share with us do bother me.

If he would have left out the gratuitous details I would have been a customer. I am still very curious as to his plans for any changes to his product, if any, in light of this, surprising to him, negative reaction to it.


TGA

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;258085If he would have left out the gratuitous details I would have been a customer. I am still very curious as to his plans for any changes to his product, if any, he plans in light of this, surprising to him, negative reaction to it.

I hope there aren't any changes besides a strong warning that it is too strong and morally offensive for many readers. I haven't got a copy yet, but from everything I've read it looks like a great OD&D supplement with a lot of good ideas. Would I play it exactly as written? No -- but then few play OD&D exactly as written. It's an RPG toolkit, not a RPG bible.

If I run a campaign based on this, the PCs would be good guys out to stop the evil sorcerers and resist the temptation to "turn evil" bit by bit in the process (all for the immediate good, of course).  The descriptions of rituals sound like great motivation to stop such rituals before they start. While I would not graphically act them out in game, players researching what some perverted sorcerer is trying to do would probably run across them in musty books. But then I only game with mature, adult players and could care less what influence my campaigns might have on impressionable youth as I don't run campaigns for impressionable youths.

QuoteI like the dilemmas it poses. On Carcosa, all too often the price of sorcerous power is the loss of one's own humanity. A sorcerer has to weigh the potential gain in power against the danger to his own life and to his own humanity.

OTOH, in REAL LIFE you should weigh the ego massage value of publishing your personal porn against the danger of losing your reputation as a sane human being.

Quote from: Geoffrey;258082I like the dilemmas it poses. On Carcosa, all too often the price of sorcerous power is the loss of one's own humanity. A sorcerer has to weigh the potential gain in power against the danger to his own life and to his own humanity.

What mechanic are you using to track this humanity loss?

Quote from: Geoffrey;258076Well put. Let's take as an example your "group of sword swinging warriors and a Lawful sorcerer devoted to making Carcosa safe for Men." Imagine that this group is striving to defeat some Cthulhoid entity and CANNOT do so without sorcery. Further suppose that the material components to dispel that entity are impossible to procure in short order. Then suppose the Lawful sorcerer comes across a ritual to bind that particular Cthulhoid entity, BUT it requires the sacrifice of six Blue Men.

It raises a quandary. The sorcerer doesn't want to sacrifice innocents, but if he doesn't the Cthulhoid horror will kill a LOT more than six men. So do the ends justify the means? Will he kill six innocents to save 6,000 from Cthulhu?

I think it makes for an interesting game.

So what this means is that all that noise about these rituals being so graphic and horrific so that players could understand viscerally just how villainous the villains were and have that much more desire to defeat them was a smokescreen and the real point of the graphic detail is to throw a sadistic mindfuck on the players by tricking them into "moral traps" in which they're forced to commit graphic atrocities "for the greater good." HPL and CAS my ass, that's straight Saw plus White Wolf angst, with a touch of Manson family emotional manipulation for good measure. "Yeah I'm raping an disemboweling this 11 year old girl, but I'm doing it to save the village! I'm an unspeakable villain because I'm a hero! Oh, the irony!" Fuck that shit.

Quote from: walkerpIt can actually exacerbate the problem as the psychological urge is still there, but not the physical outlet.

Actually, chemical castration does remove the urge, because it removes sexual urges by... blocking productiond of hormones/neurotransmiters, whatever I don't know the exact chemistry behind it. Not sure about how good mechanical one is, but it would probably result in production of less hormones, so the sexual urge would be at least lowered.

Quote from: CavScoutAfter seeing you ride to the defense of pedophiles everywhere, I don't doubt it.

I am not defending child molesters, I am defending pedophiles, who haven't molested any child. I't you know paraphilia, which means deviation from common sexuality, here si your definition of pedophile from: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, a pedophile is an individual who fantasizes about, is sexually aroused by, or experiences sexual urges towards prepubescent children (generally <13 years) for a period of at least 6 months. That definition doesn't include molesting children.

Quote from: Fritzs;258141I am not defending child molesters, I am defending pedophiles, who haven't molested any child.

Kyle Aaron: You failed at reading definition of what pedophile is, here, try again!

-pedophile is an individual who fantasizes about, is sexually aroused by, or experiences sexual urges towards prepubescent children (generally <13 years) for a period of at least 6 months.
-Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition

That manual is quite official stuff, published by American Psychiatric Association.

Quote from: Fritzs;258141I am not defending child molesters, I am defending pedophiles...

Well fuck me... you're only a level 4 douche-bag then, not a level 5.

Quote from: Fritzs;258149Kyle Aaron: You failed at reading definition of what pedophile is, here, try again!

-pedophile is an individual who fantasizes about, is sexually aroused by, or experiences sexual urges towards prepubescent children (generally <13 years) for a period of at least 6 months.
-Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition

That manual is quite official stuff, published by American Psychiatric Association.

And you're defending them why?

CavScout: Cos if you take teh meds and go to teh therapy you won't feel urge to rape teh kids.But if there is teh strong social stigma attached to being teh pedophile, there is teh greater chance, that you would feel so ashamed by by teh deviant sexual lust of yours, that you won't go to see teh doctor with them and teh frustration from unfulfïled urges will ultimately result in you raping teh kids.

That's it.

You act as if there shouldn't be a social stigma attached to being a pedophile. You're not just wrong, you fucking off the charts wrong.

CavScout: Social stigma would lead to less of them going to visit psychiatrist because of fear and shame before they have molested kid, which would lead to less of them, which have not yet molested kid, getting medication. Less of them geting medication leads to more children geting molested.

Got that...?

Dude, all you've done over the course of this thread is prove that creepy games attract creepy gamers. Unfortunately, you don't have the brains to realise that you've offered yourself up as a prime example.

Is anyone gonna talk about RPGs?

Quote from: Geoffrey;258082I like the dilemmas it poses. On Carcosa, all too often the price of sorcerous power is the loss of one's own humanity. A sorcerer has to weigh the potential gain in power against the danger to his own life and to his own humanity.

As far as I can tell, there is no rules mechanic linked to the potential gain in power against the danger to his own life and to his own humanity except for role-playing. How is this then demonstrated?

Quote from: jeff37923;258181As far as I can tell, there is no rules mechanic linked to the potential gain in power against the danger to his own life and to his own humanity except for role-playing. How is this then demonstrated?

Sorcerers must make a save when performing a ritual, or age.

The target creatures get a saving throw... it can be a complete disaster if control isn't established over the particular entity, or that banishment doesn't happen as planned... and many of the rituals have specific things that must be done or the entity in question will simply gobble up the sorcerer.

Quote from: JimLotFP;258184Sorcerers must make a save when performing a ritual, or age.

The target creatures get a saving throw... it can be a complete disaster if control isn't established over the particular entity, or that banishment doesn't happen as planned... and many of the rituals have specific things that must be done or the entity in question will simply gobble up the sorcerer.

So how is the danger to the sorcerer's humanity demonstrated by rules mechanics?

Quote from: jeff37923;258188So how is the danger to the sorcerer's humanity demonstrated by rules mechanics?

This isn't Sorcerer, the game.

Quote from: JimLotFP;258192This isn't Sorcerer, the game.

Thanks for the non-answer.

Quote from: jeff37923;258188So how is the danger to the sorcerer's humanity demonstrated by rules mechanics?

This is a supplement for OD&D. It doesn't have rules for this type of stuff, that's for the DM to handle as he/she sees fit. I know this doesn't sit well with gamers who like to have such things covered with rules, but leaving most things up to the DM is what many OD&D players and DMs like.

Quote from: jeff37923;258193Thanks for the non-answer.

No problem.

Quote from: RandallS;258194This is a supplement for OD&D. It doesn't have rules for this type of stuff, that's for the DM to handle as he/she sees fit. I know this doesn't sit well with gamers who like to have such things covered with rules, but leaving most things up to the DM is what many OD&D players and DMs like.

I can understand that, but while the author has claimed that the controversial content is there because

Quote from: GeoffreyI like the dilemmas it poses. On Carcosa, all too often the price of sorcerous power is the loss of one's own humanity. A sorcerer has to weigh the potential gain in power against the danger to his own life and to his own humanity.

but there is nothing that demonstrates this loss of humanity and only minor danger to the sorcerer's life (the sorcerer ages if a saving throw fails). The loss of humanity is solely role-playing and not coupled with any game mechanics as far as I know.

Now, I think that is significant, because there is no consequence for the loss of humanity the author talks about.

Quote from: jeff37923;258201Now, I think that is significant, because there is no consequence for the loss of humanity the author talks about.

This is only true if you consider the "role-playing" part of playing a role-playing game to be inconsequential.

Quote from: JimLotFP;258202This is only true if you consider the "role-playing" part of playing a role-playing game to be inconsequential.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257711In my home campaign some players have played wicked sorcerers. Things work out something like this:

1. The sorcerer starts searching for a way to bind a given Cthulhoid entity. After must effort, the sorcerer will learn what is required:

A. the specific time at which the ritual will work

B. the specific place at which the ritual will work

C. the material components required

D. the type of sacrifice(s) necessary for the ritual to work

Oftentimes, upon learning "D", the player will cease his quest to bind the Cthulhoid entity. Sometimes the wickedness required is too much. The price is too high. Other times, the player will procure all the necessities and perform the ritual. It plays out something like this:

Judge: The specified time for the ritual has arrived.

Player: I do everything required to perform the ritual.

That's it.

Doesn't sound like there was a lot of role-playing consequence.

Quote from: JimLotFP;258202This is only true if you consider the "role-playing" part of playing a role-playing game to be inconsequential.

Role playing the loss of humanity doesn't require a mashup of Saw and Hostel type descriptions for the rituals.

That is just torture porn raised to the sick fuck level.

Quote from: StormBringer;258215That is just torture porn raised to the sick fuck level.

Pretty much the conclusion I was drawing.

Quote from: JimLotFP;258202This is only true if you consider the "role-playing" part of playing a role-playing game to be inconsequential.

And if you don't consider it inconsequential, then you probably won't want to be roleplaying a child murderer, rapist, etc.

So we see that the game gives us two choices,

• do bad shit in-game, get in-game rewards and no in-game penalty
• do good shit in-game, get in-game punishment and no in-game reward

That's a railroad to hell.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258222And if you don't consider it inconsequential, then you probably won't want to be roleplaying a child murderer, rapist, etc.

So we see that the game gives us two choices,

• do bad shit in-game, get in-game rewards and no in-game penalty
• do good shit in-game, get in-game punishment and no in-game reward

That's a railroad to hell.

I recommend looking into one of those Forge storygames if you'd like your particular preferences spelled out in game mechanics.

Quote from: JimLotFP;258228I recommend looking into one of those Forge storygames if you'd like your particular preferences spelled out in game mechanics.

It has nothing to do with the mechanics.  This is a diversion from the point that the authour has yet to point to a solid reason for including the descriptions for certain rituals.  And you are starting out by doing a spectacularly poor job of it as well.

Please, I'd say he caught you in a pretty neat little logical trap.  He has succesfully demonstrated that Jeff23425656 had to use story-game thinking to attack the supplement for its moral weaknesses.  I can't wait to hear your Bliss Stage AP, Jeff234234!  :)

Quote from: walkerp;258233Please, I'd say he caught you in a pretty neat little logical trap.  He has succesfully demonstrated that Jeff23425656 had to use story-game thinking to attack the supplement for its moral weaknesses.  I can't wait to hear your Bliss Stage AP, Jeff234234!  :)

And what trap would that be?  Addressing the descriptive elements of the game is only possible from a Forge perspective?  Or the part where the authour explains a sorcerer's loss of humanity that doesn't actually exist in either the descriptive text or the mechanical rules?

I thought I was on your Ignore List, wankerp.

Just couldn't stay away from my Posting Goodness, could you?

Quote from: Fritzs;258141I am not defending child molesters, I am defending pedophiles, who haven't molested any child. I't you know paraphilia, which means deviation from common sexuality,

Yes, and now its time you stopped. Mythusmage was topic banned because he couldn't shut up about this very topic.
The topic has been established as disruptive to the forum.

Whether you're saying this because you are sincerely pro-pedophilia or because you're just trying to disrupt this forum in a particularly grotesque way, you're done now.

Consider this a topic ban. ONE more fucking post where you even so much as mention pedophilia, and you get banned. Please, please, motherfucker, give me an excuse.

RPGPundit

Split the thread and move it to off-topic, or even close it if necessary.  I agree that this isn't appropriate for the roleplaying forum, but banning Fritzs is a mistake and will cause repercussions that will damage the freedom of this site.

Quote from: Fritzs;258169CavScout: Social stigma would lead to less of them going to visit psychiatrist because of fear and shame before they have molested kid, which would lead to less of them, which have not yet molested kid, getting medication. Less of them geting medication leads to more children geting molested.

Got that...?

Social stigma for pedophiles is warranted and needed. Unlike you, I want no confusion that they are fucked up.

Quote from: jeff37923;258181As far as I can tell, there is no rules mechanic linked to the potential gain in power against the danger to his own life and to his own humanity except for role-playing. How is this then demonstrated?

This.

The only dilemma is if you can get enough "creepy" gamers together to maximize the source material.

I'm going to close this thread. However, if anyone wants to start a new thread about Carcossa and its relative virtues or flaws, feel free to do so.  Let's make sure that one doesn't turn into a general argument about pedophilia, and sticks to stuff more specifically about the morality of the supplement if necessary.

RPGPundit