Once again, Christianity in one of its more extreme forms rears its head to try and influence how my magazine should behave. I'm writing, of course, in response to Jim Alpeter's "In Defence of John"'s letter (#146) and - by extension - to John Simcoe's "Dungeons & Devils" letter in #143. Where to start?
A) It bothers me that I feel I have to establish some kind of worshipping credentials in order to feel that I won't be perceived as yet another Christianity-bashing roleplayer. So <grinding teeth>: I, too, am a Christian gamer. I chose to be baptized in a late age (my mother did not feel the same way), I had my daughter baptized, and because of that, my wife rediscovered her joy in religion.
B) "Judge not, lest you should be judged", yet we have seemingly normal, sane people who are either willing to cut and slash a magazine because a drawing makes an imaginary being look too good (I'm looking in your direction, John) or who use a threat of not buying the magazine to enforce their limited view on the world on Dungeon Magazine (that would be Jim I'm looking at here).
C) Small factual nitpick: James Jacobs did open himself up for correction when he implied that turning Devils into Baatezu and Demons into Tanar'ri caused TSR to suffer as a company. If you read his statement (in his reply to Jim's letter) to say that the game suffered, it's a much more subjective statement, but one that makes more sense. I believe 1996 saw the rise of right-wing Christianity across the board - from forcing D&D to rename monsters to seizing congress. But that's another rant entirely.
Please keep your religious beliefs out of my game. I don't take my game to Church, so why take the Church to my game. It won't make you a poorer Christian. I'm sure that John, Jim, and all the other conservative Christians would join the rest of us in a resounding "Hell No!" if an islamic gamer called on Dungeon to cover all the women in their illustrations in an abaya or abstained from showing pigs in a rural scene.
I call on Dungeon's (and Dragon's) editors to keep up the good work the way they see fit to do best. And should you guys discover that the Religious Right has left gaming and caused your sales to plummet, please let us know, set up a Pay Pal account and ask for donations. You'll get some from me.
Søren, Denmark
Well typed.
Triple G
I find this an interesting, if very difficult subject, and, in all honesty, one I on many levels find patently absurd. While I'm not attempting to be insulting, in any way, the limited medium of text may unfortunatly cause further issues.
To me, Dungeon Magazine is, by definition, a publication about gaming in a fantasy world. In that world exist Succubi, Eryines, and all manor of other sexually suggestive creatures. They are a part of that fantasy world, and dungeon is devoted to exploring as many parts of that world as possible. The guidelines they have set for content are, for the most part, loosly based on a moral code which a grand majority of the United States (the country of publication, no more) would find acceptable. While dungeon may occasionally offer up adult themes, I find that those themes stay well within the boundries already established, and certainly remain well within the boundaries established by mainstream media. Movies and Music are full of examples both more graphic and disturbing than both concepts found within dungeon and the cover paintings.
It rather amuses me that, in complaining purely about the exterior artwork of a magazine, those who choose to be vocal in their complaints fail to take issue with the overall content. Situations are regularly presented wherein the characters are presented with little choice - the evil is somehow entrenched, ingrained, and too powerful to deal with directly. The Prince of Redhand, an excellent adventure by Richard Pett, deals with these themes in an often disturbing manner, for the characters are expected to witness great cruelty and somehow turn a blind eye. The morality and ethical conundrums presented in Dungeon often mirror those same internal conflicts of the real world, yet, for some odd reason, the cover paintings are what a certain segmant has chosen to take issue with.
For my money's worth, I find the art chosen to grace the covers of dungeon to be stunning - though it may not always be to my taste, it has always been one of the highest standards of fantasy artwork. To deny the editors that freedom of choice in dealing with the content of their own magazine, to respond with carefully veiled threats, shows a callow disregard for the hobby itself. While I certainly take no issue with those who choose to cut the covers off their magazines in order to assuage their beliefs, I find it reprehensible that those same persons, the spiritual (and often physical) decendants of those who fled similar persecutions, would choose to exert such discriminatory pressure upon those who have chosen a different moral code. Freedom of expression is more than the right to hold to your own beliefs - it is the right to be a responsible adult, the right to turn away and ignore those expressions which you might find reprehensible.
To those who have issue with the covers of Dungeon, I sympathize, yet I feel that your position is wrong. I hope you can come to some sort of resolution which satisfies your moral code without imposing that code upon others who may not share it.
----------
phew. ok, I'm waaay too verbose tonight.
Look, in short: I like the covers and the content they way they are. the magazine fits my tastes, and I eagerly await its arrival every month. I'm sorry if some of the covers have got you in a twist, but suck it up and either cut your covers off or stop buying the magazine.
edit: oh, and is anyone starting to be reminded of the great female gamers letters to the editor debate? /sigh.
Neither I nor anyone else that I have ever known have become Satanists because we were intrigued by how well-developed Mephistopheles' abs were depicted. And, for me, if you're surrounded by a group of people that would codemn you based on the covers of the magazines you own (that didn't contain graphic content) or for a hobby in which no one is ever injured in any way, shape or form, then you probably shouldn't be listening to their opinions.
For my money, villains are always more interesting than heroes. And, for me, it seems as if things like devils and demons have been so completely assimilated into popular culture that if one becomes up in arms every time they are seen, one would quickly lose one's job because of all the time taken off for picket lines. Political and religious beliefs are perfectly fine (not even in a condescending "whatever gets you through the night, Chief" way: you are what you are and there's no problem with that) but there is such a thing as taking it a bit more seriously than necessary.
I believe 1996 saw the rise of right-wing Christianity across the board - from forcing D&D to rename monsters to seizing congress.
Small factual nitpick: Demons and Devils were renamed Tanar'ri and Baatezu in 1991 with the publication of the MC:Outer Planes Appendix, not in 1996.
|
I believe 1996 saw the rise of right-wing Christianity across the board - from forcing D&D to rename monsters to seizing congress.
Those darn right wing Christians - always seizing control of Congress when nobody is looking. And to think that the godless, pinko commies have to try and get voted in. I ask you - Where is the justice!
Storytelling has always been about good and evil and it always will be.
The Prince of Redhand, an excellent adventure by Richard Pett, deals with these themes in an often disturbing mannerYes, but then we all know that Rich IS disturbed, and he is secretly on the "A List" of the Prince of Darkness and personally keeps three Wicker Men in his basement just in case some spontaneous paganness breaks out on his block.
Sorry, Rich. Couldn't resist....outting you! Aha! Get the pitchforks and torches! Bonfire at Rich's place! (Hums Gaston's song from Beauty and the Beast.)
Two wicker men - one of them is out chasing Hitchcock at this very moment:)
A) It bothers me that I feel I have to establish some kind of worshipping credentials in order to feel that I won't be perceived as yet another Christianity-bashing roleplayer. So <grinding teeth>: I, too, am a Christian gamer. I chose to be baptized in a late age (my mother did not feel the same way), I had my daughter baptized, and because of that, my wife rediscovered her joy in religion.
Thank you for mentioning that. Looking back at my letter now, I do go a little overboard. I think saying "I'm a Christian" would have been just fine. In the context of my complaint, what difference does it make how often I attend church?
B) "Judge not, lest you should be judged", yet we have seemingly normal, sane people who are either willing to cut and slash a magazine because a drawing makes an imaginary being look too good (I'm looking in your direction, John) or who use a threat of not buying the magazine to enforce their limited view on the world on Dungeon Magazine (that would be Jim I'm looking at here).
I did indeed cut the image off my cover. And, as you suggest, it didn't particularly feel like the most sane thing to do when I was doing it. What was this? An art project?
And what would my one little action do after all? I certainly didn't expect a wave of support from the D&D community on this. (And I'm not baiting for comments there)Still, it's what I felt was right for my particular household. I didn't want to have to enter into yet another argument with my wife over my hobby. I love her. I enjoy my hobby immensely. I need to avoid conflict between the two whenever possible. The image on Dungeon No. 140's cover would be immediately recognizeable by her (and anyone else) as a archetypical devil, which would indeed upset her. I personally can handle all the D&D demons and devils Paizo has to offer. My wife, however, is not so accepting, so why bother giving myself grief?
Please keep your religious beliefs out of my game. I don't take my game to Church, so why take the Church to my game. It won't make you a poorer Christian.
There are certainly different types of Christianity. My brand suggests that you should consider the impact of everything you do on your spiritual life. Yours, of course, may be different and I respect that.
I'm sure that John, Jim, and all the other conservative Christians would join the rest of us in a resounding "Hell No!" if an islamic gamer called on Dungeon to cover all the women in their illustrations in an abaya or abstained from showing pigs in a rural scene.
I certainly would respect their complaint, which is exactly what the Paizo staff has done for me, and I thank them for that.
A few other points ...- My ultimate intention with the letter was to suggest to Paizo that using an archetypical devil on their cover might bite them in the butt somewhere in the future. I was writing the letter imagining a Congressional hearing or "700 Club" show where they talked about "kids" being introduced to "devil worship" through the popular media and games. I certainly don't believe that D&D does this, but it would be easy for a person unknowledgeable the game to make that assumption. The cover of Dungeon No. 140 shows a powerful-looking demonic character that these misguided "kids" could look up to. I could certainly imagine Pat Robertson holding it in his fist, decrying the publisher, insisting game materials like it be shoved behind store counters, censored by the government and that kind of foolishness. (And I put "kids" in quotes because the prime demographic for this game is definitely not kids or teens. This is something that most non-D&D players don't seem to understand.)
- Really, I'm not a conservative Christian. I'm just a Christian! Here in America, "conservative" implies a heavy Republican leaning, which I do not.
- Let me say that the cover art, on a technical level, was top notch, and I have no beef with the artist himself. I wish I had included that in my letter to Dungeon.
- I'd like to thank Siobharek and the rest of the posters for talking about this in a non-confrontional way.
Hey John, I understand trying to keep from having more drama at home, but I doubt that Pat Robertson will be knocking on Paizo's door any time soon. If for no other reason than the Video Gaming industry is SO much bigger now, and frankly so much more adult themed in terms of violence, sex, and even classical devils (I mean come on, they named a game Diablo, and heck that was like what, 8-9 years ago?). I believe there are bigger fish out there to fry.
I have watched these kinds of debates move through the gaming community for years (22 years playing as of this year). I feel the one important direction that art should go in, is to become less sexist. Just as a note, while I am religious (of a odd nature, Gnostic in this case) I feel that the classic sexism found in almost all gaming material for it's first 20 years, kept RPGs from more fully making an impact amongst women. In that case, if for no other reason than sales, I have long suggested and applauded the recent (in the last 7-15 years, depending on the company) effort to shift the art and text of the games to become more equal. Scantily clad woman on one cover, scantily clad mephisto on the other. And so forth.
There is only one RPG that I can think of that really pushed religious ideas to hard, and could easily still rile up guys like Robertson, and that is the old Swedish game Kult. But judging from it's almost total lack of appeal to American gamers, it's almost incomprehensible writing, and it's general lack of a regular publisher, I think we can all sleep easily.
This board is proving to be as nice as Monte Cook's boards. I stand corrected on my American (Gaming) History 101. Did I use the year 1996 because it was mentioned in one of the letters? Anyway, I used incorrect information in order to take a cheap shot at the Republicans, and that was a bad move (using faulty data, I mean ;-))
John, I sympathize with you with regards to how our hobby is perceived in your household. This in no way constitutes any comment on your wife, simply an expression of sympathy as it's never nice to feel that one's hobby isn't as well-regarded as one would like.
I'm sure that John, Jim, and all the other conservative Christians would join the rest of us in a resounding "Hell No!" if an islamic gamer called on Dungeon to cover all the women in their illustrations in an abaya or abstained from showing pigs in a rural scene.
Best. Quote. Evar.
For me personally:
Christian.
Gamer.
And probably wouldn't show the cover of any Dungeon magazine to my grandmother.
...I have much bigger issues with "skin" style covers. While I have no doubt that my children can differentiate the fantasy aspects of the covers, I prefer not to expose them to something as pervasive as the hyper-sexuality of our culture until they're mature enough to handle it.
My inclinations match Greg V's pretty closely, except mine come without a Christian background (other than that provided by the baseline American culture). I'm one of the (apparently few) who occasionally decide not to buy something based on a sexualized cover; I ended up not buying Dragon 353 (the Malcanthet issue) for that reason. (Though I don't begrudge the editors choosing the covers they do, especially if it helps the magazines remain a viable business.)
What a refreshing thread! Strongly divergent views debated openly with respect for the rights of others to disagree deeply. Open and free political, social, and religious speech. Well done all.
As a professional artist who makes a living painting nudes (among other things) and teaching others how to paint nudes, and who occasionally moonlights as a fantasy illustrator, I have very strong views about the appropriateness of depicting the human form, or sensual themes, or openly sexual themes, in artwork in different settings, including print. I have comparably strong views about the appropriateness of depicting demonic images that could offend others. But who cares? The importance of my capacity to fight for my views, whatever they may be, dwarfs the significance of my views themselves. My culture, my world, depends on our collective ability to disagree, openly, loudly, and vibrantly, while simultaneously standing up for the right of others whose ideas we detest to do the same. Here you’ve captured that spirit with force and eloquence.
If only we could convince our politicians to debate with equal grace.
Gosh, feels like the game is coming full circle. I'm a Christian with no apologies to anyone for it. I lament to this day becoming involved with "fundamentalism" and getting rid of all my 1st and 2nd edition stuff (especially Undermountain and the City System box). I didn't rejoin the game until 3.5.
D&D has come a long way since the 80s. Back then it was almost a geek counter culture and now it's become almost mainstream. People now have a better idea of what the game is really all about. You don't have to look in some hole in the wall to find it, either. You can check it out for yourself at Barnes & Noble or Hastings or whatever.
While the Mephistopheles cover might indeed cause controversy in Christian households with conservative/fundamentalist members, I say that makes it a great tool to open up dialogue. Show them the adventure. Show them that it's all about kicking devil butt. Good vs. evil.
Best of all, use it as an opportunity to teach someone about the game. Let them see for themselves.
To be quite honest, being a very orthodox Catholic myself, I don't see anything wrong with depicting devils and demons on Dungeon covers. After all, the Dungeon magazine is all about creating enemies that heroes can stand firm against. I would be a a lot more bothered if an angel appeared on the mag covers as a central antagonist.
My grandmothers and others of my family have no problems with my mags or their covers. Even my parish priests don't concern themselves overmuch with it. Really, what's wrong with painting devils and demons as superficially attractive, yet destructive and evil antagonists? Don't Christian Churches teach exactly that?
For my part, if I were to be comfortable in demonizing and freely denouncing and condemning anything, it would be a demon. I have a fair amount more problems with marginalizing and persecuting real people.