Talk:Dungeons & Dragons controversies
|WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
- 1 Split from main article
- 2 Overhaul
- 3 Importance
- 4 Overlap with History of role-playing games
- 5 Starving children
- 6 Hobgoblin
- 7 Israeli Army Controversy
- 8 'an acceptable D&D character' in 'The Schnoebelen articles'
- 9 Amy Bishop
- 10 The Schnoebelen articles section is not NPOV
- 11 Removal of disputed neutrality
- 12 "Demons" and "Devils"
Split from main article
I really have no interest in developing this article at this time, I hope someone else does. The reason I have created it is preople keeps insisting on expanding this section in the main Dungeons and Dragons article, and the only way I can see to get the D&D article down below the 32 KB Wikkipedia recommendation is to spin this section off into it's own article and drastically reduce the section in D&D. - Waza 03:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Right, ill take over from here then, when I have the time. Piuro 21:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Israeli Army section -- I've made a minor change to the section on the Israeli army, so it no longer indicates that all soldiers play D&D. 184.108.40.206 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't intend to overhaul the article, but it seems I have. Here's what I did:
- Added a section for Pulling, summarizing her and BADD's activities in short, based on her article
- Grouped all psychological controversy into its own section
- Re-worded intro for clarity and per WP:MoS
- Linked some terms like "media" that really needed context
- other minor edits where I spotted a need
Work that still needs to be done:
- Find (perhaps from what we already have) cites for the intro
- Cover some of the other essays that have been written. I love the Britannica quote from Confessions of a Dungeons & Dragons™ Addict], and would like to incorporate it reasonably here, as it happens to apply equally to Wikipedia.
- Reduce some of the redundancy between the lead blurb in the religious section and the sub-sections without losing any context.
- Research other suits brought against or by TSR/Wizards surrounding D&D. Incorporate info as needed and relevant to the overall topic, here.
That's all I can think of for now. Enjoy! -Harmil 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- kudos for the 21-strong list of linked topics that D&D will, according to BADD, introduce your kids to - the repetition does a great job of highlighting the hyperbole of the statement. - matt lohkamp 10:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I wish I could edit my edit summaries... sigh. I called this importance "High" based on the policy which says that articles which contribute substantial knowledge to a topic but aren't quite essential for a print encyclopedia should be in that category. My edit summary set Mid. Doh. -Harmil 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Overlap with History of role-playing games
There seems to be a fair overlap between this article and History_of_role-playing_games#Controversy. Someone should carefully check that material is in the correct article and sections are cross linked where appropriate. - Waza 05:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if we shouldn't merge this article and History_of_role-playing_games#Controversy into a new article called Controversies in Role-playing Games or similar, with a section on the D&D-specific stuff. Two cross-linked articles can cover neither topic well - or at least not elegantly. BreathingMeat 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thats sounds like a good approach to me, if anyone has the time and inclination please do it - Waza 03:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a new one I read about just now that may get blamed on D&D. Hill of Beans 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Here's the conclusion to this case. Again, the article makes a point to mention Dungeons & Dragons. Evan1975 04:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The plot summary provided for the novel contains significant inaccuracies. While it's been some time since I read it, I don't believe the name provided for the protagonist is correct, and I know he wasn't "responsible for the killings." It's possible that the person who added this section has Hobgoblin confused with another novel; I will attempt to locate my copy of the book in order to correct the inaccuracies. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Israeli Army Controversy
I will look for sources on this, since this is a bit old, but the Israeli RPG scene, which has an inordinate amount of intelligence officers, looked into the matter, and it seems like it is, for lack of a better term, a bunch of hooey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundranocaps (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
'an acceptable D&D character' in 'The Schnoebelen articles'
One comment that jumps out at me is the 'Hitler' example - it implies that Hitler would not be 'an acceptable D&D character', when in fact he most certainly would be. In fact, a meglamaniacal racist totalitarian dictator would make an excellent character to roleplay, as evidenced by the book's inclusion of him as an example in the first place. Obligatory 'not that I'm a hitler fan or anything' statement - but the irony of wikipedia mis-representing another author's mis-representation of the content of a dungeons and dragons manual isn't worth leaving. I realize that the point is clarified a few sentences later, but this sentence in particular: "the book never suggests that Hitler is ... a model of an acceptable D&D character" is misleading at best. - matt lohkamp 10:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- False. Sounds like you are parroting someones accusations rather than the actual printed material. I have that particular edition of the Dungeon Masters Guide and the reference is all of once under the Charisma entry in the book page 15. It lists Hitler as one of three historical examples, along with Caesar and Napoleon. Showing that Charisma is not tied to physical beauty or lack thereof. It is in no way examples for players to follow. Merely examples for the GM on how to view each ability in action. Rasputin is given as example of a historical individual with the equivalent of high Constitution. Omega2064 (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Playing D&D does make me want to kill people in real life, so I get where she is coming from. ;) BOZ (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The Schnoebelen articles section is not NPOV
The writer of this section clearly disagrees with Schnoebelen's views, and argues against them in the article. Schnoebelen's arguments may indeed be false, or misrepresentations, but this isn't the place to argue them or defeat them, just present them as they are. As already noted, the writer also incorrectly asserts that Hitler would be a bad character, which is unverifiable. This section needs a re-write. I'm taking a stab at it, but I don't know the facts of the matter. I'll just leave what's there now, stripped of the one-sided original research argument against it. Someone else can clean it up further.--Atkinson (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's cool! 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Still in the process of editing. Removed this reference because it wasn't necessary where it was in the article, but I thought it shouldn't be lost altogether, in case it's ever useful, so I'm leaving it here: --Atkinson (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point of the page, and the article. It's about a controversy that is over. Therefore, it is relevant to discuss the course of the dialogue that occurred. In this case, Schnoebelen came forward with some bogus claims and society at large rejected them based on XYZ common sense reasons. A dispelled and concluded controversy is misrepresented if not fleshed out as such. Not only is it misrepresenting the subject, but terribly misleading anyone actually interested in the subject by suggesting there is a considerable contingent of reasonable people still willing to argue Schnoebelen's side. Perhaps it should have been presented like 'society then decided over time that this dude was wrong for X reason' and not like 'this dude is wrong for x reason' but it's good, relevant stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Removal of disputed neutrality
This section should be pulled from the page. The statements made by those who attacked D&D are in no way, shape or form existant in any medium outside the person's head. I don't think that pointing out the feverd imaginings of the opponents of D&D can be anything BUT neutral. Even acknowleding that there could be an issue goes against every fact now known. I see no good reason to put things in this article that are as far from real as possible; best was the claim that TSR came for magical realism. Thats so astoundingly disconnected, and its not even a proper sentence.
I believe the issue of neutrality has been resolved, over a decade ago: A roleplaying game using elements from human legends was blamed, by upset and scared parents, of being in some way magic or evil, when none of the opponents likely ever saw even the Dungeon Master's Guide, let alone sat down and watched or participated in a game. It was the same sensationalism about the fake satanic-child molesting groups and lawsuits that turned out to be utter bunk.
As such, I am removing the "disputed neutrality" banner. Religious Zealots and distraught parents who dont have the first clue about what it is they are attacking, does not warrant mention, and is not a reliable source. It is without any ambiguity the product solely of their imaginations and the scared suburban echo chamber, with no real source, and no acknowledgements of being wrong despite not a shred of evidence in their favor ever emerging. Their failure to acknowledge legal rulings and factual disputes, instead just continuing on as if it didnt happen, renders their arguments utterly meaningless and in no way representative of anything, aside from exposing the religious zealotry of those who attack a game because another religious zealot chained lies to them. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"Demons" and "Devils"
I believe TSR did, in fact, bring back these terms in the last years of AD&D 2nd Edition's run (late 1990's), and not in 3rd Editions, as the article states. --Nikoz78 (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- IIRC, they were mentioned in an almost tongue-in-cheek kind of way, such as calling a baatezu "devilish" and that sort of thing. 3E made the connection official. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I know that when WotC bought out TSR they made it a point to bring back these terms. Remember that 2nd Edition ran from 1989-2000, with TSR losing the company in 1997. In fact, WotC even released A Guide to Hell for 2nd Edition. It mentions Devils over and over and over ("Devils in Combat" on page 59. for example). This wiki page needs to brought in line with reality. --Nikoz78 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)