Talk:Book of Vile Darkness

Capitalization
The book of vile darkness is not capitalized in the Book of Vile Darkness source book. In the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide it is capitalized only in the entry's heading (a typographic convention) - in the actual text description it is not capitalized (DM's Guide p 278). My opinion is that these sources take priority over the Dungeon article. --Muchness 23:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Opinion is conjecture, which is OR. As capitalization of titles is the standard, and official sources differ, then the standard should prevail.--Robbstrd 00:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Capitalization of titles is not the standard for artifacts in the current (v3.5) Dungeon Master's Guide, nor is it the standard in the Book of Vile Darkness sourcebook. And it is in keeping with WP:V for an article to follow the capitalization scheme of the sourcebooks it documents. --Muchness 00:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Check page 281 of your DMG: all unique artifacts are capitalized. If you really want to slavishly follow the capitalization scheme of every sourcebook, then you'll need to write "Dungeon Master's Guide" as "duNGEoN MAsTER'S GuIdE"--the same way it appears on that book's cover.--Robbstrd 00:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How is the capitalization of major (not unique) artifacts relevant to the book of vile darkness, which is a minor artifact? And for the record, writing it as "duNGEoN MAsTER'S GuIdE" would be replicating stylized typography, which is against WP policy. --Muchness 00:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the major artifacts listed in the DMG are unique items. I've provided both verification and grammatical reasons for capitalizing the Book of Vile Darkness, which you've rejected. If "book of vile darkness" was not the proper title of the work, but could merely describe any book which had the same properties as the item listed in the DMG, I'd see your point. However, the item we're referring to is the one written by "a Vasharan spellcaster" & later added to by Vecna. If this item is indeed known as the Book of Vile Darkness, then the title should be capitalized.--Robbstrd 01:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon my obtuseness, I am trying very hard to understand your reasoning. I know you're a good faith editor, and I don't want to edit war over something this trivial. But I just don't understand why this is even an issue. My position can be summed up as: this is an article dealing with Wizards of the Coast intellectual property. WOTC publications capitalize the artifact as "book of vile darkness". Futhermore, WOTC sourcebooks render all minor artifacts, whether unique or not, in lower case. The book of vile darkness is a minor artifact. Therefore, per WP:V, it is appropriate to respect primary sources. I just don't see why we should directly contravene WOTC source material in this case. Are you willing to work with me on a compromise edit, if the current version is not acceptable to you? --Muchness 01:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The current version offering the alternate capitalized version is a good compromise.--Robbstrd 16:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Good article
Well now that the images have been taken care of I think this is worthy of being a Good Article. Although the lead is a bit too short, I don't see that getting in the way of GA. Made me remember some grand ol' times at that Porphyry House of Horror :) Good job. --SeizureDog 11:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning sticker
Does anybody have the full story of the warning stickers that were placed on the book?--Energman 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting ready for GA sweeps
Well, the rpg.net reviews aren't reliable sources. I'm not to sure about the Silven Publishing stuff either, and its link is dead. This is slight but independant. My internet is acting up. I'll look for more later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't appear to be many independant sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article

 * May want some of this later.

Reviews of the book presented mixed opinions about its quality. RPGnet reviewer Alex deMorris found fault with the book's presentation of evil. "The evil here is more cartoon than anything else," he wrote. "What about the world's evil: like pedophiles, rapists and other degenerates? Why are they missing in a mature title about the nature of evil?" Darren MacLennan, also of RPGnet, gave the book a more positive rating and a recommendation, despite his determination that "one of the book's major problems is its inability to come to terms with evil" due to a lack of "moral complexity and shading" and "points where the evilness takes on ... a juvenile quality,"

Stephen Weese, in his book God Loves the Freaks , believes in demons, and doesn't think they should be included in D&D. Despite this, in defense of The Book of Vile Darkness he said of the publishers "I would say that they probably don't believe in demons and think of this as another "mythology" to add to the campaign." and compared it to evil elements included in Young Sherlock Holmes and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Vile Darkness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018200008/http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=5446 to http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=5446

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)