About RG

Macaw · Post by **Macaw** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:49 am

Everyone knows about the problem RG had in the early ultima's, namely him being accused of making kids become satanists or something like that, but why did they come up with these accusations??? I'm not an old enough fan to know about what was going on.

ok, so I heard his numberplate is 666, thats a bit dodgy, but all the 'virtue' things in his games can make them at some stage even seem like education christian software...
So why was he accused of these things?

By the way, anyone ever seen that video of his castle (house)?
Its so awesome!!!

Post by **Dominus** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 5:03 am

the same reason Judas Priest's "Better by you, better than me" is a satanistic song that drives young listeners to suicide...

(I should mention that this is meant ironic, I used to be a listener of Judas Priest's music and thought that this claim is ridiculous)

Astell v.6 · Post by **Astell v.6** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 10:21 am

There will always be people with nothing better to do than randomly attack public figures over trivial nonsense, especially in the realm of "evil" and religious matters. Gotta blame someone and point the finger!

Macaw · Post by **Macaw** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:31 pm

yes, but blaming RG was pretty ridiculous. The virtue thing would have tought kids anything but to be satanic..

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:37 pm

Ask Gary Gynax about morons.

Macaw · Post by **Macaw** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:45 pm

oh, and for those who havnt seen it, look at the Rg castle clip here: http://www.klru.org/austinnow/archives/ ... rriott.asp

He's once rich dude.

Post by **drcode** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 10:28 pm

I thought it was the original D&D that was blamed for stuff like that.

Post by **Dominus** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:33 am

Also keep in mind that the virtues only played a role from Ultima 4 upwards. So the early Ultimas had no virtues...

MV · Post by MV » Sun Jun 20, 2004 3:05 am

But they had spaceships and phasers and other cool stuff.

Macaw · Post by **Macaw** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 3:22 am

And kill the evil wizard plots... I still dont see why he was accused

Trevor_Clim (damn Log in) · Sun Jun 20, 2004 4:29 am

i just read the book DUNGEONS & DREAMERS and it describes the whole life of Richard Garriott, really great book. And until now ive nothing read about accuses DIRECTLY against richard, i only read about accuses against the whole roleplaying-thing.

does anyone knows more videos, etc. about richard and his life?

Skutarth · Post by **Skutarth** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 4:44 am

"In 2006 Garriott plans to create another tradition of haunted houses in his new castle."
OH MY GOD! I'M GOING THERE!

You know why everybody thinks RG is evil? What about everything else? Religion. It all comes down to over-religious morons trying to "purify" the world. I'm not saying religion is bad, mind you, but that you shouldn't be THAT religious.

But I'll have to cut in here and point out that there was lots of sex and violence in Serpent Isle.

Macaw · Post by **Macaw** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 5:57 am

of course by serpent isle RG didnt have much say in what was in the game...

I also read a bit of dungeons and dreamers. It was intriguing finding out that when he was in high school he started a D&D club at his place that ended up getting dozens of visitors from his high school all playing D&D around his house, yet he still ended up taking the more solitary path of using his computer to make his virtual worlds in the end.

dirk · Post by **dirk** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:15 am

i think many ultima's had some kids in it that you could kill.. something about two cages one with monster one with kids and a lever would open a door between them

there were also hordes of rabid kids in ultima 8

maybe that had something to do with it i dont know

Wizardry Dragon · Post by **Wizardry Dragon** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:27 am

The reason Richard got attacked is because he went out of his way to bump people out of their "comfort zones" to force them to think about their morality - he said that himself. Of course, we know how much some of these religious types LOVE to think for themselves.

And for the record I happen to be a religious type I just don't go around converting or purifying the world.

- Wizardry Dragon

PanSola · Post by **PanSola** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 5:02 pm

the one Dirk mentioned was in Ultima 4 I believe.

Even an Origin employee got extremely uncomfortable that he had to kill babies to pass that room.

But actually the game never say they were babies. They were just monsters using baby sprites. And you could've caste mass sleep/charm on them and pass through the room, or caste invisibility and pass through the room, without harming those "babies".

That was the first case where ppl got really upset.

The next one I know of was the pentagon start thing on the cover of Pagan. That pissed off a bunch of christians too.

I think those are the only two examples where RG was actually being accused of being Satanic. The others also pushed ppl out of their comfort zone, but probably not to such an extreme extent.

I don't know how the conservative public think about that fire-ball casting brat in U9 though. I personally managed to just run around until his fireball pissed off the bandits and have the bendits kill him after much casulty themselves (-:

Post by **drcode** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:32 pm

I didn't know that anyone was upset about RG, or that many people had even heard of him. I didn't know anything about him, or Ultima, until around 1996 when I got a copy of U7.

Gradilla Dragon · Post by **Gradilla Dragon** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 10:50 am

Heh, the FIRST major satanist accusation on RG was with Ultima 3. The name "Exodus" and a huge daemon on the box ticked off lots of christians. Thousands of christians bought the game with the sole purpose to burn it.

Paulon · Post by **Paulon** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:39 am

That makes sense in a really twisted way. "I hate the game and don't want to support it, so I'll buy it, and make sure that the author and publishers get some money so they can do more like it."

Gradilla Dragon · Post by **Gradilla Dragon** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:40 am

That's called religious fanatism

Daemongar · Post by **Daemongar** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:42 am

The reason Richard got attacked is because he went out of his way to bump people out of their "comfort zones" to force them to think about their morality - he said that himself. Of course, we know how much some of these religious types LOVE to think for themselves.

And for the record I happen to be a religious type I just don't go around converting or purifying the world.

If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. He didn't do anything for any other reason than to make a buck - he didn't bump people out of their "comfort zones." Thats just trying to write your own obituary.

The pentagram on the cover of U8 was specifically trying to annoy people that don't buy games for the sole purpose of generating buzz among those that do. It didn't work because like it or hate it, U8 had way too many problems.

RG is no more a grand crusader taking on the evil "organized religion" than you or I am. It's was marketing. The virtues worked in U4 then he tried to work them into every game with mixed results until he gave up with U7SI.

Also understand that when U3 and U8 came out, some people had what is called respect for others religion and didn't make sweeping generalizations about anybody who goes to a church, mosque, temple, or synagogue. That doesn't exist now, but it was once considered good form.

And people didn't need to feel the need to appologize for being religious.

v. 5.9 · Post by **v. 5.9** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:54 pm

As I said, people will look for any reasons to get worked up over things. Obviously Garriot had a message and theme to his works, but overall he was telling a story in a game medium. That was his job.

It's the same as the people that decided to hate, say, Star Wars or Final Fantasy because of their religious beliefs. There will always be someone who hates something.

Just the way it is.

PanSola · Post by **PanSola** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 1:21 pm

Patrick McGinley: I don't think RG when making his Ultimas, or the people on the forums posting in this thread, are making sweeping generalizations of any religion or disrespecting other religions.

RG never claimed to be on a crusade taking on "the evil organized religion", or indeed ever claiming organized religion is evil. The virtues first appeared in U4 is not an attack on any form of religion, and in fact can co-exist with any organized or unorganized religion. It's RG's whole concept of no matter is (or isn't) your religious affiliation, you can be ethical. Separating "morality" (which RG use as the term for what an Religion teaches to be "right") from "ethicality" (which RG use as the term for what is logically, religion or not, should be "right" for humans).

And just because some members of some religions feel strongly against some stuff RG put into the games, and that RG intentionally (and fully aware of those people's discomfort) still choose to hold on to his methods, does not make him disrespectful of their religion or making a claim that organized religion is evil.
Afterall, RG isn't forcing those people to buy his game, and he never said " is nonesense/bad/evil" or anything to that effect.

If anything, the pentagon and huge beastly-looking super natural beings (the "demons") are actually dieties in other religions/cultures anyways. Those who believe putting those things on a cover of a game is perpetuating evil are themselves disrespecting other religions.
Hence your sarcasism about "good form" really should be applied to the people who have huge issues with the cover/name designs of U3 and U8, and not applied to the people who put the cover/name design there.

Finally, I don't see how bumping people out of their comfort zones and trying to make a buck can't co-exist. In the entertainment business, you always have to make choices. Do you pick a "safe" position, raising none of the controversies that could potentially hurt your sales, but at the same time risk being perfectly boring like most of the market, or do you do something different, using it as a buzz thing to create more publicity, but at the same time risking hurting your sales due to oppositions raised around the controversy? One can argue either approach as a money-monger approach. RG simply decided to do something differently, on the topic of values, and that does bump some people out of their comfort zones.

It may or may not be his original intention. It may or may not have been an issue even when he originally thought of the ideas that later roused the controversies. Saying he's only doing it for the money and nothing else may or may not be right, but requires the speaker to either be RG himself or takes on an air of persumptuousness.

Again my key points:

1. RG/Ultima has never claimed, directly or through implication, that organized religion (in general or any specific one) is bad. Nor has RG/Ultima ever taken a stance against organized religion (in general or any specific one).

2. Pentagon, "demons", and "Pagan", provokes some (not all) people of some religious affiliations (J/C in general), which stems from conflicts between their own religion and the so-called "Pagan" religions/cultures. RG's use of such images/names does not disrespect the religions of the people feeling discomfort. Rather, the discomfort illustrates such people's hostility against imagery having a connotation with the so-called "Pagan" religions/cultures, and hence their lack of "good form".

3. RG did something different. No one but RG has a right to determine whether that originality stems from a single wish to make money, or also has a point/message that RG wants to carry. Of course we each can choose to believe one thing or another, but none of us can know (and therefore neither you or I can insist on what really went on in his head).

Any one is welcome to critique on my logic, evidence, or technique -- in a logical manner of course (-:

-PanSola

Macaw · Post by **Macaw** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 8:14 pm

Whoa!! That post will either end this discussion or make it go on for a LOT longer..

But as for the whole 'he's only trying to make a buck' thing, which many people use for a lot of people, its pretty ridiculous. RG couldnt have just sat down and made a ultima game to make money, any developer knows that every day when you wake up you will come up with new ideas and stuff and try to implement that into the game, therefore all the complex morality/virtue stuff and what happens throughout the games was most probably well thought out, not just a bunch of stuff that either RG or a origin employee came up with.

As for ultima 8, I dont know what the deal with the pentagram was, but I beleive that The reason it was called Pagan is because The world of pagan was completely devoid of any religious or virtuous beleif, sending the ultra-virtuous avatar into a world of people that thing in a different way because of their beleifs was the whole way the game was trying to alienate the avatar from the world.

Of course i'm probably wrong.

Daemongar · Post by **Daemongar** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 10:07 pm

Knowing it's super OT, I can't resist, so please forgive me. Just need to clear up a few things. PanSola, you seemed to miss my points and put a lot of words around them, but I appreciate you responding so well thought out. Here goes:

1. I read RG's The Complete Ultima and most info on the Ultimas and this "Comfort Zone" thing is new to me. Sounds like he's rewriting his legacy or others are doing it for him.

2. The Pentagram on the cover of U8 very well could have been a choice between "safe" and a taking a new path - but he made a calculated decision that it would help sales. He went so far as to teach everyone the parts of a pentagram and have them summon demons (in the game

This wasn't a happy accident that lovable RG bumbled into while trying to teach us about ethics. He knew what he was doing and people would get upset. People got upset - are those people narrow minded and stupid unable to grasp his deep ponderances on religion/virtue and he wished they would go away, or, did he count on some people getting upset with the cover and figure the "negative" publicity would help sales - ergo using peoples faith to line his pockets? I'm pretty sure the second time wasn't an accident.

3. The whole "crusader" and generalizations thing - talking about peoples opinion of him and religion displayed here - not trying to smear RG.

I actually think RG is a heckofa guy. He had me thinking so much in U4 that I went out and bought the game after I finished because I was playing on a stolen copy. I don't want to take anything away from him, just that his games are best when designed for maximum fun-osity and least fun when trying to ram a point down your throat. Kinda like real life

Gradilla Dragon · Post by **Gradilla Dragon** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 4:06 am

I read the Complete Ultima, and that thing about the confort zones is not new to me...

Trevor_Clim_2 · Post by **Trevor_Clim_2** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 10:52 am

sorry for OT, guys, but iam very interested in this book "THE COMPLETE ULTIMA".

i think i heard of it, but i cant exactly remember. it is a book by richard garriot about his ultimas, right? how old is it ?

where can i get it? i searched ebay, google and amazone, but i found nothing

sorry for interrupting your really interesting discussion!

Gradilla Dragon · Post by **Gradilla Dragon** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 10:59 am

It is a book by Shay Addams about Richard Garriott and Ultima. And the name is The Official Book of Ultima. There is no such thing as a book named The Complete Ultima. I guess we got it mixed up with The Complete Ultima VII game CD o something.

Addams, Shay
The Official Book of Ultima / Shay Addams
ISBN 0-87455-228-1
1. Ultima (Game) 1. Title
GV1469.25.U45A33 1990
793.93-dc20

Trevor_Clim (damn login) · Mon Jul 05, 2004 11:53 pm

thx Gradilla for the complete info!

just a little question left: this official book, its the only book about ultima, rigth? there is no other book available? about ultima 7 ?

Gradilla Dragon · Post by **Gradilla Dragon** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 4:50 am

There is a second book by the same author, covering from Ultima I to Ultima VII part 1, including Savage Empire, Martian Dreams, Stygian Abyss, and the NES versions. I don't have that one, but I can give you the info I have about it.

Addams, Shay
The Official Book of Ultima / Second Edition
ISBN 0-87455-264-8
COMPUTE! Publications Inc., © 1992.

PanSola · Post by **PanSola** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:53 am

just search on ebay for "Ultima" and "Book", and remove any instances of "online" d-:

Daemongar · Post by **Daemongar** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 4:06 pm

Yeah - I have the second one with walkthroughs for all games including the NES version at the end. Good book, but the humor is TERRIBLE and the writing style is like a kick in the gut. I really wanted to like it, and the info is great, but man!

You can find it on Amazon used, or at Half.com the used booksite from e-bay. I got mine in beat up condition on Amazon for $7.00 plus $2.00 shipping.

SB-X · Post by **SB-X** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 4:41 pm

Define "a kick in the gut" writing style.

Daemongar · Post by **Daemongar** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 6:47 pm

Did you ever read Bobby the Brain: Wrestling's Bad Boy Tells All
the book by Bobby "the Brain" Henan - the wrestler, manager, and all around evil guy? What, nobody?! Good book, fun to read, but if you try to read it like a normal book, you'll end up with a stomach ache.

Other books I would place in this catagory:

1. Any D&D book 3.0 and later - where they switch the sex of the subject so often it'll make your head swim - one paragraph it's the hero she, next it's he, and this goes on for 300 pages - I thought it was PC gone mad, but who knows
2. The Dragonlance Series (but only if you re-read it after reading Lord of the Rings for the 5th time)
3. The Third Policeman by John Byrne - this is actually a fun book, and I'm just mentioning it here because i gave it a chance when I thought it would stink. I really liked it, but it took a while. Different. Not so much a kick in the gut as a elbow to the shinbone, though...

Gradilla Dragon · Post by **Gradilla Dragon** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:43 pm

For your information, the gender thing is a standard in RPG core rulebooks. I can tell that you don't even pay attention to the pattern. The Player Character or NPC is always a She, and the Dungeon Master is always a He. That is a convention to prevent confusions like "yea, right... 'he has to roll'... and who is that 'he'?".

I read all the D&D 3.0 core rulebooks, and several accessory books, and all follow that same convention.

Gradilla Dragon · Post by **Gradilla Dragon** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:53 pm

Oh, I also read Hero Wars and Hero Quest rulebooks, and they follow that same convention too. Even the introduction from those books explains you the convention.

Ksaturn · Post by **Ksaturn** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:19 pm

As far as RL religion goes i would prefer to stay neutral at the moment... but have any of you noticed this game(Exult/BG) centres around a massive corrupt religion? ...Not only that but also it shows ALL sides of the issue? One farmer in moonglow Hates it and calls the whole of the fellowshiip evil... Many join in to do good deeds or for moral support... Very few(I assume.. havent won BG yet) are truly knowingly evil, but will still protect the fellowship & thier 'brothers' with thier lives. In my opinion that @^#$ with the red face is all the more evil(and hard to oppose) in that he is willing to do many and great good deeds if in the end he is in power... I've played Ultima Underworld 2 and i don't think he'll maintain the facade any longer than he needs to unseat(or dominate/kill/enslave) Lord British (and the avatar of course)

Ultima story aside in RL i've studied history a great deal(Not classroom history btw) and I'd like to if any of you really wanna know how (cristainity) started. It was a multitude of very differnent religions scattered around an area of Europe and was only unified when Constatien(i think thats his name, some Roman emperor{who btw imho was rather insane}) chose one conquered and then crushesed all the others... really I don't think thats how J/C or God would want it to start if you ask me... Course i ain't them so that's an opinion as someone pointed out here...

as for RPGs being Satanic propaganda... B^!!$#!%. If i wanna make a game that is fun and awesome and such, and if i wanna promote 'ethics'(by earlier stated definition) in this 'game'. And I wanna have monsters for the good guys that are obviously/knowingly Evil... Deamons/Demons/Devils and other things that are traditionally/religiously scary/evil are a great way to ensure little remorse for thier death... or the more subtle corruptions like that of the fellowship present a way to ensure the game doesent devolve into a hack'n'slash(you can't just kill all the members of the fellowship becuase they support it... most are truly innocent) Then I'm not gonna do it to bash/flame/degrade ANY religion. I'm gonna do cuase i enjoy fantasy games/making games & for the money (with which to buy said games... and maybe a little food... or a castle...) And so on...

End of various rants... you may begin the booing and hissing now.

Tristan de Inés · Post by **Tristan de Inés** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 12:32 am

I don't know what exactly you read about religion, but Christianity was outlawed by the romans until it became "chic" to be a christian and finally a roman emperor adopted Christianity himself, spreading it over the european continent. That's why it's called "Roman-Catholic".

I think RG succeeded very well in "modelling" the fellowship in U7. He avoided this good-bad cliché and depicted it just as it is in real life. In real life people aren't "pure evil" or "pure good" as often depicted in stories. The leaders of "dubious philosophical organisations" usually have evil intents like money or power, but the people further down are just victims, perhaps consisting of "emotional weaklings", like someone in U7 mentions, but apart from this consisting of normal people like you and me... nice people, bad people, sick people, lonely people, etc.

Gradilla Dragon · Post by **Gradilla Dragon** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 4:59 am

Heh, that reminds me, there is a difference between the catholic religion and the one currently called christian. Christianity is christianity, the christian religion is christian religion; lets not mix them up, for our own sake, or we will start hurting each other unwillingly in order to "defend" our creed or something like that.

From what I read, the so-called christian religion was created by an european king (a british one, I think), who wanted to divorce so he could marry with his new lover, but the catholic religion would not allow him, so he created his own religion where divorce and other things were allowed.

So, what's my point? You will find many versions about the story of every religion. The one I read about catholicism was the same Tristan mentioned.

Well, lets quit talking about religions here. I'd love to talk about it in a friendly manner, just as we are doing now, but this is not the place for it.

Daemongar · Post by **Daemongar** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:36 am

For your information, the gender thing is a standard in RPG core rulebooks. I can tell that you don't even pay attention to the pattern. The Player Character or NPC is always a She, and the Dungeon Master is always a He. That is a convention to prevent confusions like "yea, right... 'he has to roll'... and who is that 'he'?".

I read all the D&D 3.0 core rulebooks, and several accessory books, and all follow that same convention.
In 3.5 PHB - the only one I have handy now - the class chapters: Barb - He, Bard - He, Cleric - He/She, Druid - She, etc. at random after that. At any point in the book, they use whatever sex is handy for the author of that chapter. And it changes from paragraph to paragraph. I'd be happy to post page numbers, but it would be pointless since your books are out of date. Lets just agree they've made great strides in this "convention" that you should be aware of...

Post by **Darke** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:43 am

*blink* Gradilla Dragon, that was either an amazingly good troll, or else you really need to do a few minutes worth of research on google.

Rather then put on the obligatory mortarboard and give a lecture on various things, I will point out that:

1) Google is your friend. (Try various keywords like 'catholic', 'christianity', 'anglican', etc.) (This applies to almost everyone about everything, though not those particular keywords.)

2) This is *not* a religious discussion board. Really it isn't. Could 'religion' discussions remain somehow related to *in game* stuff? FYI, "History of the christian religion", isn't. (This also applies to everyone.)

3) Mortarboards really don't balance well on top of rabbit ears. They tend to get flung off at random when my ears twitch too much. (This applies to bunnies.)

To cut a long story short: Less religion, more ultima.

Darke
(The long, black gowns are cool though. Pity about the board issues.)

Post by **Colourless** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:25 am

Thread is in danger of being locked

-Colourless Dragon

Gradilla Dragon · Post by **Gradilla Dragon** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 7:01 am

Patrick, I have all three D&D 3.5 core rulebooks. Give me the pages.

Gradilla Dragon · Post by **Gradilla Dragon** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 7:12 am

No, DarkePaw, I was not trolling. That's what the world history books from my country read.

About point 2 of your post, I stated that myself. Didn't you read the last paragraph from my post?

Ksaturn · Post by **Ksaturn** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:23 am

Quote - Darkepaw
" ' 2) This is *not* a religious discussion board. Really it isn't. Could 'religion' discussions remain somehow related to *in game* stuff? FYI, "History of the christian religion", isn't. (This also applies to everyone.) ' "

I Agree and Apologize for starting that.

As far as the RPG core rulebook gender standardization thingie thanks for clearing that up.

Quote - Macaw
" 'Everyone knows about the problem RG had in the early ultima's, namely him being accused of making kids become satanists or something like that, but why did they come up with these accusations??? ' "

In other words this thread has been entwined in religion from its start. It was i who got it directed so far off. This was not my intention and it only accounts for 1/3 that post in any case.

Quote - Patrick
" '1. Any D&D book 3.0 and later - where they switch the sex of the subject so often it'll make your head swim - one paragraph it's the hero she, next it's he, and this goes on for 300 pages - I thought it was PC gone mad, but who knows' "

This is what started the D&D off topic posts. The poster is not at fault in this case. like me it was only a side comment.

Let this thread now return to it's topic... i.e. Ultima Rulez!!!

Post by **Dominus** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 9:17 am

Another point, stated before in the forum: The fellowship is less about christianity but about Scientology. For more on this search google.

SB-X · Post by **SB-X** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 2:55 pm

I didn't see any complains about the D&D posts. But I'm now more interested in hearing the real point which is whether or not the Official Book of Ultima gives "pushing people away from their comfort zones" as a reason for putting certain things in the games.

Daemongar · Post by **Daemongar** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:17 pm

Patrick, I have all three D&D 3.5 core rulebooks. Give me the pages.

Gladly - you see - on page 21 of the Players Handbook 3.5 (Classes - it has a picture of a sword on it) it does a fine job of using he or she, the character, etc. This follows to page 24 - the Barbarian (he.) On page 26 - the Bard (he.) On page 30 - the Cleric (he.) On page 33 - the Druid (she.) On page 37 - the Fighter (he.) On page 39 - the Monk (she.) On page 42 - the Paladin (she.) On page 46 - the Ranger (he.) On page 49 - the Rogue (she.) On page 51 - the Sorcerer (he.) And on page 55 - the Wizard (she.)

I'll stop here - and if you really want to hurt your eyeballs, see prestige classes in the DM's guide.

Now, where is that copy of the Official Book of Ultima...

HellRazor Dragon · Post by **HellRazor Dragon** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:33 pm

The Official Book of Ultima contains quotes from Richard Garriott on this issue that indicate that the "child room" was specifically designed to provoke an emotional response from the player.

"So you see the children and you want to save them", Garriott explains, "but when you find a way to open the jail cells, they come out and start attacking you.

"Well, I thought, that is an interesting little problem, isn't it? Because I knew darned well that the game doesn't care if you kill them or whether you walk away. It didn't matter, but I knew it would bring up a psychological image in your mind, an image that was in my mind - and any conflict you bring up in anybody's mind is beneficial. It means a person has to think about it.

"Personally, I didn't care how they resolved it, so I put it in. I was really pleased with myself. However, one of the playtesters in the New Hampshire office found that room. He was a religious fundamentalist and was immediately outraged - he thought it was encouraging child abuse. Well, Robert was outraged. He called me up and said, "Richard, Richard, how could you consider putting something like that in your game?" I told him he had it all wrong. I mean, he'd interpreted it as it said in the letter, that the only way you can win the game is to slaughter the children in that room. I am telling him, first of all, most people aren't going to see that room, because you don't see every dungeon room, and secondly, when you walk in the room, you don't have to let them out. And third, you don't have to kill them.

"If you were that bent out of shape about killing them - which is the easiest way to get out of the room - you could charm them and make them walk out of the room yourself. You could put them to sleep and walk out of the room. You could do any number of things, but the point is that you didn't have to kill them. Admittedly, nine out of ten people who find the kids screaming out around their feet are going to kill them - but you don't have to kill children to win the game, so there's a big difference. Robert still thought I had to remove them from the game, and he got my parents involved. They called and said, "Richard, how can you consider doing this?" And they were saying, "Just remove this, it is just a little room, why are you bothering to fight for this so much?"

"And I said, because you guys are missing the point. You are now trying to tell me what I can do artistically - about something that is, in my opinion, not the issue you think it is. If it was something explicitly sexist or explicitly racist or promoting child abuse, I could stand being censored. But if it is something that provoked an emotional response from one individual, I say I have proven the success of the room. The fact that you guys are fighting me over this makes me even more sure I should not remove that room from the game."

teamster1975 · Post by **teamster1975** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:39 am

OT Whereabouts in the UK are you Dominus?