Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 62
playing games [emphasis added] since Dungeons and Dragons was published, role playing
games did not incite teens to suicide.”87 [italics in original] This laborious line of reasoning
culminates in Stackpole‟s revelation that Pat Pulling‟s book cites approximately 70 suicides
among all RPG players “as of 1987.”88 He further reports: “But this number is only about
1% of the 6,840 successful suicides expected if D&D has no effect at all on the suicide rate
of its players.”89 All this appears coherent until one examines some important contributing
factors. Pulling, for example, thinks of adolescents as falling into the 13-20 years old range,
not the 15-24 years old range. Her comments, therefore, refer to a different population
group from the one Stackpole cites. Pulling also notes that the percentage of 13-20 years
old players of Dungeons and Dragons is quite small relative to the population at large. She
elaborated on her viewpoint during an extensive phone interview by pointing out that she
believes that only 8%-10% of the 13-20-year-old population group plays Dungeons and
Dragons. Fewer still are recurring players. Even in the absence of a solid statistical base,
this means that the pertinent subject group is much smaller than that to which Stackpole
alludes. By using his straw man of 6,840, Stackpole artfully diminishes the impact of
Pulling‟s observations.
Pulling‟s conclusions may overestimate the impact of D&D -we are not arguing that point.
But Stackpole‟s argument does not support his accusation. Pulling‟s warning that D&D is a
dangerous game that warrants serious scrutiny is home out by her analysis as well as by
our own observations of its impact on individuals we have counseled. The issue is not the
ratio of suicides per 100,000 people. The issue is whether or not it can be demonstrated
that fantasy role-playing games have contributed to any suicides or murders. If, as we
believe, this is the case, then Ockham‟s Razor says that Pulling‟s concern is legitimate.
Stackpole is too eager to brush aside this concern. The percentage of suicides among people
owning steak knives may be no higher than that of nonsuicides. But this does not mean that
a steak knife which slashes an artery didn‟t contribute to a particular suicide.
In keeping with the “independent” nature of his appendix, Stackpole faithfully resurrects the
keen polemical edge of Ockham‟s Razor -but not effectively. After linking Patricia Pulling to
a circle of allegedly spurious critics of Satanism, Stackpole reintroduces the grand
conspiracy theory. His source for this is the newsletter File 18, which is published by a
“questionable” investigator, Larry Jones, and which espouses the theory of a vertical
Satanist conspiracy. We do not adhere to this viewpoint, and regret the lack of space in
which to explain why we hold our position. However, we do wish to comment on several
statements by Stackpole, including one that demonstrates that the mildest use of Ockham‟s
Razor will reveal the flaw in File 18’s “ vertical conspiracy theory.”90
Stackpole notes that adolescents caught up in “bizarre occult antics” frequently say they
learned them by watching Geraldo Rivera‟s talk show.91 Because people we have counseled
have made that same claim, we do not doubt Stackpole‟s observation. We do, however,
seriously question his credulity. Those individuals we have counseled who have cited this
show as the source of their satanic knowledge and inspiration have uniformly lied. Examples
include members of a New England group which employed satanic symbols for over a year
before the Geraldo Rivera show debuted. These youths calmly acknowledged their
longstanding practice of self-mutilation, done to the energizing refrains of heavy metal
music. A 17-year-old Pennsylvania girl who tried to calm her parents with this claim, had for
a period of three years been a member of a ritualistic sex group which sacrificed animals for
thrills and power. A group of drug dealers whose locale will go unspecified learned their dual
trade of Satanism and dealing from their fathers. These cases do not suggest a worldwide
conspiracy. They do satisfy us that a correct application of William of Ockham‟s logical
economy leads to the conclusion that this problem exists, is based on fairly uniform
influences, and certainly predates Geraldo Rivera‟s talk show.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 63
While allegedly representing an “expert” opinion, Stackpole inadvertently demonstrates his
ignorance about the occult subculture when he dismisses the ersatz magical grimoire known
as The Necronomicon as a “joke.”92 While the “Nec” is certainly not what it purports to be,
neither is it merely a hoax. The book was not written by H.P. Lovecraft, but it was directly
inspired by his works. Lovecraft created the legend of the Necronomicon as part of his
Cthulhu mythos, derived from his interest in the power of myth. The “cth-” prefix is a key.
It refers to the cthonic or underground deities so important to early Mediterranean religions.
But the grimoire itself was written by Lovecraft fans -several of them, as Stackpole notes.
A New York occultist named “Simon” is responsible for the paperback edition published by
Avon. This is the Necronomicon used by teenage “dabblers” in black magic.
Once again we are indebted to Michael Aquino for obligingly offering his insights into the
real magical significance of a work such as the Necronomicon -namely, that its potency is
not determined by its “authenticity.” In the chapter on The Satanic Rituals from his
monograph on the Church of Satan, Aquino writes, “Anton LaVey states that the actual
function of Satanic ritual is to enable the mind, whose processes are normally governed by
perceptions of external reality (objectivity), to assume a mode of operation in which it itself
controls reality by expression (subjectivity).”93 (Emphasis his.] Aquino notes that most of
the book‟s readers do not bother to check up on the authenticity of the background
information given for the rituals, but if they did they would soon find out that much of it is
made up out of whole cloth. However, Aquino points out, this is irrelevant -because the
rituals “work.” In Aquino‟s words, they work because “the great truth that underlies the art
and science of magic [is] that both the power to create and the power to define are a
function of the Will...”94 This is a rather overblown way of saying that they work for the
same reason any good work of fiction works, because they create their own worlds. The
same principle is at work with a flight of fancy like the Necronomicon, which in turn grew
out of the bizarre universe of primeval forces created by Lovecraft. That principle is at work
in a Role Playing Game such as Dungeons and Dragons as well. A subjective universe is
created by the game‟s designers and extended by each player.
With respect to Stackpole‟s comments about the application of Ockham‟s Razor to File 18’s
vertical conspiracy theory, we must note that he once again demonstrates that he and the
report‟s authors simply do not understand their topic. This is amply demonstrated by their
ironic reliance upon what they call Ockham‟s Razor. A comment Michael Aquino makes
about his Erstwhile satanic colleague, Anton LaVey, underscores by analogy the absence of
understanding which pervades the CSER report. As Aquinas makes plain, LaVey‟s intention
demands a set of abstract constants to support his metaphysical goals. Aquino and LaVey
appeal to mental and extramental realities in order to entice agreement with their views, as
the report does by substituting innuendo and fabrication for established fact and researched
argument. The irony is that for William of Ockham the metaphysical realm supporting
LaVey‟s concept simply does not exist because, for Ockham, “metaphysics in fact does not
exist.”95 His Nominalism erected a strong barrier between external reality, or objects, and
what the mind speculates about them. LaVey assumes a mind that is capable of abstract
thought, but, for Ockham, “the mental process of abstraction... cannot be shown to exist.”96
On the other hand, Ockham never doubted the independent existence of God and an
independent external reality. This prevents the type of Idealism espoused by LaVey. For
Ockham accepted that the “formal distinction is not made by the discernments of the mind
of the observer. It is there in the object before we discern it.”97 This is the basis for
Ockham‟s principle of Parsimony: because things are there because God placed them there,
Ockham said, “we must not assume anything as indispensable for explaining a certain event
unless reason, experience or revelation requires us to do so.”98
If the CSER authors understood Ockham, they would have realized that, being a faithful
Christian, he would have applied his logical principle of Parsimony in favor of the supposedly