Confession: D&D

[StTommyMore]

Names, as far as their physical forms and their connection to their meanings are concerned, are within the realm of linguistics, not theology. You’re a cricket player in an American football game here.

If you’re so frightened by the names of pagan gods and demons, I’m surprised you haven’t proposed to reform the names on the calendar.

Hubris? Is that what you call scientific reasoning? Demons in fantasy and demons in real life are two different things. The same applies to angels. Hence, the importance of knowing fantasy and reality. Then again, every person has that capability if it weren’t hampered by religious paranoids.

Can you possibly argue without resorting to name-calling?

 

[StTommyMore]

Names, as far as their physical forms and their connection to their meanings are concerned, are within the realm of linguistics, not theology. You’re a cricket player in an American football game here.

If you’re so frightened by the names of pagan gods and demons, I’m surprised you haven’t proposed to reform the names on the calendar.

Hubris? Is that what you call scientific reasoning? Demons in fantasy and demons in real life are two different things. The same applies to angels. Hence, the importance of knowing fantasy and reality. Then again, every person has that capability if it weren’t hampered by religious paranoids.

The power of names is definitely in the realm of philosophy and theology. You have to understand that in D&D “Baalzebub” is in reference to the very demon that bears that name. References to “Thor” are to the Norse thunder god. You cannot say it does not matter because it is in the context of the game. We aren’t just talking about various definitions for words. We are talking about the names of actual supernatural beings. In the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting, is not “Meilikki” the name of the nature goddess? That name did not just come out of the mind of Ed Greenwood. She is a nature goddess form the Finnish pantheon, as is Loviatar. Tyr is Norse. Even in the context of the game, the names refer to the actual entities, though in a fictionalized setting.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Can you possibly argue without resorting to name-calling?

What are you babbling about? I didn’t call you anything.

The power of names is definitely in the realm of philosophy and theology. You have to understand that in D&D “Baalzebub” is in reference to the very demon that bears that name. References to “Thor” are to the Norse thunder god. You cannot say it does not matter because it is in the context of the game. We aren’t just talking about various definitions for words. We are talking about the names of actual supernatural beings. In the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting, is not “Meilikki” the name of the nature goddess? That name did not just come out of the mind of Ed Greenwood. She is a nature goddess form the Finnish pantheon, as is Loviatar. Tyr is Norse. Even in the context of the game, the names refer to the actual entities, though in a fictionalized setting.

That power comes from the “meaning” of the name, not the name itself. And by “name”, I am referring to the sounds and symbols constructed that act as signals to the “meaning”, to the signified. Still, my point stands. The connection between the signifier and signified is NOT binding.

Just because you use the letters and the sounds of a pagan god’s name, does not in any way entail a sort of worship to that god because the manipulation of meaning comes into play. Many gods and demons in fantasy, who share a name with one in actual mythology, are most often misconstrued or even contradictory compared to the ‘original’. And heck, even the originals are contrary themselves if you actually went and studied a bit of mythology.

If you want a more simple example, just because I have the same name as another person does not make me that person, not even when I mimic that person.

Look, I’m an English Language student who’ll be graduating soon. You really wanna go head-to-head with me on this?

 

[StTommyMore]

What are you babbling about? I didn’t call you anything.

That power comes from the “meaning” of the name, not the name itself. And by “name”, I am referring to the sounds and symbols constructed that act as signals to the “meaning”, to the signified. Still, my point stands. The connection between the signifier and signified is NOT binding.

Just because you use the letters and the sounds of a pagan god’s name, does not in any way entail a sort of worship to that god because the manipulation of meaning comes into play. Many gods and demons in fantasy, who share a name with one in actual mythology, are most often misconstrued or even contradictory compared to the ‘original’.

If you want a more simple example, just because I have the same name as that person does not make me that person, not even when I mimic that person.

Look, I’m an English Language student who’ll be graduating soon. You really wanna go head-to-head with me on this?

I will go head to head with you, because you are confusing the difference between “word” and “name.” The pagan god’s name signifies that God. I never said it constituted worship, but I have suggested that it is problematic in presenting pagan gods in a favorable light.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I will go head to head with you, because you are confusing the difference between “word” and “name.” The pagan god’s name signifies that God. I never said it constituted worship, but I have suggested that it is problematic in presenting pagan gods in a favorable light.

No it does not. That’s my point. The Thor in the Marvel Universe is certainly different from the Thor in actual Norse myth. The Lucifer of Dante’s Inferno is obviously just one of the many depictions of Lucifer in fiction.

Again, manipulation of meaning. Proven fact. Face it.

P.S.

I forgot to mention. Pagan gods are fictional as well. I fail to see the fear in putting such gods in a positive light when they’re not even real to begin with.

 

[StTommyMore]

No it does not. That’s my point. The Thor in the Marvel Universe is certainly different from the Thor in actual Norse myth. The Lucifer of Dante’s Inferno is obviously just one of the many depictions of Lucifer in fiction.

Again, manipulation of meaning. Proven fact. Face it.

P.S.

I forgot to mention. Pagan gods are fictional as well. I fail to see the fear in putting such gods in a positive light when they’re not even real to begin with.

That is where you are wrong my friend. Pagan gods are very real. They are not truly gods but they are demons.

 

[Melissa]

Actually Orcs are “usually Chaotic evil” according to 3.5 rules. KOS is not acceptable. One is only evil if committing evil acts.

Ah, see, I reject 3e and beyond, and in 2nd ed, they are lawful evil, not merely “usually” or having “tendencies”. That, of course, can lead to some interesting discussions as to whether KOS is acceptable (since the evil is in the very nature of the creature) or not. (One of the best discussions on the moral course of action took place in my game between a paladin and a neutral-good fighter [again, I play 2nd ed with some 1st ed and some house rules, but paladin alignment isn’t house-ruled, it is what it is].)

And in my experience, the only time a demon has shown up in any game that I’ve been a participant in has been … well, not actually showing up. Rather, the characters came into a scene where a mass murder had taken place, and some symbols were scrawled on the walls of the scene and the evil deed was attributed to “followers of …” and the PCs were then tasked with hunting down said followers.

Demons (which aren’t named in 2nd ed and if they were in Moldvay’s revision of D&D, it was in a sourcebook my DM didn’t allow) are not an integral component to the game.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You’re absolutely right Jharek. Much more sinister. As flippant as The Screwtape Letters can seem, this particular passage definitely strikes me as closer to their potential than any other representation:

But in the meantime we must obey our orders. I do not think you will have much difficulty in keeping the patient in the dark. The fact that “devils” are predominantly comic figures in the modern imagination will help you. If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights, and persuade him that since he cannot believe in that (it is an old textbook method of confusing them) he therefore cannot believe in you.

I’ve also read Screwtape and I’ve actually found this passage enlightening myself. It reinforced the fine line I’ve seen between fiction and fact. Devils are just like angels, radioactive wastes, and witches in that how such things depicted in fiction can be differentiated from the real thing.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

That is where you are wrong my friend. Pagan gods are very real. They are not truly gods but they are demons.

Riiiiight… so when was the last time almighty Zeus zapped anybody? Why hasn’t Ares made a modern day Kratos?

…

Oh yes and your response addresses manipulation of meaning… how?

 

[ConstantineTG]

That is where you are wrong my friend. Pagan gods are very real. They are not truly gods but they are demons.

Not always. Pagan gods usually are personifications of material or human attributes people like to worship. Wealth, sexuality, power, physical prowess, etc. God already said they are not alive, that is why in the Old Testament He distinguished Himself as the Living God.

 

[StTommyMore]

Riiiiight… so when was the last time almighty Zeus zapped anybody? Why hasn’t Ares made a modern day Kratos?

…

Oh yes and your response addresses manipulation of meaning… how?

I am leaving this conversation. I cannot convince one who refuses to believe in supernatural dangers that something is problematic due to supernatural dangers.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I am leaving this conversation. I cannot convince one who refuses to believe in supernatural dangers that something is problematic due to supernatural dangers.

Right. Being knowledgeable about the mechanics of language automatically means I’m some sort of materialistic skeptic who has zero belief in the supernatural…

Seriously, what’s the logic behind this statement? :ehh:

 

[StTommyMore]

Right. Being knowledgeable about the mechanics of language automatically means I’m some sort of materialistic skeptic who has zero belief in the supernatural…

Seriously, what’s the logic behind this statement? :ehh:

You have stated that this stuff isn’t real. The difference is that I say that there may be spiritual dangers, and that for that reason, the games should be dealt with extreme caution. You say there cannot possibly be spiritual dangers. You are taking the role of the extremist here. Anyone who disagrees is, using your words, “a religious paranoid.”

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You have stated that this stuff isn’t real. The difference is that I say that there may be spiritual dangers, and that for that reason, the games should be dealt with extreme caution. You say there cannot possibly be spiritual dangers. You are taking the role of the extremist here. Anyone who disagrees is, using your words, “a religious paranoid.”

The “stuff” are the pagan myths, epics, poems, and all related literature related to the religion of the pagans. Of course they’re not real! You don’t seriously believe its Helios up there carrying the sun in a chariot or that mountain crags were the work of Mjolnir do you? :ehh:

RPGs like DnD are nothing but fiction. That, sir, is what’s not real. Even if you borrow from real-world mythologies, they are no more real. Myth is just an ancient form of fiction.

But no, religious nuts just had to get all worked up and attempted to blur that distinction with their mix of anti-philosophical superstition and fundamentalist paranoia. That is the crime I accuse them of and they are guilty as charged. If people would’ve just stuck to drawing out the line between knowing what’s real and what’s not instead of confusing them, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

The only spiritual dangers created are from people who fail to make that sane distinction. It is not the fault of fiction. If anybody knew that there was a difference between fictional magic, demons, gods, etc and real world occultism, why would they attempt at a connection by practicing the latter? It doesn’t make sense. In fact, it’s hilarious to even think about it.

 

[Havard]

One thing I take away from the Screwtape passage is that fictionalizing real entities makes it easier for skeptics to dismiss them.

Forget Thor for a second, look at Asmodeus. I’m no demonologist, but I do know that Asmodeus is named specifically in Scripture as a demon (Tobit 3:8). Now I have no idea what Asmodeus should look like in reality (we don’t see spiritual beings), but I distinctly recall him looking pretty silly in the old editions of the Monster Manual. Would-be skeptics are going to look at the pointy horns, Vandyke beard and slicked back hair, and they’re going to laugh. They may even be pushed just a little bit more toward skepticism because of it.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

One thing I take away from the Screwtape passage is that fictionalizing real entities makes it easier for skeptics to dismiss them.

Forget Thor for a second, look at Asmodeus. I’m no demonologist, but I do know that Asmodeus is named specifically in Scripture as a demon (Tobit 3:8). Now I have no idea what Asmodeus should look like in reality (we don’t see spiritual beings), but I distinctly recall him looking pretty silly in the old editions of the Monster Manual. Would-be skeptics are going to look at the pointy horns and the slicked back hair, and they’re going to laugh. They may even be pushed just a little bit more toward skepticism because of it.

Yeah suppose I fictionalized a political figure in a parody (Bush, Obama, Clinton, take your pick) does that make the figure any less real?

The only way fictionalizing something could downplay the real-life counterpart is if when people fail to see that this fictionalized version is just that, fictionalized. The real Bush is obviously not the anti-Christ and Obama certainly isn’t a messiah (far from it actually but that’s another thread).

 

[StTommyMore]

The “stuff” are the pagan myths, epics, poems, and all related literature related to the religion of the pagans. Of course they’re not real! You don’t seriously believe its Helios up there carrying the sun in a chariot or that mountain crags were the work of Mjolnir do you? :ehh:

RPGs like DnD are nothing but fiction. That, sir, is what’s not real. Even if you borrow from real-world mythologies, they are no more real. Myth is just an ancient form of fiction.

But no, religious nuts just had to get all worked up and attempted to blur that distinction with their mix of anti-philosophical superstition and fundamentalist paranoia. That is the crime I accuse them of and they are guilty as charged. If people would’ve just stuck to drawing out the line between knowing what’s real and what’s not instead of confusing them, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

The only spiritual dangers created are from people who fail to make that sane distinction. It is not the fault of fiction. If anybody knew that there was a difference between fictional magic, demons, gods, etc and real world occultism, why would they attempt at a connection by practicing the latter? It doesn’t make sense. In fact, it’s hilarious to even think about it.

You are equating the stories, which are obviously not true, with the entities, who are real. You are misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint in order to make your point more tenable, or on other words, you are presenting a straw man argument. The gods of old are real beings, with real power. The idea that there is no possible spiritual danger whatsoever in the game, as you claim, cannot be held, when I know for a fact that I had demonic influences in my life, and fantasy gaming was a significant portion of my life for many years. Was D and D absolutely the source? No. Could it have contributed? I believe so.

 

[Aramis]

For what its worth, the tract you are referring to, entitled “Dark Dungeons” is completely bogus. But at the same time just because Jack Chick is wrong does not make all critics wrong.

The two most vocal opponents have been Jack Chick and Pat Pulling. Neither is credible. Anyone associated with either of them is of questionable credibility

People were surprised when Pope JP II refused to condemn the Harry Potter novels.
People have petitioned the Popes to ban D&D; no pope yet has… of the 4 who have lead the church since D&D was released.

 

[StTommyMore]

The two most vocal opponents have been Jack Chick and Pat Pulling. Neither is credible. Anyone associated with either of them is of questionable credibility

People were surprised when Pope JP II refused to condemn the Harry Potter novels.
People have petitioned the Popes to ban D&D; no pope yet has… of the 4 who have lead the church since D&D was released.

You won’t find me using arguments of Chick or Pulling. Read my posts. My criticisms are those of exercising caution due to the use of names of demons that exist. This just sits wrong with me.

 

[Havard]

Yeah suppose I fictionalized a political figure in a parody (Bush, Obama, Clinton, take your pick) does that make the figure any less real?

The only way fictionalizing something could downplay the real-life counterpart is if when people fail to see that this fictionalized version is just that, fictionalized. The real Bush is obviously not the anti-Christ and Obama certainly isn’t a messiah (far from it actually but that’s another thread).

We were talking about beings whose existence is not accepted by many (most?) humans as they generally cannot be seen, felt, heard, smelled or tasted. I’m pretty sure politicians do not fall into this category, despite the fact that some wish they would.