Confession: D&D

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

The gods of old are real beings, with real power.

That’s highly debatable. Some may have been demons, but many were probably just figments of the relevant culture’s imagination. Personally, I think that you’re giving the pagan gods too much credit.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[StTommyMore]

That’s highly debatable. Some may have been demons, but many were probably just figments of the relevant culture’s imagination. Personally, I think that you’re giving the pagan gods too much credit.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

Better to err on the side of caution since this realy cannot be proven either way

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

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.

No they’re not. Answer the question, where is almighty Odin now? How come Horus hasn’t shown himself to me after the many countless times I’ve used these cards which depict him? Does Hades really have blue fire for hair and a car dealer type of accent?

You do also realize that once you claim these beings are real, then you’d have to also believe in: unicorns, krakens, dragons, minotaurs, trolls, ogres, harpies, cyclops, wyrms, gryphons, centaurs, nymphs, three-headed hellhounds, hydras, gorgons, lamias, dwarves, elves, fairies, leprechauns, sprites, goblins, pixies, kappas, onis, jiangshi, lycans, naga, xian, baka-nekos and maybe even vampires.

After all, plenty of these creatures have ties to these pagan gods, who you claim are so real down to every last detail regardless of the contrary accounts of them in even original, ancient texts… right?

Okay seriously, now. You have demonstrated nothing but ignorance of mythology. You know squat about linguistics and fail to fathom the insignificance of symbol/sound strings without the association of meaning. My advice? Take it from someone who has actually taken classes on the subject.

Look the stories themselves were in fact considered as a form of scripture to the ancient pagans, but guess what? We now deem the myth because that’s what they all were: stories. The meaning has been manipulated. The danger you see is no longer there. We no longer think of a real thing when we hear or read the word Zeus. All it recalls to our minds is the image of a fictional god capable of hurling lightning bolts and apparently fathered a fair number of demi-gods. (Speaking of which, you’re not about to tell me you believe in demi-gods too are you?) The same has gone for the many imaginary gods of other myths.

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.

That danger (and I know this is gonna hurt) was brought about by none other than yourself. Your reasoning is no reasoning at all. Your arguments show nothing but ignorance and frankly, I think you’re just trying to justify yourself by blaming a game for “demonic” influences.

The only way I’ve seen games do harm to people would be through the same way hobbies, work, and even religion, could: obsession. No voodoo. No invocation. No calling for spirit guides. Just plain old obsession and lack of priority.

Heck I wouldn’t even call it a case of possession in this regard. Its more like something that need counseling.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

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.

Empiricism is irrelevant to this debate. If something is real and I make a fictionalized version of it, which are people gonna take as fact? Obviously the real thing. It’s another story to prove demons are real, I’m sure. However, in the context of this discussion and that since we are all Catholics, we have already discerned the existence of demons. By default, we don’t treat their being real as different as politicians being real.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

I haven’t been in on this thread from the beginning, but i wanted to add my 2 cents.

I don’t play D&D, though I have a good knowledge of the rules (anything beyond 2nd edition is sinful, to continue that thought). I write my own games. I’ve tried to write a game set in RL, in the Crusades. I had to ditch the project because of the problems all the “technically LG, actually CN” characters would have had with Catholic morality. Pagan worlds work best for fantasy. It just works that way. My most extensive game right now is an SF game set about 8000 years from now…and it’s pretty much atheist/agnostic or cultic. Religion generally doesn’t play into the characters’ lives. But my group is all good Catholics. As has been brought up earlier, there are limits to what we should do within the game. In one of my friends’ games, this one set in RL 2012, I’m an elite commando…but when I broke my leg after our cargo plane was shot down (a horrible situation…it served no purpose and we couldn’t have avoided it in any way…but i digress), the first thing I did was find a priest–then call for extraction.

 

[StTommyMore]

No they’re not. Answer the question, where is almighty Odin now? How come Horus hasn’t shown himself to me after the many countless times I’ve used these cards which depict him? Does Hades really have blue fire for hair and a car dealer type of accent?

You do also realize that once you claim these beings are real, then you’d have to also believe in: unicorns, krakens, dragons, minotaurs, trolls, ogres, harpies, cyclops, wyrms, gryphons, centaurs, nymphs, three-headed hellhounds, hydras, gorgons, lamias, dwarves, elves, fairies, leprechauns, sprites, goblins, pixies, kappas, onis, jiangshi, lycans, naga, xian, baka-nekos and maybe even vampires.

After all, plenty of these creatures have ties to these pagan gods, who you claim are so real down to every last detail regardless of the contrary accounts of them in even original, ancient texts… right?

Okay seriously, now. You have demonstrated nothing but ignorance of mythology. You know squat about linguistics and fail to fathom the insignificance of symbol/sound strings without the association of meaning. My advice? Take it from someone who has actually taken classes on the subject.

Look the stories themselves were in fact considered as a form of scripture to the ancient pagans, but guess what? We now deem the myth because that’s what they all were: stories. The meaning has been manipulated. The danger you see is no longer there. We no longer think of a real thing when we hear or read the word Zeus. All it recalls to our minds is the image of a fictional god capable of hurling lightning bolts and apparently fathered a fair number of demi-gods. (Speaking of which, you’re not about to tell me you believe in demi-gods too are you?) The same has gone for the many imaginary gods of other myths.

That danger (and I know this is gonna hurt) was brought about by none other than yourself. Your reasoning is no reasoning at all. Your arguments show nothing but ignorance and frankly, I think you’re just trying to justify yourself by blaming a game for “demonic” influences.

The only way I’ve seen games do harm to people would be through the same way hobbies, work, and even religion, could: obsession. No voodoo. No invocation. No calling for spirit guides. Just plain old obsession and lack of priority.

Heck I wouldn’t even call it a case of possession in this regard. Its more like something that need counseling.

Welcome to my ignore list. Since you have proven yourself incapable of engaging in honest discussion without resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks

 

[Havard]

Empiricism is irrelevant to this debate. If something is real and I make a fictionalized version of it, which are people gonna take as fact? Obviously the real thing. It’s another story to prove demons are real, I’m sure. However, in the context of this discussion and that since we are all Catholics, we have already discerned the existence of demons. By default, we don’t treat their being real as different as politicians being real.

I realize this started off about Catholics, but my point was about the danger it poses to skeptics/agnostics.

I’ll make a separate thread if people really think it’s that off-topic.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This idea that names have power strikes me as almost supernatural.

For example, many occultists teach that knowing the true name of something/someone gives the occultist power over that thing/individual.

I would just add, my gateway into the occult was the Lord of the Rings, not D&D.

That is not to say that LotR is bad, it is just a story, it is neither bad, nor good, like all objects. It is the way that it is used by the individual that makes it such.

I could see how some could use D&D as an entrance to the occult but it would have to be heavily modified (addition of many home rules and the use of a homebrewed campaign), the game as written and used following its written rules is not such a thing.

 

[Spirithound]

The FIRST comamndment is the command agians idolatry, the second is “Do not take the name of the LORD you God in vain.” This tells me the name itself has power.

It tells me that the Name is, like everything else about God, sacred, and thus not to be thrown around lightly.

 

[StTommyMore]

This idea that names have power strikes me as almost supernatural.

For example, many occultists teach that knowing the true name of something/someone gives the occultist power over that thing/individual.

I would just add, my gateway into the occult was the Lord of the Rings, not D&D.

That is not to say that LotR is bad, it is just a story, it is neither bad, nor good, like all objects. It is the way that it is used by the individual that makes it such.

I could see how some could use D&D as an entrance to the occult but it would have to be heavily modified (addition of many home rules and the use of a homebrewed campaign), the game as written and used following its written rules is not such a thing.

That really depends on the version of the game, campaign setting and whatnot. Greyhawk is quite possibly the least problematic of the campaign settings in its current edition. Starting with 2nd ed. AD&D the demonic references started to be curtailed: “deomons” became t’nari, and “devils” became baateezu. Gone were references to “Baalzebub” and “Asmodius.” With 3rd edition devils and demons returned, and then we also saw The Book of Vile Darkness, which really celebrates evil. I don’t know about 4th edition, because I never really played it. The mechanic was just awful. Again I have never once said that the game is wholly irredeemable, but there are problems with the game that need to be addressed before I would be comfortable with it.

 

[Spirithound]

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

Reports of Zeus’s powers have been greatly exaggerated…

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

It doesn’t make the real figure any less real, but it may lower that figure in some people’s esteem.

 

[StTommyMore]

It tells me that the Name is, like everything else about God, sacred, and thus not to be thrown around lightly.

It also implies that names in themselves have meaning. Why do you think that the Church encourages naming children for Saints? Why is it that the Church strongly discourages naming your children those names with explicitly pagan connotations? You also have to remember that the first commandment does not claim monotheism. The commandment does not dismiss other gods from existence, but rather the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the only one to be worshiped by Israel.

 

[Spirithound]

It also implies that names in themselves have meaning. Why do you think that the Church encourages naming children for Saints? Why is it that the Church strongly discourages naming your children those names with explicitly pagan connotations?

I disagree that names in themselves have meaning. There are at least a dozen saints named Anthony. If my name is Anthony, which one would I be named after? There are also hundreds of people who have not been declared saints, also named Anthony, who my parents may have admired, to name me after. Additionally, some names are words from other languages, so parents might choose a name that way. So no, names do not, in themselves have meaning, as there are many ways to choose a name, and some of them might even contradict each other.

(I guess my example would have been better if I had chosen a name from the beginning that has a known meaning…)

The Church discourages names with pagan connotations because those names have pagan connotations, not pagan denotations.

 

[StTommyMore]

I disagree that names in themselves have meaning. There are at least a dozen saints named Anthony. If my name is Anthony, which one would I be named after? There are also hundreds of people who have not been declared saints, also named Anthony, who my parents may have admired, to name me after. Additionally, some names are words from other languages, so parents might choose a name that way. So no, names do not, in themselves have meaning, as there are many ways to choose a name, and some of them might even contradict each other.

(I guess my example would have been better if I had chosen a name from the beginning that has a known meaning…)

The Church discourages names with pagan connotations because those names have pagan connotations, not pagan denotations.

You must admit that names are more than just a collection of sounds. Names have power, especially when those names are attached to demonic entities. My question is now this: Why is it wrong for me to err on the side of caution?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You must admit that names are more than just a collection of sounds. Names have power, especially when those names are attached to demonic entities.

Can you back this up with something from the Church?

Again, I believe your view comes from the supernatural. As I said, occultists believe that names have power, that by knowing a name one has power over the individual or thing that the name is assigned to.

 

[StTommyMore]

Can you back this up with something from the Church?

Again, I believe your view comes from the supernatural. As I said, occultists believe that names have power, that by knowing a name one has power over the individual or thing that the name is assigned to.

The importance of names, as well as their eternal character, is described in sections 2156-2159 of the Catechism. I am still waiting for a response as to why erring on the side of caution is wrong. I mean seriously. If I am wrong, am I worse off for it? I don’t think so. If I am right, than I am much better off. And as I have said before, there were demonic influences in my past, and I believe they were at least partly due to me opening the door with a game that celebrates the arcane.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The importance of names, as well as their eternal character, is described in sections 2156-2159 of the Catechism. I am still waiting for a response as to why erring on the side of caution is wrong. I mean seriously. If I am wrong, am I worse off for it? I don’t think so. If I am right, than I am much better off. And as I have said before, there were demonic influences in my past, and I believe they were at least partly due to me opening the door with a game that celebrates the arcane.

I read those paragraphs and I do not read anywhere that it says that “names have power”.

I do not think erring on the side of caution is wrong, but this is your opinion on D&D. One that I and many others here do not agree with so, what is wrong with our opinions other than they are different from yours?

It seems that you want to totally discount our opinion and experiences for your own, which is ok for you, but do not think that we have to subscribe to your opinion/experiences in this matter. The Church has not spoken on this issue.

D&D is not a sin nor does it need confessing.

 

[Alindawyl]

The importance of names, as well as their eternal character, is described in sections 2156-2159 of the Catechism. I am still waiting for a response as to why erring on the side of caution is wrong. I mean seriously. If I am wrong, am I worse off for it? I don’t think so. If I am right, than I am much better off. And as I have said before, there were demonic influences in my past, and I believe they were at least partly due to me opening the door with a game that celebrates the arcane.

There’s nothing wrong with being cautious if something is a stumbling block to your faith. If role playing games are an issue for you, then don’t play them. The problem arises when a thing which is a stumbling block to some people, yourself included, is treated as if it’s a universal evil.

To someone who has a problem with drink, alcohol is dangerous and should be avoided. But to someone who isn’t an alcoholic, it’s not a problem at all. Look at role playing games in a similar light. They’re clearly a problem to you and cause you great concern, so should rightly be avoided. But to someone who sees them as nothing but fantasy, who isn’t tempted to go out and learn more about the occult, who isn’t tempted to think that Satan and the other fallen angels aren’t real, it simply isn’t an issue.

 

[StTommyMore]

Never have I said it was or did. I have merely highlighted the issues that any reasonable person can see could be viewed as problematic.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Never have I said it was or did. I have merely highlighted the issues that any reasonable person can see could be viewed as problematic.

I disagree with your use of “reasonable person” here as you are implying that all of those that disagree with you are not reasonable people.

By looking at this thread it appears that the over whelming majority do not hold to your opinion so I would argue that we hold the reasonable opinion. That is if you wished to discuss this.