Confession: D&D

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elijah_Baley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This reminds me of Vecna, from the Greyhawk series.
His name could not be mentioned. Even whispers of his name, he could hear, and in hearing his name, he could go to the person which would lead to that person’s ruin and untimely demise.
 
ByzCath said:
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.
Click to expand...
Does it really matter what the general consensus in the thread is, though? What if most of us agreed with Tommy. It wouldn’t make him any more or less reasonable.

Tommy’s offered people some real points to argue (e.g… names having power), why not explore something like that further? I really hate seeing compelling debates shut down merely because one side has more support than the other.
 
ByzCath said:
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.
Click to expand...
Truth is not determined by consensus. If you refuses to concede that someone may have a point, which is all I am doing here, it is unreasonable. On this thread I point out concerns, and the general response is that I am paranoid, insane, lying, etc. My crime? Pointing out that a game may have connection to the occult and I have concerns.
 
Havard said:
Does it really matter what the general consensus in the thread is, though? What if most of us agreed with Tommy. It wouldn’t make him any more or less reasonable.

Tommy’s offered people some real points to argue (e.g… names having power), why not explore something like that further? I really hate seeing compelling debates shut down merely because one side has more support than the other.
Click to expand...
We have discussed the issue of “names having power” which is an occult belief and he has yet to show a Catholic Teaching of this.

His only attmepts where not to take the Lord’s name in vain and then the issue of Christian naming of children for baptism.

While he has made this arguement I do not believe he has supported it in any way.
 
StTommyMore said:
Truth is not determined by consensus. If you refuses to concede that someone may have a point, which is all I am doing here, it is unreasonable. On this thread I point out concerns, and the general response is that I am paranoid, insane, lying, etc. My crime? Pointing out that a game may have connection to the occult and I have concerns.
Click to expand...
You are right, Truth is not determined by consensus.

It is also not determined by opinion.

But the “reasonable man” argument is a legal argument that is determined by consensus.
 
ByzCath said:
We have discussed the issue of “names having power” which is an occult belief and he has yet to show a Catholic Teaching of this.

His only attmepts where not to take the Lord’s name in vain and then the issue of Christian naming of children for baptism.

While he has made this arguement I do not believe he has supported it in any way.
Click to expand...
The Catechism does bring out the significance of names. Do you have anything from the Church that says that things referencing the occult should be dealt with flippantly?
 
StTommyMore said:
The Catechism does bring out the significance of names. Do you have anything from the Church that says that things referencing the occult should be dealt with flippantly?
Click to expand...
No I don’t, that is why I keep pointing out that the belief in the power of names is a standard occult belief.

I have not dealt with the occult in anyway, flippantly.

I would also say that D&D does not deal with the occult.
 
To add to the mix, consider this:

“In the ancient world, particularly in the ancient near-east (Israel, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia) names were thought to be extremely powerful and to act, in some ways, as a separate manifestation of a person or deity.[4] This viewpoint is responsible both for the reluctance to use the proper name of God in Hebrew writing or speech, as well as the common understanding in ancient magic that magical rituals had to be carried out “in [someone’s] name”. By invoking a god or spirit by name, one was thought to be able to summon that spirit’s power for some kind of miracle or magic (see Luke 9:49, in which the disciples claim to have seen a man driving out demons using the name of Jesus.) This understanding passed into later religious tradition, for example the stipulation in Catholic exorcism that the demon cannot be expelled until the exorcist has forced it to give up its name, at which point the name may be used in a stern command which will drive the demon away.”

And:

“The Babylonian Talmud maintains that names exert a mystical influence over their bearers, and a change of name is one of four actions that can avert an evil heavenly decree, that would lead to punishment after one’s death. Rabbinical commentators differ as to whether the name’s influence is metaphysical, connecting a person to their soul, or bio-socio-psychological, where the connection affects his personality, appearance and social capacities. The Talmud also states that all those who descend to Gehenna will rise in the time of Messiah. However, there are three exceptions, one of which is he who calls another by a derisive nickname. A myth is a message that is passed on from generation to generation.”

Souce - Lazypedia. Er, I mean, Wikipedia.
 
StTommyMore said:
Welcome to my ignore list. Since you have proven yourself incapable of engaging in honest discussion without resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks
Click to expand...
Ad hominems? Your proven ignorance on the subject of mythology and linguistics is an ad hominem? You consider being admonished for talking about things you have zero knowledge as a personal attack?

Look at the words ByzCath, they’re generally along the same line. Double standards much?
You’re exhibiting a poor debater’s skill and sportsmanship by ignoring people just because you can’t get them to agree with you and can’t answer their argument.
 
StTommyMore said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes they are. The sounds only have meaning because that meaning is attached to them. Read up structural and post-structural linguistics some time.
Havard said:
To add to the mix, consider this:

“In the ancient world, particularly in the ancient near-east (Israel, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia) names were thought to be extremely powerful and to act, in some ways, as a separate manifestation of a person or deity.[4] This viewpoint is responsible both for the reluctance to use the proper name of God in Hebrew writing or speech, as well as the common understanding in ancient magic that magical rituals had to be carried out “in [someone’s] name”. By invoking a god or spirit by name, one was thought to be able to summon that spirit’s power for some kind of miracle or magic (see Luke 9:49, in which the disciples claim to have seen a man driving out demons using the name of Jesus.) This understanding passed into later religious tradition, for example the stipulation in Catholic exorcism that the demon cannot be expelled until the exorcist has forced it to give up its name, at which point the name may be used in a stern command which will drive the demon away.”

And:

“The Babylonian Talmud maintains that names exert a mystical influence over their bearers, and a change of name is one of four actions that can avert an evil heavenly decree, that would lead to punishment after one’s death. Rabbinical commentators differ as to whether the name’s influence is metaphysical, connecting a person to their soul, or bio-socio-psychological, where the connection affects his personality, appearance and social capacities. The Talmud also states that all those who descend to Gehenna will rise in the time of Messiah. However, there are three exceptions, one of which is he who calls another by a derisive nickname. A myth is a message that is passed on from generation to generation.”

Souce - Lazypedia. Er, I mean, Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
Yes well, I think you’d be better of consulting actual authorities on semiotics and linguistics than ancient myths and superstitions.

I suggest everyone give this a read. You don’t have to read it all, it’s just that the general ideas presented in the first few paragraphs were also taught to me in my Linguistic and Literary Theory classes. These ideas include the model of Ferdinand de Saussure, one of the fathers of 20th century linguistics and the post-structural response to it by Jacques Lacan.


Semiotics for Beginners
 
Spirithound said:
Reports of Zeus’s powers have been greatly exaggerated… 😉
Click to expand...
You mean being descended from him actually doesn’t give you super-strength or magical powers? :eek:

Well there goes one dream of mine. 😦

(:D:p)
Spirithound said:
It doesn’t make the real figure any less real, but it may lower that figure in some people’s esteem.
Click to expand...
Or exaggerate it to overrated proportions. coughBarack-Obamacough Though in any case, it’s still up to the people to choose whether they’ll believe in a caricature or in the real individual. Logically speaking though? It makes more sense to believe in the latter since exaggerations could lead to really nasty misunderstandings.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
Yes they are. The sounds only have meaning because that meaning is attached to them. Read up structural and post-structural linguistics some time.

Yes well, I think you’d be better of consulting actual authorities on semiotics and linguistics than ancient myths and superstitions.

I suggest everyone give this a read. You don’t have to read it all, it’s just that the general ideas presented in the first few paragraphs were also taught to me in my Linguistic and Literary Theory classes. These ideas include the model of Ferdinand de Saussure, one of the fathers of 20th century linguistics and the post-structural response to it by Jacques Lacan.


Semiotics for Beginners
Click to expand...
I also learned this in my philosophy classes for my undergraduate degree.

Words only have the meanings that society agree that they will have. The color Red is only known by us all as Red because that is the meaning we (we as in all of English speaking society) agree that it is Red. If we decided that the word Blue meant Red then we would call the color Red Blue while meaning Red.

I understand though that this can get very logical and not everyone will necessarily be able to follow along with this train of thought.
 
ByzCath said:
I also learned this in my philosophy classes for my undergraduate degree.

Words only have the meanings that society agree that they will have. The color Red is only known by us all as Red because that is the meaning we (we as in all of English speaking society) agree that it is Red. If we decided that the word Blue meant Red then we would call the color Red Blue while meaning Red.

I understand though that this can get very logical and not everyone will necessarily be able to follow along with this train of thought.
Click to expand...
I understand your train of thought, but this is justifying the idea that Truth is subjective. Truth is objective. In D&D the names are associated with the original pagan deities, at at least on some level.
 
StTommyMore said:
I understand your train of thought, but this is justifying the idea that Truth is subjective. Truth is objective. In D&D the names are associated with the original pagan deities, at at least on some level.
Click to expand...
Words and their meanings are not Truth. If they were there would only be one word for everything, yet we agree that Red and Roja both mean the same thing.

So right there, the meaning of Red is subjectively based on your culture and language. The underlying color is what is part of Truth, what we call it is not.

Again, I said it was hard to grasp.
 
🤷 Beat me to it and said it a bit more clearer than I did, maybe I should start to read on before replying…😃
 
When it comes to names, one must have intent and understanding when using a name. If I were to read out loud in Swahili a prayer to demonic powers that uses the name of Satan, it would not matter, because I’d have no idea what I’m saying. Even if I use the names of fifty demons, it won’t matter because I won’t recognize them, and I certainly will not know what I’m saying. The significance of names depends on how they are used.
 
StTommyMore said:
I understand your train of thought, but this is justifying the idea that Truth is subjective. Truth is objective. In D&D the names are associated with the original pagan deities, at at least on some level.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. Truth and the mere connection between signifier and signified are two different things. The latter deals with the simple question of how members of a society communicate meaning through signs.

As Jharek points out, names of things are not universal.

Simple strings of sounds or letters have no meaning aside from what we assign them. That is a fact that is high time for you to accept. The meaning of the names of pagan deities is not constant. There have been many depictions of the ancient gods through fiction. The original gods themselves are, in fact, nothing but figments when you try and actually analyze their characteristics, significant traits (both personal and physical, the latter being something you will find yourself hard-pressed to prove).

To summarize, your fears are unfounded and created only by yourself because you associate the names with actual demons and fail to distinguish fiction from fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top