So as not to desecrate the thread of salvation, newly risen from the dead after 1.5 long years locked away in a tomb...
I have moved a discussion on blasphemy here.
No, not this Blasphemy.
Different Blasphemy,Dude. Also is it just me or does the name of that spell not make sense,
in D&D there are evil gods after all. (Oh and sometimes good outsiders that don't serve a deity) Not to mention that if it was directly against the deity (like real world blasphemy) it would't work unless the PC was epic-level,maybe)In case I didn't make myself clear I mean't I (and other christians and theists) should also be sensitive/respectful of atheist and unbelievers (and especially agnostics,for whom I feel a special empathy,having once effectively been one)
I don't really understand the concept of "blasphemy". It seems to hint that there is some group/class/set of ideas that is somehow beyond question, criticism, or ridicule.
The notion of "an idea that must not be questioned" is very alien to me.Sure, there are some ideas that some folks are pretty heavily invested in. I don't think that should give an idea any special status.
To me, an idea is either true (and can stand up to any criticism) or it is false (and deserves every criticism that can be heaped upon it).
A philosophy professor once told me, "The tastiest hamburgers are made from sacred cow." I've yet to find a counter-example.
A philosophy professor once told me, "The tastiest hamburgers are made from sacred cow." I've yet to find a counter-example.
That, for example, is very blasphemous, and will earn you death threats and worse on these boards. Mainly because 4e advocates have been using it as an excuse to justify 4e being a completely different game from previous incarnations of D&D, with a lot of the stuff that makes D&D D&D changed just for the heck of it. ;-P
But to be serious:
The usual, general definition of blasphemy is something like "insulting a deity or religion with words and/or deeds".
The problem, of course, is that people sometimes make their own definitions of blasphemy, and of things like "insulting".
There's a lot of point of view in this, and when it comes to religious beliefs, a lot of people see their own as the only possible one, and everyone who disagrees is not just wrong, but evil.
And people can be very testy when it comes to their religion.
And other people use it as an excuse to spew their hatred of things and people that are different all over the place.
In short: It's a complicated matter.
If you go with a narrow definition of blasphemy (and of insulting), merely questioning a religion is not blasphemy, but that doesn't keep the fanatics from calling you blasphemer if you're not drinking the Kool-Aid and begging for seconds.
To me, true Blasphemy, are the actions of the fanatics of a religion, acting in a way that is actually against the beliefs the religion. Examples are the Inquisition and the Witch Trials of Europe and Salem. A modern example would be the suicide bombers and terrorists of the Moslems (I do not believe that all Moslems are like that, and I am Jewish.)
|
The usual, general definition of blasphemy is something like "insulting a deity or religion with words and/or deeds".
That's been a pet peeve of mine for years. 'Blasphemy' as a spell, is just a Holy Word for evil clerics. A blasphemy in a world with both good and evil gods, would be something like 'to heck with all you gods, you all suck!' The nation of Rahadoum could be considered blasphemous.
People who bend knee to demons, devils, daemons (or empyreal lords, angels, archons, etc!) *might* be considered blasphemous, if the gods are opposed to people worshipping them. (Which doesn't really seem to be the case, as the servants of the Empyreals seem to be on good terms with Iomedae and Sarenrae worshippers, and the servants of various archdevils seem to follow in the line of Asmodeus.)
The desecrate spell, and the sacred/profane bonus types, also feel like they were poorly named. An altar to a good god is sacred, and an altar to an evil god is no less sacred. Defiling or disrespecting an altar to an evil god is an act of desecration, no matter if the god itself is a nasty piece of work.
If there were to be spells like desecrate and blasphemy in the game, they should be spells for *arcane casters* to use (or perhaps something like ur-priests), that disrupt the flow of divine magic, or destroy holy symbols, holy water *and* 'unholy symbols' and 'unholy water,' by attacking the divine magic itself, regardless of the alignment of the patron diety in question.
And the sacred / profane bonus thing is just absurd. Something that has been made into an 'unholy symbol' or 'blessed' by Asmodeus would be sacred, and dropping it in a bucket of urine would be to profane it. Making the profane bonus just 'sacred to an evil god,' is a grammatical fail, combined with a game mechanics fail, since it allows a Neutral cleric of a Neutral god (like Abadar, for instance) to make a pair of magic rings, one that gives a 'sacred' bonus to something, and one that gives a 'profane' bonus to the exact same trait, *and stack them, because they are different bonus types.*
That's just silly!
And it also begs the question of what bonus type a holy item to a LN or CN diety would have. Sacred doesn't make sense, since the diety isn't good. Profane doesn't fit, even if it's the evil version of sacred, because the diety isn't evil, either. Can LN and CN clerics of LN and CN gods not make 'sacred' or 'profane' items? Can they make (and wear) both? Does the precedent of 'evil consecrated items' haviing their own 'profane' bonus type inevitably require the addition of 'orderly' and 'contrary' and 'meh' bonus types, for lawful, chaotic and true neutral clerical items?
Unless Ur-Priests exist in the game, and start pumping out anti-divine magic items, there's no need at all for a Profane type. An item empowered by a cleric of Rovagug should be a *sacred* item, and should *not* stack with an item empowered by a cleric of Sarenrae, which, by the current system of sacred / profane, it would.
Until p 134 of Ultimate Magic, I'd really thought that PF had gotten away from that nonsense, but apparently not.
Bad use of English (since blasphemy, desecrate and profane already had meanings, and it wasn't 'holy to bad people').
Bad precedent for mechanics ('cause now evil holy items and spells can stack with good holy items and spells, and possibly lawful, chaotic and / or neutral holy items and spells...).
Bad!
That, for example, is very blasphemous, and will earn you death threats and worse on these boards. Mainly because 4e advocates have been using it as an excuse to justify 4e being a completely different game from previous incarnations of D&D, with a lot of the stuff that makes D&D D&D changed just for the heck of it. ;-P
A philosophy professor once told me, "The tastiest hamburgers are made from sacred cow." I've yet to find a counter-example.
To be fair, I don't think 4e D&D was made of sacred cow. I think it was made from sacred donkey. That's why it tasted like ass.
But it was sacred solo donkey with 1.415 hp and two different breath weapons that recharge on 4+.
To me, true Blasphemy, are the actions of the fanatics of a religion, acting in a way that is actually against the beliefs the religion. Examples are the Inquisition and the Witch Trials of Europe and Salem. A modern example would be the suicide bombers and terrorists of the Moslems (I do not believe that all Moslems are like that, and I am Jewish.)
You don't even have to be violent for this. Those guys who scream "Jesus" after every other sentence and use their piety as an excuse to be condescending. Who follow a martyr who's famous to have died after he stepped up to the hypocrites in his religion and pointed out their Pharisaism (look, it is even named after those guys), for having preached tolerance, but be the worst judgemental hypocrites around.
They're those who give their whole religion a bad name.
But it was sacred solo donkey with 1.415 hp and two different breath weapons that recharge on 4+.
I heard they put a bale of hay on one side of the room, and a bucket of water on the other side of the room, then they just waited.
To me, true Blasphemy, are the actions of the fanatics of a religion, acting in a way that is actually against the beliefs the religion. Examples are the Inquisition and the Witch Trials of Europe and Salem. A modern example would be the suicide bombers and terrorists of the Moslems (I do not believe that all Moslems are like that, and I am Jewish.)You don't even have to be violent for this. Those guys who scream "Jesus" after every other sentence and use their piety as an excuse to be condescending. Who follow a martyr who's famous to have died after he stepped up to the hypocrites in his religion and pointed out their Pharisaism (look, it is even named after those guys), for having preached tolerance, but be the worst judgemental hypocrites around.
They're those who give their whole religion a bad name.
I should of said: ...by actions or by words...
Thanks for the expansion of what I was saying, KaeYoss.
That, for example, is very blasphemous, and will earn you death threats and worse on these boards. Mainly because 4e advocates have been using it as an excuse to justify 4e being a completely different game from previous incarnations of D&D, with a lot of the stuff that makes D&D D&D changed just for the heck of it. ;-P
A philosophy professor once told me, "The tastiest hamburgers are made from sacred cow." I've yet to find a counter-example.
To be fair, I don't think 4e D&D was made of sacred cow. I think it was made from sacred donkey. That's why it tasted like ass.
I know you're just joking around, but making crude, incendiary comments about 4th edition incurs the displeasure of our Paizo hosts, and of others in our community. Maybe you weren't here a few years ago, during the edition wars. Things got...ugly.
PlatinumBeetle,
A lot of the Inquisition's victims were chosen for reasons of greed, jealousy, envy, covetness, power, fear, and just pure sadism. This was not neccessarily by the Inquisitors, but could also be the accusers. Once accused, and brought into their clutches, you could not win. You would be tortured and asked to admit your "crimes" and be killed or you would not admit it and be killed horribly. (i.e. Joan d'Arc)
The witch hunts were quite different, in fact. I have not done any deeper studies, but from what I have gathered, it was often the case that the inquisition found a powder keg situation in a certain community, where various people had been accused of witchcraft by others, and had to sort out the situation with a minimum price in blood. Other times, it was the inquisition that drove the entire situation in order to strengthen its grip on the community. Witch burnings were one of those things that motivated the enlightenment movement, and with a generally improved educational level, witch hunts and accusations were no longer as relevant to the average person. However, it is also important to realize that if the reformation and the answering counter-reformation had not become necessary to the roman catholic church, giving the people leave to read the bible in their own language, the enlightenment would never have happened due to the church's interest in keeping the people unenlightened.
But how people died to reach that point? How many lives wasted? Don't forget that whenever they took someone, they also confiscated all their worldly possessions
|
Blasphemy: the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
Also Syssyl I suggest you check into the history of the church and what actually happened before pronouncing such judgments against the church.
As the inquisition and the witch trails were used by civil authorities not church ones, as an excuse many times to round up those that they wanted "out of the way".
Which accusation is that? That they forbid translation of the bible? Are you claiming they did not? Or that there was no purpose to doing so?
1.415 hp
Is that one thousand four hundred and fifteen hit points or one and four hundred and fifteen thousandths hit points?
If you're sticking with the . for thousand separator, as the lord (of maths) intended, I salute you! :)
1.415 hpIs that one thousand four hundred and fifteen hit points or one and four hundred and fifteen thousandths hit points?
If you're sticking with the . for thousand separator, as the lord (of maths) intended, I salute you! :)
To you, sir, I have only one thing to say:
THBTHTHTHT!!! =)
Blasphemy: the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
Also Syssyl I suggest you check into the history of the church and what actually happened before pronouncing such judgments against the church.
As the inquisition and the witch trails were used by civil authorities not church ones, as an excuse many times to round up those that they wanted "out of the way".
The civil authorities could make the accusation, but the church had the power and the Inquisitors were representatives of the church. Ihe wealth confiscated might have help Spain, except for the fact most of it (if not all) went to the church.
I know you're just joking around, but making crude, incendiary comments about 4th edition incurs the displeasure of our Paizo hosts, and of others in our community. Maybe you weren't here a few years ago, during the edition wars. Things got...ugly.Mainly because 4e advocates have been using it as an excuse to justify 4e being a completely different game from previous incarnations of D&D, with a lot of the stuff that makes D&D D&D changed just for the heck of it.
A philosophy professor once told me, "The tastiest hamburgers are made from sacred cow." I've yet to find a counter-example.
To be fair, I don't think 4e D&D was made of sacred cow. I think it was made from sacred donkey. That's why it tasted like ass.
Yep, it was just intended to be a joke. (Perhaps in bad taste in a poor choice of context.)
Seriously, I've never played 4th Edition; by all accounts it's a game that a lot of people have fun playing. If they do, more power to them; hope it's as fun for them as running Pathfinder is for me.
1.415 hpIs that one thousand four hundred and fifteen hit points or one and four hundred and fifteen thousandths hit points?
If you're sticking with the . for thousand separator, as the lord (of maths) intended, I salute you! :)
To you, sir, I have only one thing to say:
THBTHTHTHT!!! =)
I'm not quite up to date with those cute internet abbreviations. What does THBTHTHTHT stand for? Totally Hate Bastard Totally Hate Totally Hate Totally Hate Tosser?
It's from before t3h Intarwebz. It was an onomatopoetic illustration of giving someone a raspberry from the comic strip Opus.
It's from before t3h Intarwebz. It was an onomatopoetic illustration of giving someone a raspberry from the comic strip Opus.
Who, incidentally, is my true prophet. ;)
First, you'll notice that I'm not wearing my Burgomeister hat.
Second, without doing too much research, I tend to associate witch-hunts with the English- and German-speaking countries in the 1600s, which would suggest there were groups other than the Inquisition up to much douchebaggery when it came to the witch-trials.
I also remember reading some historian somewhere arguing that witch-hunts were a phenomenon that increased during times of political strife, such as all of that medieval papacy-nobility-monarchy feuding that went on, ADDED ON, of course, being the Protestant Reformation and Sixty-Years War, etc., etc. I don't remember the details, it was a long time ago that I read it.
That being said, the Medieval Papacy doesn't get off the hook that easy; whatever the answer regarding their involvement or not in witch-hunts, they were certainly up to some not nice things. You know, like the Inquisition.
Spain never had a reformation, did it?
Spain never had a reformation, did it?
What do you mean? What kind of reformation?
It's from before t3h Intarwebz. It was an onomatopoetic illustration of giving someone a raspberry from the comic strip Opus.
Why, you cheeky little minx :P
Second, without doing too much research, I tend to associate witch-hunts with the English- and German-speaking countries in the 1600s, which would suggest there were groups other than the Inquisition up to much douchebaggery when it came to the witch-trials.
It was a widespread phenomenon, occurring in both Protestant and Catholic areas. The Inquisition greatly stepped up its work once the church twigged to the fact that it suddenly had real competition again instead of invented religions it conjured to scare the rubes.
That being said, the Medieval Papacy doesn't get off the hook that easy; whatever the answer regarding their involvement or not in witch-hunts, they were certainly up to some not nice things. You know, like the Inquisition.
It can't, really. Heresy is a religious charge and a religious crime. The church invented it and the church demanded punishment for it. They even did plenty of the torturing themselves, though the exact details vary place to place and time to time. That they handed plenty of offenders over to the secular authorities for certain execution cannot exculpate them as they knew very well they were signing death warrants.
I didn't answer that question because I am woefully ignorant of the history of the Counterreformation.
Wow, just another thread to bag on 4e.
When are you haters gonna get over the edition wars?