PlatinumBeetle's page

Ok guys lets not cast dispersions at any particular groups. It isn't cool, and it adds nothing to the discussion. Secondly what mat or may not happened hundreds of years ago in an organization has no effect on its modern day followers. So lets get back to the discussion at hand.

Well said. I agree (though I would change "has no effect on it's modern day followers." to "does not make it's modern day followers guilty of anything")

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)

Thanks for the history lesson, that's pretty much what I figured. Everything you said is also true about the witch trials (at least some of them) with "trials" like tying a rock to the accused and throwing them in a lake. If they died they were pronounced innocent and if they magically floated to the top they were supposed to be guilty (I don't think anyone ever floated to the top though). Apparently it never occured to these people that if they killed innocents it was tantamount to murder,or that if the witch had magical powers to escape execution they couldn't punish them anyway. The torture thing is also very true. If you didn't admit to being a witch you were tortured until you "confessed". Then you were killed.

Lorm Dragonheart wrote:

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.

KaeYoss:That's definately not blasphemy (although it's at least as bad). If by "against the beliefs of the religion" you mean "against the original teachings of the religion" then your'e very right about the witch trials. Even in the age of the law (Old Testament times) the Lord said (in Deuteronomy) that to convict someone of a crime required two witnesses,both their temtimonies must agree (match up,not just agree he's guilty),and they had to be the ones to start the execution.

As far the Inquisition I do't know enough history to say much except your'e probably right. But if my information is right the muslim terrorist thing is a double-edged sword.
I haven't read the meaning of the quran (a translation of the quran,it's not considered the quran unless it's in the original arabic) myself but I've read quotations with both things like calling jews and christians fellow "peoples of the book", giving them special protection (relative to conquered pagans) and also stuff like "think not the jews and christians are your friends,for they are friends of each other" and teaching they corrupted the scriptures
(Incidentily true christians should,and often do, give thanks for,love, and pray for the jewish people (both for their salvation and their protection and prosperity),for not only are they God's chosen people but our Lord and His prophets are jews and He will "bless those that bless you,and curse those that curse you" (see Genesis 12:1-3 the first part of the Abrahamic covenant,the foundational covenant of Judaism and all special revelation)

KaeYoss: As for Jesus teaching tolerance and such,people often do forget He went up against the religious establishment of His day (proof that church tradition isn't authoritative by the way) and that He taught racial and national tolerance in a era of universal bigotry. But sometimes people go too far the other way. He never taught "religious tolerance" in the modern sense (that is to say accepting all faiths as equally valid for their followers) instead teaching we should truly love people and actually care weather their right or wrong about the fate of their eternal soul. (If I really care about you and am not just faking it for the praise of men,then I will care weather you burn in Hell or live forever in Paradise)
Also christians do not believe He died a "martyr" exactly,as being God he has "power to lay my (His) life and to take it up again (come back to life)" and He wasn't executed for preaching tolerance or even for preaching against the religious leaders (although it certainly didn't make them happy) but rather claiming to be God (see John 10:30-33 or Matthew 26:62-66)
The official charge over His cross was being "King of the Jews"

Also I totally agree about some people using religion as an excuse to be arrogant and hateful.
(If I had not met so many people I might have become a christian sooner)

KaeYoss wrote:

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...

About the game mechanics fail,I'd just say if the cleric channels positive energy they can make "sacred" rings,if negative,then "profane"

Which brings up some more good points. Clerics had a lot of good/evil derived class features like this (this one almost makes sense: good heals, evil hurts) but then allow neutral clerics.
There were also a lot of deity derived class features, and then they allow godless clerics.
(which given the class description brings up the question of where they get their power from,druids,paladins,rangers have similar issues but it's not as blatant)
It makes sense when all divine casters get their power from a deity and it can be proven (like in forgotten realms) or when they all get power from their strength of faith thru some unknown mystical process and nobody can say for sure what's going on (like in ebberon).

speaking of which eberron has some theological issues of it's own. They try to present it as
if people get powers for their faith and those powers correpond to their values (nature-worshipers get nature powers,people commited to a code of ethics get morally-based powers,and priests of fire gods get the fire domain) and any religion,all of them,or none of them might be right or wrong,religion is no longer a matter of "fact". At first it works but if you look closely there are problems. For example each god or divine force gets a definite alignment,not the alignment most attributed to it by it's worshipers,it's actual alignment.
they are "associated with" their domains so they get a pass. But what about their favored weapons? Also the underlying logic of faith + meditation = spells is broken by clerics being able to cast spells with alignment descriptors opposite to their own since if the spell is truly evil and the cleric really is a good person at heart (and with things like detect evil this scientificly testable,at least if good/evil alignment and actual moral good and evil are the same thing) then they don't value evil (actually the opposite) or meditate upon/pray to it
and so should't be able to create the effect because it flows opposite to the source of their power. But they can. It makes me think maybe all the gods of eberron definitly do exist
and just don't care about their mortal pawns (maybe they don't even grant them spells and clerics just tap into their divine essence). And the whole "plane of the dead" thing bugs me too. A major part of real world religions are their beliefs about the afterlife. The "each religion
is it's own belief system and can't be scientificly proven right or wrong" thing falls apart with this. Each religion being a religion and not just a "patron deity" is one of the major draws of eberron for me,and this hurts that cause. Also druidism/wardens of the woods isn't listed in the religion section,which bums me 'cause I think it's cool. And I really like the "pantheon" thing because it makes it more like real ancient polytheism and less like the henotheism in core D&D (although they still don't to practice the blood sacrifices of ancient times or the idolatry associated with paganism but maybe that's for the best). Anyone agree with me? In favor of changing "deity's alignment and favored weapon" to "deities asscosiated alignment and weapon" or ruling that clerics can't cast opposite alignment spells? Anyone already house ruled this?

I think I may have gotten way off-topic...sorry. But this has been building up for awhile.

KaeYoss wrote:

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...

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who noticed this. You make a lot of good points and have obviously thought about this way more than me (and seem to be more bugged by it)

More generally I always found alignment annoying because they treat good and evil as "equal and opposite" and they end up being functionally identical (good guys kill evil people and steal their treasure,bad guys "murder innocents" and "lust for power") It feels less like their different moral positions or ethical philosophies and more like opposing sports teams.

If core D&D toned down the violence or gave reasons beyond self-advancement or "their on the other team" (like in say,Ebberron) it would make more sense.

PlatinumBeetle wrote:

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.

I actually totally agree that no idea should be beyond question and that truth can endure honest criticism. My pastor (a good friend of mine) would agree. You've basicly quoted him. He's also (repeatedly) said "God never tells us so much we don't need to have faith (trust),but he always gives us a firm foundation for our faith" and "God works in our hearts through our intellects" The Lord himself said "come let us reason together". I probably wasn't using a technically correct definition of blasphemy (I'm not a linguist or anything) but I was thinking of something like what YaeYoss said "Insulting a deity (The God of Abraham,Isaac,and Jacob) or religion (Christianity) with words or deeds" He's right that "merely questioning a religion is not blasphemy" In fact I'd be happy to answer any questions you had!

Nevertheless I have to disagree with hamburger thing (not that it's inaccurate,but immoral)
It sounds less like testing important ideas and more like looking for trouble.

But it's good to hear your'e intrested in philosophy. I've always been intrested in philosophy or at least very philosophical.

It's also pleasent news to hear you believe in objective truth even in the spiritual realm,not some "subjective reality" or whatever,an idea many people today (even religious people) can no longer even conceive of. (I never understood this attitude myself and would like to have someone who believes this explain what they mean.) Ether it's True,False,or Nonsense,right?

Guarding Jesus wouldn't be considered offensive in my eyes, mainly because you're absolutely right: He has the protection of God.

God works in ways that we don't understand, perhaps if the PCs helped to protect Mary and Joseph or protected Jesus, it was in God's plan for them to do so. Just because they're guarding him, doesn't mean they need him to.

That's a good point. I hadn't thought of that,which is weird because I'm a believer in Divine Providance (someone once said that coincidence is what God is called when he doesn't want to sign His name,or something like that. Of course "coincidences" can also be the work of Hidden demonic power [couldn't resist the reference]) I guess I was more thinking of Biblical passages about how Jesus miraculously escaped stoning several times simplely because "His time was not yet come" and also worried about the issue of PC failure. (ether they will win all the time,no questions asked,or Christ dies without fufilling the prophecies which makes God a liar or fable. The one would get boring fast and the other would be both offensive and depressing.)

Also not just Mary and Joseph but also John the Baptist's parents (forget their names at the moment)

Besides the birth of Christ, the bible offers a wealth of great campaign ideas. It's true they can offend some players, or some players will mess with the story just to be jerks, but there are some lesser known settings and stories you can use. I've tried to find a PDF of Testament, but couldn't find one.

Anyways, I think your plot is a bit too...well it's too simple for the glorious opportunity you have. It's effectively a treasure hunt for stuff that is probably easily obtained. Which, I'm not trying to be insulting, but you have a pretty solid background for potentially amazing stories.

In the bible, there are tales of murder, redemption, mystery, violence, vengeance, liberation, forgiveness, and discovery. If you've ever read Milton's Paradise Lost, it gives you a pretty interesting tale from the side of Lucifer.

Angels, in the old testament, are not exactly beacons of hope. They show up when they're ready to pass judgement from God onto a city. They also give people a chance to right wrongs, escape the wrath, or provide other important story purposes. A group of people trying to make it in a harsh world who's technology is quite low are suddenly faced with the realization that there is a powerful god out there, and his agents are affecting the world as they know it. They could be tempted to walk the path of evil, or given a chance to redeem a town from the wrath of god.

Or, if you want to go New Testament, they could unknowingly protect Mary and Joseph as they travel during her pregnancy, or other such things. I'm not saying your story is bad, I'm just saying there is so much more you could do with this story to REALLY give your player a good time.

Your right that the Bible offers more adventures than this,but the post is from a man who says he knows little about the Bible,the Gospels are the best entry point

Not sure why you brought up angels, but your right: Angels are not babies with wings playing harps in the clouds.They are powerful,alien,and scary...even the good ones. C. S. Lewis made this a point in his Space Trilogy books with his science-fictional depiction of angels as "eldil". (Space Trilogy is awesome by the way,if you are a Christian or even agnostic who likes old sci-fi,read Out of the Silent Planet,Perelandra is more fantasy but still good,don't bother with the 3rd book) anyway he said "Angels are not good company for Men,even when they are good Angels and good Men" and it works wonders for his story. After all if your afraid of Evil you can always hope Good will save you,but what can you do if Good is scary? (a good angle for running a campaign in the age of the law)
Your also right that the "Treasures" could be obtained easily (with loads and loads of money)
but as I said before in the mythologized version of history in Testament it entirely plausible
they were special artifacts of some kind. After all the Bible never says they weren't and making a biblical campaign "in the shadows of history" is a good way to run a story without "changing history" (and therefore to maintain greater versemilitude) It also helps with power-level issues,if the major characters of a setting are more powerful then the PCs the setting seems both more real and more legendary,but I've forgotten my point about this
Also this idea sounds pretty unique,and not in a "bad fanfic" way.

PlatinumBeetle wrote:

another_mage wrote:

Hallelujah!!

This thread has returned from the grave to save us from our sins!

It's been locked away in a tomb since 2009!

That's blasphemy, please refrain.

That's not blasphemy. This is 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)

To original poster:if you ever read this I didn't mean for my previous post to be a "religious discussion" but you asked for advice from a christian about how to run a spiritualy-themed game while being sensitive to your player's religious viewpoints so I'm not 100% sure what qualifies but I am trying to keep with your opening post

Hallelujah!!

This thread has returned from the grave to save us from our sins!

It's been locked away in a tomb since 2009!

That's blasphemy,please refrain. The original poster has been very sensitive and respectful and I think we should all follow his example. (I'm ashamed to say I probably wouldn't be as virtuous if our places were somehow reversed) Although I'm glad someone posted,thank you.

Also I didn't realize this form was that old (I should remember to check next time)
I wonder if the campaign was ever started and how it went.

That resource page was at Icosahedrophilia by the way
here's the address:

http://drchris.me/d20/?page_id=79

Hi w0nkothesane! I'm a Christian (saved February 2008) and don't find the idea offensive. I only have a little experience roleplaying but most of it is D&D (the rest is GURPS),I just bought Testament and am thinking about running a campaign. My advice (for what it's worth) is that if your confident you can run the campaign respectfully (no wormholes!) and all your players are ok with it,go for it! If your not sure you can do that,don't. That said this sounds like a really clever and cool idea (seriously),but I'd like to throw my two cents in.
If you have a lot of extra money laying around (or if you plan on running this campaign for a long time or running more biblical or historical d20 campaigns) consider getting these supplements at some point:
Mythic Vistas Trojan War (I haven't read it myself yet but if I understand correctly it introduces new classes more appropriate to a low-magic/historical setting:Charioteer (all testament nations used chariots,may mesh well with testament's Master Charioteer Prestige Class),Dedicated Warrior (I assume this would work as a low-magic stand-in for paladin or ranger),Magician (could replace sorcerer),and Priest (replaces cleric)),
Mythic Vistas Eternal Rome (Again haven't read this one yet,but Israel was under Rome in the 1st century which testament really doesn't cover),
Targum Magazine Issues 1-4 (supports Testament,Trojan War,and Eternal Rome!)
I also know of a website which offers support for testament (including a few free PDFs with floor plans and cardstock printout miniatures) I'll track down the site and post the name later as I highly recommend it.
As far as classes go the "Wise Men" were astrologers,they'd be Magus of the Starry Host. Since your starting your campaign at higher then 1st level you could make them multi-class for variety (but testament doesn't recommend using Druid and Wizard). Also the Bible never says there were 3 of them,it doesn't say how many there were,but they brought 3 gifts obviously. Church tradition says they were 3 and they were kings (Aristocrat class) but that doesn't mean much. Still 3 is as good as any other number and being a "king" could add flavor (and I think in the first century people could be "king" over a single city,but i'm not sure so ask your history-buff friend). Normal clerics should not be allowed for PCs (especially for Israelites) and the Levite Priest class should not be used for those who did not believe in Jesus such as those who had him killed (people like Caiphias the official high-priest a that time should be experts or maybe ex-levite priests instead)Digitalelf is right it though,they didn't give gifts to Christ when he was a baby but a "young child" (though this can mean newborn) and this could extend your campaign significantly.
As far as the "treasure" goes the early church understood the gold to be symbolic of Christ's Deity (godhood),the frankincense of His purity (sinlessness/moral perfection),and the myrrh of His sacrificial death (since it was used for embalming) and you could try to weave the symbolism into the quests for them. These were gifts worthy of a king but there is no indication they were special (other then being really expensive) but in a mythologized version of history like testament there is no reason there couldn't be a long story behind them and I guess they might even be "magical" (holy) items of some kind but be careful with the gold being a statue as it shouldn't be an idol.
The idea of the PCs "guarding" Christ is kinda offensive (he had the protection of His Father and couldn't die until His time had come,which had to be by crucifixion to fulfill prophesy) but i'm sure there are plenty of other things for them to do in the background (especially since Christ didn't start preaching or doing public miracles till His early 30s).
Stating Jesus probably isn't a good idea (He's God) but if you do note that He is a Prophet (may require fudging,see priest),Priest (cleric or priest,not levite priest. He is a priest "forever after the order of Melchizedek" who was a gentile),and King (normally Aristocrat but His kingdom is spiritual not "of this world",but one day He will rule the world as king from "the throne of david",so just call it foreshadowing) He's also probably at least level 20. These would be His stats as a human being,not the Son of God (being both fully human and fully divine) As a Deity His stats are given on page 184 of testament.
Also unless the PCs are/become believers they can't really fight,much less "destroy forever" the devil. Actually unless you are running a "alternate history" campaign satan will be around a long time (at least 2,000 years obviously) and demons,like human souls,can't actually be destroyed. That brings up a another point,you won't have to worry about anyone saying something "wasn't that way" or "doesn't work that way" as long as you tell your players in advance that it will be a alternate history in a mythologized 1st century middle east (even if you keep it relatively realistic and the events stick fairly close to recorded history) although your players sound like there pretty cool and would be ok anyway.
If you have a bunch of D&D Books laying around and want to use them:
Races of Destiny might be useful for an all-human campaign
Complete Arcane might give some more options for Magus,Complete Divine might also be useful.
Epic-Level Handbook could help stat Jesus,Satan,and maybe the apostles or even PCs (they will need to be epic to fight satan,he's "the prince (ruler) of this world")
The Book of Exalted Deeds might help you keep your campaign from turning to "Hack & Slash",but testament is pretty good at that already
The Book of Vile Darkness might be good (zing!) If you really did pit your players against the devil or his angels
Deities and Demigods might be useful working out your cosmology (an issue with testament),if using it note that the Lord is an Over-god not Greater god (probably should have maximum Divine rank if there is one) and some of the pagan deities
are over-deities or demigods. The Greek (aka Roman) pantheon and the Egyptian pantheon are stated out and explained providing additional incentive to include them.
Also there was a sort of Desert Terrain Guide WotC made but I can't remember the name.
Most importantly read the story yourself! This is really all the research that's necessary and I'm sure your players would appreciate the effort. The narrative of Christ's birth and early childhood and the major events surrounding it (Including John the baptist's birth and Jesus at the temple as a child) are recorded in Matthew chapters 1-2 and Luke chapters 1-2. This is actually light,if difficult reading.
Sorry if I used too much christian jargon in some of my explanations but these are some complicated issues,if I didn't make myself clear just ask a christian friend what I'm talking about. I hope I was helpful and I wish you the best of luck.
Happy GMing.

Theodudek: Testament is also my favorite d20 supplement
I haven't read anything 4E, is it good? I heard they changed way too much and made it even more hack and slash (Like a Pen and Paper version of World of Warcraft,ironic since there actually was a WoW d20 book). Ether way I'd like to see a conversion,testament is too good to be left behind.
P.S.:If you don't mind me asking how far are you into the Bible?
Also if testament influenced your 4E setting maybe you could include it with your conversion (you've got my curiousity)