Steven Carter's page

Vic Wertz wrote:

Steven Carter wrote:

Yep, I'm a cheapo....

Hmm. My hypothesis is that the secure checkout ...

Actually, I just poked 'em. Did that help?

Yes. Thank you. A-okay now.

Yep, I'm a cheapo. Wanted to pick up a bunch more PDFs. Started adding them (Goodman DCCs) to my cart with the intention of checking out some of the other publishers as well. But the prices in the cart didn't reflect the list prices in the store. What I thought was $1.49 in the store became $3.49 in my cart. Even this economy can't explain that. Please fix or provide explanation. Cheers.

I'm certain, as any business would, that WotC has examined this decision from a number of angles. I'm equally sure that there are human people who have strong emotional attachment to the 'Dragon' and 'Dungeon' marks and their long histories. However, I'm not surprised this happened - particularly after the horrible waste that the Polyhedron/Dungeon chimera turned out to be.

However, I'm also quite certain that this is another management mistake.

First, it alienates tons of thirty- and forty-something, old school geek freakazoids such as myself. Since we can't 'trust' WotC for the maintenance of cherished product lines, we're more likely to turn to 'alternate' sources - OSRIC and GORE spring to mind. Mystara, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, etc were all abandoned. Later some were continued and some given lip service. Some are essentially run by fans and that's great but it's not the same.

As others have already said, what's going to go next? I invested in Betamax. I invested in Shark drives. I invested in NeXT. Technically superior - all gone. I learned my lesson. Now here's another thing going the way of the dodo. WotC shows it's intentions. I'm bailing.

Secondly, the authors such as Dave Arneson, Gary Gygax, Monte Cook, Mike Mearls, Ed Greenwood and others are going to benefit from this more than the D&D brand will. Amongst my network of gamer friends these names care more cachet than the D&D brand. Established authors, especially those with their own publishing companies, will find more people turning to them.

Third, removing these magazines from the shelf leaves more room for startups like Polymancer. The magazines were ambassadors for their brands. They showed the flag. Unfortunately in local Chapters stores they showed the flag next to kiddy mags. Polymancer was either in hobbies (like White Dwarf, Fine Scale Modeller) or between computer games (like Games for Windows) and IT magazines (C++ Developers Journal, SysAdmin). WotC is retreating when it should be advancing. These magazines advertised a vibrant product in mainstream stores. With it's disappearance the rising geek will turn to MMORPG player magazines and MMORPGs believing that the old school is too moldy to rock anyone's world.

Finally, the blanket statement that people are turning to the Internet for this ('Dragon'/'Dungeon'-like material) while true in a small part is also largely false. I've downloaded tons of material. I've also paid for quite a few PDF downloads (mostly old school, granted). But nothing replaces a news-stand fix. That's why I'll be subscribing to Pathfinder.

I'm also fairly certain that, after 23 years as a D&D player I'll be abandoning both modern D&D and my beloved Realms/Mystara/Krynn and moving to an alternative. Probably OSRIC. Probably Áerth.

A pity, really. But oh, well. Their loss. Someone else's gain.

I apologize for a misunderstanding. ... I never meant to convey that your stance was "idiotic." ... At the same time, it did provide me with a vehicle to voice another opinion of mine. So, thanks! :)

We're actually on the same page then. Thanks for your patience and you have my apologies as well.

Steven Carter wrote:

Buddhists and Catholics pray.

Catholics pray. Buddhists meditate, an exercise in experiencing the "now." There are no external "gods" as such in the Buddha's teachings, which is why a lot of Christians make claims like "Buddhism isn't a religion! It's applied psychology!" I wonder why it can't be both.

Try telling that to my mother-in-law when she's lighting incense. Oh, _I_ know the difference you're getting at. She says she's praying. My wife says she's praying. Praying to spirits and gods. They say they're Buddhists. I've pressed them on the translation issue. Nope. They aren't meditating. _I_ am the only one in the family who meditates.

What happened here is the difference between high tradition and little tradition - the difference between what a priest from a priest-school (or equiv) knows and tries to teach and what the laity actually practice.

Can you see the fnords?

Steven, I didn't specialize in comparative religion, I was more along the lines of analyzing the metaphysics of them, but how would you define religion? It seems to me that no matter how it is defined there will always be "but that leaves out this, which people think of as a religion" or "but that includes this, which clearly isn't a religion."

Which begs the question, why is something "clearly" not a religion? Just because the adherents say it isn't? Drug addicts and alcoholics will often claim they can quit anytime they want. We don't trust them though.

I have come to suspect that religion is a word that has an unclear meaning, and that it is only useful for the most basic discussions. If you are going to compare any of them deeply I think it is more useful to consider each one to be unique social construct, and not the same type of thing at all.

Let me preface that I developed my idea of religion from reading Mircea Eliade and Wilfred Cantwell Smith as positive influences and Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Richard Dawkins as negative influences.

The definition of religion, like the ideals that religious traditions try to perpetuate and promulgate, is held in the minds of the 6.2 billion humans on earth. There is no one, true definition. (Sorry, I'm becoming a post-modern relativist here and I'd rather be post-post-modern. Post-modernist greyness bores and sickens me.) And that's what makes it so fuzzy – and not warm and cuddly.

But that's why when intellectuals such as Dawkins, and I think he's a genius even though I personally detest him as rabidly intolerant hate-monger and shamelessly self-promoting, should be clear minded gentlemen when dealing with the subject.

However Dawkins's opinion on those who try to parlay with "the religious" is that they are akin to those who wanted to appease Nazi Germany. Which of course means any and all religious people in his mind are akin to Nazis. Which is why I detest him although he's a genius.

I mean, Roman Catholicism and Buddhism are both commonly considered religions, but really they have virtually nothing in common as phenomena. About as much as say, Chinese Communism and Catholicism do, and not many people would say Chinese Communism is a religion (though some would no doubt).

What do religious people do that we consider them religious? Buddhists and Catholics pray. They make devotions. They venerate people and spirits. They make works of art with themes as symbols of their beliefs. They have communities, leaders, scriptures, myths, rituals, symbols. So does hockey, football and soccer. When a family spends all weekend in front of one thing that causes them sadness, frustration, joy and elation; when they organize their whole lives around it; when they eat special foods, drink special drinks, suspend other activities... it sure sounds like religion. But I'm talking about Superbowl Weekend. Or the Stanley Cup playoffs. Or World Cup.

Everyone on the street, and certainly every rationalist empirical scientist, knows what religion is... it's what those crazy murderers do. Thirty years ago it was the IRA. Today it's supposed to be Muslims or Fundie anti-abortionists. That's not good enough if you actually want to study religion and religious people.

My definition of religion - and forgive me, it's been a while since I had to define it - is any system of beliefs held with or without any kind of sustaining proof for the believer or community of believers that provides a super-ordinating framework of value judgements.

If someone says "we're just chemicals"/"we're sinful fallen creatures"/"atman ist Brahman" ask why they believe that. Because some scientist/priest/guru told them? Why do you believe in what a scientist/priest/guru says? Because my microwave oven is cool/because I can't stop myself from lusting after my neighbour's wife/because I feel calm after meditating.

All these things answer real-world issues for the believer. Sure, if the second two believers go to a psychologist they'll get other "solutions" to their problems.

Lunch break is over. I'll have to get back to this later.

...a tiring argument...

Saern, I'm really sorry you took that the wrong way. I hoped that everyone could tell by the rest of my post that I'm approaching this subject humourously but with respect. I grew up being told that because I was a white, Christian male that I was guilty by association of all the worst horrors committed by white, Christian men. And that always reminds me of druid sacrifices, pagan Roman colosseums, crucifixions, Communist purges, Egyptian pyramid building, Aztec blood games... etc. In other words people who had no real knowledge of history liked to find a scapegoat. I'm sorry MY beliefs are tiring and idiotic to you. Quite frankly they're mine. Yours are yours. I did not mean to imply that I was visiting The Truth (R)(C)(TM)on everyone. I'd rather talk about tolerance and community than getting into metaphysics.

My fellow gamers [back on topic] were a varied group. As is my family currently. As are all my friends and colleagues. We all come from different faiths (and un-faiths if that's what they want to call them) but we can talk about it.

On topic - I'm WASP Anglican by birth and by choice when I was adult enough to make the decision. I learned a form of Buddhist meditation in university and combined it with Christian mystic meditation. My wife is a Chinese little tradition Buddhist/agnostic. Religion isn't an issue between us. My undergrad degree is in comparative religion. My players have been atheist, pagan, wiccan (who made that distinction themselves), Jewish, Catholic, agnostic and Discordian Popes. I myself have Turkey Cursed many a Greyface. I haven't yet been saved by TFSM but TFSM is welcome in my home any day. Currently, I don't know if I believe in a God but I'm pretty sure when you're dead you're dead. After all, we're all just conglomerations of chemical, electrical reactions and there's no evidence to suggest there's anything more than that. Meditation still helps crystalize ideas in this chemical/electrical network though.

Arctaris wrote:

I don't agree with organized religion (even atheism which in a way is a religion).

Any definition of religion that includes atheism is either a pretty poor definition or a failure to understand the principles of atheism.

Only very slightly off-topic: Actually, it's a very strong sociological, psychological and scientific definition because limiting religion to just things that deal with supernatural powers and/or personages is extremely limiting. Particularly when you're trying to do a census. Besides, there are few people who subscribe to any one religion. Tons of people in Canada attend the church of Tim Horton's and/or Hockey and/or Getting Wasted on the Weekend. Greycup (and Superbowl) are repleat with symbols, myths rituals and genuine beliefs.

Any definition of religion that excludes things that provide super-ordination of one's value systems is a poor definition and a failure to understand the human behavioural mechanism. The principles of atheism - and like every belief system atheism is not ONE group, but millions of individuals each professing different minutiae of variations - clearly define it as a belief system from which people draw the ability to make value judgements on every action and element of their lives. But like any belief system it is interwoven with the threads (tendrils, tentacles) of other meme networks through the mind of the believer.

No religion, whether at the individual level, the little tradition level or at the great tradition level, is a static thing. Even though millions might complain that religion XYZ might be stagnant, intolerant or blah-blah-blah, it is in fact changing. Perhaps like a glacier (back in the day when they weren't melting or being turned into bottled water) but they are changing.