It commonly comes from a Judeo (Jewish) tradition, most omit the lower case "o" when referencing the Almighty.Can you tell me why?
Tam
I'm going to go out on a limb and say respect and a different view of taking God's name in vain. Which may seem a bit more strict or maybe proper is a better word, but I like the level of reverence and respect that it carries.
Fizz
It commonly comes from a Judeo (Jewish) tradition, most omit the lower case "o" when referencing the Almighty.Can you tell me why?
Tam
I am not following you. Where would the "o" go in Almighty? Or, are you talking about another word?
It commonly comes from a Judeo (Jewish) tradition, most omit the lower case "o" when referencing the Almighty.Can you tell me why?
Tam
I am not following you. Where would the "o" go in Almighty? Or, are you talking about another word?
Not Almighty, G-d instead of God.
Fizz
I would avoid depicting the Christian God, Jehovah, or Allah as deities in D&D.
Norse deities, now, those make for a great mythology.
Did he go on to explain that they were okay? I assume that he did, considering your posting of that here, but the title and the wording almost makes it sound like a primer on how D&D will corrupt you, and thus a defense against that. Which, of course, would be a bad thing.
He did indeed explain that it’s ok to be a gamer and a Christian. In fact, it’s a great thing to be able to use the game to meet and get to know people and even use it to teach Christian values to kids.
It commonly comes from a Judeo (Jewish) tradition, most omit the lower case "o" when referencing the Almighty.Can you tell me why?
Tam
I'm going to go out on a limb and say respect and a different view of taking God's name in vain. Which may seem a bit more strict or maybe proper is a better word, but I like the level of reverence and respect that it carries.
Fizz
I'm feeling ignored, as I did answer why I dash out the o in G-d. But Fizz is correct. It is to not take G-d's name in vain. Especially on media (paper, electronic or what have you) where it can be defaced or erased.
I don't know if I'd call it stricter or proper, it's just how I was raised and how I am comfortable. But it is all about showing proper respect and reverance.
D&D generally does teach good values. The player characters are more often the heroes than the villains. They stand up against villainy, and don't misuse their power. When they fight, it's usually in self-defence or in the greater good. When they take loot, they never steal from others (at least, nobody who's still alive by the end of the adventure).
It doesn't necessarily teach Christian values, though. Christ taught that it was best to solve problems without violence, whereas in D&D the opposite is true.
D&D generally does teach good values. The player characters are more often the heroes than the villains. They stand up against villainy, and don't misuse their power. When they fight, it's usually in self-defence or in the greater good. When they take loot, they never steal from others (at least, nobody who's still alive by the end of the adventure).
Not in any campaign I've ever seen. What I've seen involves the 'heroes' gearing up and invading the homes of the monsters, putting them to the sword, and taking their stuff. But, of course, it's regarded as okay because, hey, Orcs are Evil, right?
Never mind that those Orcs most commonly are just sitting there, not doing much of anything. Certainly, it's usually a major stretch for the PCs to claim they're acting out of self-defence.
well, hmm; will give it some thought; but in game terms I would stick with the Zoroastrian roots of duality and stick to thise diefics in game terms to about the time of Moses and not use the Holy Spirit or JC as figures. In game terms that would give you AO, or the Un Named, or Yaweh or however you want to call him; and The Enemy, or Destroyer, all which mean Satan in the language. The projews, sons of Abraham of the time where heckled quite a bit by outsiders as the when asked they could not tell their dieties name, which is why they (Moses)asked. For roleplay, I would probably run The Un Named as a cranky old man who is very tired of his children's disobedience, and have him be a judge figure and The Destroyer, as his bitter, misunderstood son who wants to destroy Dad's works by using Dad's creations against him in a contest to show that all these rules are just stupid. If you can remember some of the classic arguements; they center around love; ie; the story of Job ie; he only loves you because of what you give him; what you do for him and his blessed life; you have built a hedge around him that I may not touch him, but he like all men would curse you if he did not have the gifts you have given him. And; they only love you because they fear you and you would destroy them, we have countless examples of the people going back to idol worship and serving other dieties. Another big point in roleplay; is that the Christian God does not respond until asked unless you are falling into some forbidden crime hence the destruction of well, many things, but most rules come from man that God holds man to and punishes them when they are broken; so, it starts out God gives one rule and one commandment; ie don't eat of the tree and go forth and multiply; at the end of the old testament, due to man's insistance, this has turned into books of laws that have become so conveluted; hehe you young stepson rules logical arguement hence silver tounge, that nobody, nobody can follow all the rules; it just is not possible; ie God let man have enough rope and free will to hang himself; but then we scratch all that with the entrance of JC and the new one rule...hehe cyclic. Well, I hope my paraphrasing didnt misquote or offend.
I recommend you start either pre flood or the Zoroastrian time of Moses, but also, time of Joshua whereas this new race is pushing into, ie invading the promised land. This would be consistant as the tribe from Abraham; called Abram came from the city of Ur which is far, far away from the middle east. Basically, the sons of Abraham invaded the promised land twice, the second time was during the time of Moses as previously they had joined a failed raid into Egypt and got captured and taken as slaves.
D&D generally does teach good values. The player characters are more often the heroes than the villains. They stand up against villainy, and don't misuse their power. When they fight, it's usually in self-defence or in the greater good. When they take loot, they never steal from others (at least, nobody who's still alive by the end of the adventure).Not in any campaign I've ever seen. What I've seen involves the 'heroes' gearing up and invading the homes of the monsters, putting them to the sword, and taking their stuff. But, of course, it's regarded as okay because, hey, Orcs are Evil, right?
Never mind that those Orcs most commonly are just sitting there, not doing much of anything. Certainly, it's usually a major stretch for the PCs to claim they're acting out of self-defence.
Well, it's the perview of the DM to make sure that those orcs really are evil. They raid, murder, and pillage without provocation. The PCs are, typically, attacking them in retaliation, in defense of others. If the DM just has the orcs sitting around, it's not really the fault of the players, since that's the convention and what they expect. If the DM is trying to make a point by having non-evil orcs, that needs to be explained pretty clearly to the PCs, because, yeah, the typical process is "see orc, kill orc."
Remember, according to D&D, Good and Evil are absolute and objective concepts, and orcs usually fall into the Evil camp.
consider not using God or Satan directly; but that in the Christian frame of reference, good dieties are Angelic figures that work for God and evil dieties are Fallen Angelic figures that work for Satan and that these to overgods who are never directly seen or dealt with are presever/destroyer figures. If you follow classic teaching; there are perhaps billions of angelic figures and one third of them are fallen into the camp of Satan. It would be easy to concieve the game in these terms as these dieites might just be alll from ones we dont know the names of; the names of angels used to be in the bible but they took out all but like three; so our modern version doesnt have them. This would be very easy from a playing stand point. That way any player who want to have a religious character but not follow a specific diety could just follow the greater good or evil and be in the catch all by these camps; independant or rouge agents so to speak, but still in the battle and so they can still channel power.
It commonly comes from a Judeo (Jewish) tradition, most omit the lower case "o" when referencing the Almighty.Can you tell me why?
Tam
I'm going to go out on a limb and say respect and a different view of taking God's name in vain. Which may seem a bit more strict or maybe proper is a better word, but I like the level of reverence and respect that it carries.
Fizz
well, it is more that they didnt know his name so didnt know how to refer to him in thier writing, so to deleniate in the language they left a part out or missing so that the reader would know that it is a name an not a reference to some effect or other matter; the left out part signifies the lack of knowledge of his name hence the reader would recognise this and know it was his name. hehe I could tell you some about the rituals of purification that the scribes had to go through everytime they wrote these characters; hehe writing a simple conversation at the start of the section of Moses and the burning bush would take many weeks just for the initial dialog as every time they wrote this character they would stop and do the purification ritual.
I really dont understand the choices for some of these spheres like Son and Balance; Law and Chaos would seem to be necessary for this pantheon as Good and Evil, but, of course these aspect could just be manifested on other dieties if you just use the Christian aspect as and envelop for other dieties. If you just look at an overview of the bible itself; there are seven books of laws just by themselves; then books of wisdom; books of prophesy, and books of history.
Val
tell me if im wrong (I havent studied the bible) but I was under the impression that the neither Jesus OR the Old Testament mentioned the devil or hell as a punishment for non-believers. I also dissagree with the retribution and war domains; nearly all of Jesus's teachings were about forgivness, not vengefulness that only came into church dogma hundreds of years later.
It's one of the many reasons that I disagree with modern fundamentalist Christianity that claims nonbelievers will go to hell yet also claims that they worship a kind and forgiving god.
So here would be my domains for a christian God:
Good
Healing
Sun
Protectionalso from the sepp compendium:
Balance
Glory
Purification
Renewal
CelestiaI do not include Law or Chaos because I believe that the Christian god as preached in the Bible by Christ was more a being of balance that rigid control, that only came later with an organized chrurch.
note" I am not christian so please correct any misstatements about what is written in the Bible.
well, it is more that they didnt know his name so didnt know how to refer to him in thier writing, so to deleniate in the language they left a part out or missing so that the reader would know that it is a name an not a reference to some effect or other matter; the left out part signifies the lack of knowledge of his name hence the reader would recognise this and know it was his name. hehe I could tell you some about the rituals of purification that the scribes had to go through everytime they wrote these characters; hehe writing a simple conversation at the start of the section of Moses and the burning bush would take many weeks just for the initial dialog as every time they wrote this character they would stop and do the purification ritual.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say respect and a different view of taking God's name in vain. Which may seem a bit more strict or maybe proper is a better word, but I like the level of reverence and respect that it carries.Fizz
You are wrong here. They did know the name of G-d. But it is only supposed to be spoken in certain circumstances. You may have heard of the tetragramatron, which is the 4 letter hebrew name of G-d, which is in the Torah many times. It may sound funny, but when any of you mention the 'Y' word as the name for G-d I cringe.
But it is never pronounced unless it is under certain circumstances. It is spoken on Yom Kipur (the day of Atonement). Otherwise it is read as Adonai, or more appropriately outside of prayer, Hashem. Because of this there are many different terms used to refer to G-d. Some translate to King, others Father.
You're confusing my drpping the 'o' for something it is not. It is only a show of respect and a way to not take the name in vain.
It commonly comes from a Judeo (Jewish) tradition, most omit the lower case "o" when referencing the Almighty.Can you tell me why?
Tam
In Judaism and Islam it is blasphemy to use God's real name, so they traditionally used codes like Yahweh (an acronym standing for "I am that I am"), or Allah, the name of a pre-Islamic god that was co-opted as a sort of cypher for God's "real" unknowable name.
I think the modern G-d thing is just an extension of that tradition into english. You would probably find people do it so as not to break the "do not take the Lord your God's name in vain" commandment, though I always thought it was a bit off seeing as "God" isn't a name; it's a word meaning "divine being." So making "God" into "G-d" is just making a euphemism out of a euphemism. You gotta have some way to refer to Him!
The tradition was so successful that Christians never even knew God's supposed real name, and have always called Him by Greek, Latin or Hebrew euphemisms.
That was probably too much information. I always do that...
EDIT: Whoah, a whole bunch of people replied while I was writing my reply! Sorry if I repeated anyone :)
I've always wondered why people feel the necessity to go down the path of including the Christian god (or any other god) in the game of D&D. I can understand why you might include God in a game based in 13th century France or during the height of the Roman Empire, but in most fantasy campaigns the addition of the Christian god strikes me as rather strange. I'd like to know why DMs do it?
Isn't taking someone's name in vain using it thoughtlessly or ineffectually? For me, the only reason someone might omit using God's name (which is a euphemism) is if they thought their post was in vain. More to the point, if the Christian God is a real entity (I'm an agnostic who disfavors most organized religions) I think he'd be used to hearing his name used in all sorts of situations. I mean, he even hears his name mentioned during sex (you know I tell the truth even if you don't do it yourself).
I don't mean to be disrespectful, and I accept peoples views on the matter (I have a friend who is a minister), but does God really care about how we use his name in general harmless conversation, or whether we stat him up for a roleplaying game? I think he has bigger things on his mind to worry about.
...Remember, according to D&D, Good and Evil are absolute and objective concepts...
Saying a thing doesn't make it so. The rulebooks can SAY that the concepts are to be taken as absolute all they want, but the published storylines are increasingly contradicting that. (A good thing, in my humble opinion). Surface Elves are a great example. Supposedly one of the goodly races, more so than man. But their history shows repeatedly that they are as capable of treachery, intrigue, destruction, and betrayal as any Drow. Yet STILL, they are considered "good" in a black and white world. Embrace the grey. :)
Phil- Read my posts on the topic. Any use or reference to G-d not in prayer, is not supposed to refer to G-d directly, according to Judaism. As a Jew, I follow that teaching. Any use of the name or title not in prayer is taking the name in vain. I know you said you didn't mean any disrespect, but man you cut it awfully close there.
Kahoolin- Check out my previous post just above yours for clarification.
I knew I was treading a thin line when I said it, and I seriously apologize for anything I might have said to offend you or anyone else. I have now read what you said in your post (I think I skipped it) and understand what you said perfectly, but I like to question everything I see and hear. Perhaps I'm looking for some reason why religion is such a dividing principle in peoples lives and yet on the other hand is such a powerful and positive force. It brings the world together and tears it apart at the same time, and as such it's not something I can really understand. The whole name thing is just one of many things I can't really wrap my head around.
I knew I was treading a thin line when I said it, and I seriously apologize for anything I might have said to offend you or anyone else. I have now read what you said in your post (I think I skipped it) and understand what you said perfectly, but I like to question everything I see and hear. Perhaps I'm looking for some reason why religion is such a dividing principle in peoples lives and yet on the other hand is such a powerful and positive force. It brings the world together and tears it apart at the same time, and as such it's not something I can really understand. The whole name thing is just one of many things I can't really wrap my head around.
No offense taken here. I just wanted you to know you cut it very close though. But since you said none was intended I took with none. So I'm not insulted, but others might be.
Why religion is a dividing line rather than a univeral bond is a topic for another thread. And a touchy subject to boot. To boil it down though... Everybody likes to be right and will do anything in their power to be right. I'm glad you question everything, so do I. I once had a Rabbi tell me that was the only way to learn. I can only speak for my religion when I say it's encouraged to ask questions and understand not only what to do, but why you do it.
I'm so thankful you weren't offended. I love my fellow gamers and would hate to see anyone on these boards take my sometimes ill-thought-out comments to heart. In future I'll steer clear of religious or political comments on this site (or any site). The topics are way too hot, and I can get a little bit too confrontational for my own good.
I try to explain my religion, but not discuss religion in general. You're right it's a very sticky topic. The bar by my house has a sign specificaly stating "Gentlemen do not discuss Religion and Politics." ANd I agree, nothing gets uglier faster than either topic.
So I'll stick to clarifying my religion. But anything more and I'm out.
...Remember, according to D&D, Good and Evil are absolute and objective concepts...Saying a thing doesn't make it so. The rulebooks can SAY that the concepts are to be taken as absolute all they want, but the published storylines are increasingly contradicting that. (A good thing, in my humble opinion). Surface Elves are a great example. Supposedly one of the goodly races, more so than man. But their history shows repeatedly that they are as capable of treachery, intrigue, destruction, and betrayal as any Drow. Yet STILL, they are considered "good" in a black and white world. Embrace the grey. :)
Well, the published stories are not the Player's Handbook or Dungeon Master's Guide. And, yes, when the RAW says Good and Evil are absolute, within the game world of D&D, that means they are. Changing this is fine, but that's a house rule. NPCs, theoretically, don't know they are NPCs in a game, and thus won't necessarily conduct their lives with beliefs in absolute Good and Evil, but that doesn't mean that such forces don't govern their existence (within the game).
Also, elves are considered to be good overall. They are just as capable as producing evil members of their race as humans and halflings and dwarves. Likewise, some orcs are good. It's not a straight-jacket.
Just my pair of coppers.
I try to explain my religion, but not discuss religion in general. You're right it's a very sticky topic. The bar by my house has a sign specificaly stating "Gentlemen do not discuss Religion and Politics." ANd I agree, nothing gets uglier faster than either topic.
So I'll stick to clarifying my religion. But anything more and I'm out.
Which is very annoying because both are so interesting and ripe for intellectual debate. As a lover of such things, I get rather frustrated that 90% of society can't handle discussing these matters in a mature fashion.
Which is very annoying because both are so interesting and ripe for intellectual debate. As a lover of such things, I get rather frustrated that 90% of society can't handle discussing these matters in a mature fashion.
Well said. I have a degree in Political Science and I have an itch to talk about it but it goes unscratched. I hate that most people can't talk about it with out wanting to rant and rave.
Fizz
Which is very annoying because both are so interesting and ripe for intellectual debate. As a lover of such things, I get rather frustrated that 90% of society can't handle discussing these matters in a mature fashion.
I agree and understand both you and Fizzban's stance here. But I've been in too many very heated arguments where the other parties were just simply not mature or stable (mentally) enough to rationaly discuss religion. Not to mention the fact that most people consider a discussion on religion preaching whatever faith they adhere too.
Politics leads to great discussions when you actually discuss and debate ideas calmly and rationaly. Religion is just a fascinating discussion when it's limited to beliefs and practices. But both melt down when people try to argue which view/belief/idea is best. Which is a shame, I think religion can be a uniting factor, rather than divisive.
Which is very annoying because both are so interesting and ripe for intellectual debate. As a lover of such things, I get rather frustrated that 90% of society can't handle discussing these matters in a mature fashion.I agree and understand both you and Fizzban's stance here. But I've been in too many very heated arguments where the other parties were just simply not mature or stable (mentally) enough to rationaly discuss religion. Not to mention the fact that most people consider a discussion on religion preaching whatever faith they adhere too.
Politics leads to great discussions when you actually discuss and debate ideas calmly and rationaly. Religion is just a fascinating discussion when it's limited to beliefs and practices. But both melt down when people try to argue which view/belief/idea is best. Which is a shame, I think religion can be a uniting factor, rather than divisive.
Oh, I understand and am not trying to start such a debate here. Paizo has already developed a long-winded thread with such ideas, and I don't think it's time for a repeat yet. I'm just irritated that, throughout life, there are so many missed opportunities for stimulating discussion due to someone being a hot head.
Which is why I love these boards, since the community is able to hold interesting intellectual discussions with civility. Yay Paizo! :P
So; has any of this helped in the descision to add or nor create and environment for the Christian God in peoples D&D world?
So; has any of this helped in the descision to add or nor create and environment for the Christian God in peoples D&D world?
Well I just asked if anyone ever used domains for a Christian God to make a player feel more comfortable, and what those would be. This seems to have grown in to something of its own as religious things usually do.
Fizz
I actually began my intitial thread by asking people why you would want to include the real world in your fantasy campaign? I don't even like using the norse or greek gods if I can help it (unless they are very obscure). Most of the fantasy authors I read and love don't inject real gods (as in historically real) into their books unless they are writing historical fantasy, so neither do I. That may be a rather narrow perspective to take on the matter, but being the way I am it's worked for me so far.
As for religious or political debate, I'm quite willing to engage in such talk on a purely personal level. Unfortunately, Keziel's reasoned posts reminded me that not everyone is open-minded or rational about such topics and that my attempts at levity might be viewed as heretical or blasphemous (I did mention sex and religion in the same paragraph, which is always a bad move). Since I'm not trying to offend anyone's religion I thought the best way to stay clear of trouble was not to mention religion at all.
That sure lasted long! :(
Well, back on topic; I dont as the XP diety can have any domain he chooses to use and doing so would be a good thing. For players that having such a diety would be important; I would just ensure them that his back there hidden pulling the strings so things turn out just like they should in the end.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I actually began my intitial thread by asking people why you would want to include the real world in your fantasy campaign? I don't even like using the norse or greek gods if I can help it (unless they are very obscure). Most of the fantasy authors I read and love don't inject real gods (as in historically real) into their books unless they are writing historical fantasy, so neither do I. That may be a rather narrow perspective to take on the matter, but being the way I am it's worked for me so far.
I don't tend to use a literal Christian diety, just a facsimile thereof. To me, it's like having the big empire in your game built on the same lines as the Roman Empire. It may not make sense, but everyone knows what the Roman Empire was, and it's easy to find out many details about them. Similarly, by basing the main good diety off Christianity, I get to mine the rich veins of the Earth's religious history. I don't get a similar bang for my buck in terms of the various Roman/Greek pantheons (unless, of course, I'm using said Roman based empire, in which case I've been known to just use the Roman pantheon) in a pseudo middle age europe setting. The period of European history to which D&D is most strongly connected is also strongly affiliated with Christianity. It just feels natural to play up that connection.
As Heathy mentioned, I see it as more Chronicles of Narnia (i.e., inspired by and analogous to the Bible) rather than an attempt to bring a real world religion into the game.
I'd be very leary of allowing it.
(1) D&D is best to remain thoroughly make-believe. As long as ALL of your players agree that Christianity is also make-believe, and as long as no one new joins, then you're OK there; otherwise, I'd avoid it like the plague.
(2) Since He's supposed to be the god of Everything, you end up with people demanding access to all domains. Also, harkening to Biblical battles involving staffs and such, it appears that unbeatable SR vs. unbelievers' spells, and unbeatable save DCs when casting against "heathens," are part of the official Christian model. That'sw just a mess.
Jesus must have an armor class of at least 30.
add on the exalted poverty bonuses...