Michael Orton wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> I thought someone might reply in this form.
>
> >
> >So, you have just told the world that Hindu beliefs are a fiction. Not
> >to mention a number of different religions.
> >
>
> Well, like I said, I am an active Christian and as such I do not believe the
> Hindu faith to be correct.
>
> However, I do not believe the Hindu faith is either "obviously fictional" or
> completely polytheistic - though I'm probably as confused about their belief
> as they are about my belief in One God who is Three.
>
> I did once play in a D&D campaign which used the Hindu pantheon, but I came
> to the conclusion that while I do not believe in it, the Hindu faith is
> worth as much of my respect as I would hope they would have for my belief.
>
> I would not therefore wish to play in an RPG which used any of the major
> world religions.
What about those religions that are shared by smaller communities? Are
they, somehow, not subject to the same kind of respect, because of their
size?
>
> As I said in my originaI posting:
> >> I much prefer to have an obviously fictional polytheistic frame
> >> of reference.
>
> You went on to assert:
> >
> >No, actually, a role playing game can't move into dubious theological
> >grounds. They can merely discuss it.
> >
>
> I disagree. The D&D game system, and for that matter many other RPGs,
> takes as the premise that a PC actually can "bank" up and subsequently
> invoke Divine powers. The actual game mechanics require the deity to obey
> the PC.
>
> I find this at total variance with the way I experience God working in my
> life. I do not find the depiction of my God in a work of fiction, which is
> all an RPG session is, as anything less than the Almighty God that He is, at
> all plesant.
>
> >
> >I don't know what you believe, as far as your religion is concerned, and
> >frankly, I don't care.
> >
>
> Tough luck - I'm going to tell you anyway!
>
> God is not limited by a spell list that I pray for in the morning. He is
> not limited by my not having any "rank" in a Holy Order. He is only
> limited by my willingness to obey His instrctions.
>
> I know that He can act through me when He wants to, because He has.
> But He is the one doing it, not me.
> I am his servant, not He mine!
Good for you. I hope you feel good about telling me this. I had no need,
and it doesn't further your position.
It doesn't matter what your point of view is about the nature of God.
That's a matter of your personal belief. I'm glad you have one.
However, whether or not a game accurately maps a religious position is
completely irrelevant. Most games don't represent the nature of damage
very well, choosing, by and large, an hit point system, which is at odds
with common experience.
Nevertheless, we don't avoid playing these games, because we take it as
read that it's simply a representation of a particular kind of game
resource. We suspend disbelief in the inadequacy of the rules, and work
within it. Or, we don't, and play something else, I suppose.
If you want to withdraw from a game because it's theological accuracy
grates, then that's fine. I know how annoying it can be to play in a
game where the ruleset jars against your sense of the real to the point
where you lose interest.
However, you said that it was dangerous theologically. How can it be
dangerous, theologically? Because it presents an idea that offends
someone, somewhere? So what?
>
> >
> >Whatever else role playing is about, it's about communication.
> >
>
> Yep. RPGs are about people sitting round a table (or possibly exchaning
> emails) spinning a yarn together.
>
> >Communication involves sharing ideas that we are
> >uncomfortable with, at times. Aside from religion, issues concerning
> >sexuality, philosophy and politics can also make people uncomfortable.
>
> Logic error there. I agree that the sharing ideas is communication, but
> communication does not have to involve religion, sex, philosophy, politcs or
> making people uncomfortable.
You're not reading. There is no logical error. I said 'at times'. This
means from time to time. Now and again. Not all the time,but sometimes.
And, if you don't think that the point of communicating is to confront
difficult issues, then you're not really a part of this species.
>
> Playing a game is supposed to be fun. If it ceases to be fun then it is
> time to stop playing.
You can choose to play a game where controversy never raises its ugly
head, should you choose to. That's up to you. But, you don't really have
any position where you can suggest that other people ought to limit
their gaming to nice, safe areas.
It's the nature of people to try and make sense of the things around
them, usually in stories. Role playing games are stories, too.
Interactive ones. Often issues that may never have been planned arise
within them, and lead to an investigation. That's fine. More, it's
great, because it provides us with an opportunity to see more,
experience more, and to grow more.
>
>
> >
> > What is important is that the game is good,
> > not the impression that other people have of us.
You have mistaken my meaning, because I wasn't clear. I meant that the
game was one that was well done. Not morally or ethically good.
> >
>
> Game mechanics themselves are not intrinsically alligned to good or evil.
> I believe the way they are used in any given campaign can be for good or
> evil.
I'd need an example of this in order to believe it.
>
> It is possible for observers of an RPG to misunderstand the situation, or
> more likely conclude that the subject matter of a game is not fit for a work
> of fiction, and cause significant embarasment and/or general hassle by going
> off the deep end.
So?
So what if they don't understand. Are you doing anything illegal? Are
you bringing harm to anyone?
You are presuming that they even have a right to offer a hassle. I don't
konw why. I've never been hassled for role playing, except that maybe I
do too much of it at times.
If you have been hassled, then, I feel sorry for you. But, that still
doesn't give you any particular right to suggest that a game not offer
controversy.
>
> In the intresets of getting on with the game in question and not having to
> deal with arguments like this in mid-session, I prefer to play my RPGs under
> conditions where such people are unlikely to intrude.
>
> As for people seeing me and or my game playing friends as being good or not,
> the point is that some people have concluded that becasue it is possible to
> construct an RPG campaign world which is not in the best possible taste all
> RPGs should be outlawed. I'm not intested in trying to argue with someone
> capable of comming to that conclusion.
The world is full of idiots. They, also, are not illegal. I agree, why
waste your time arguing with them. Yet, you're prepared to tell other
people not to play a particular kind of game.
> On the other hand, I have concluded that certain concepts are not fit for
> inclusion in an RPG campaign, especially when under church supervision.
Why? Is the Church somehow going to be desecrated by what goes on?
>
> I think some books should not have been written, but I'm not going to burn
> all books.
>
I see. But, you will burn a book or two, then.
Fine.
I'm tired of this conversation.
You're not worth my time, because you're a fool, and basically a bigot.
I expect you think that you are, in fact, very open minded, but I don't
think you are. You want the world to conform to a nice, ordered little
realm, with nothing to threaten some precious order.
I don't share your views about role playing games JUST being for fun. I
think they have more to offer than that. You, and many other people, all
for different reasons, may not be interested in playing in games like
that, and that's fine, too.
But, basically, buddy, I don't care what you think. I'm quite happy for
you to play in your way. If I was playing in a Church sponsored place
or event, I'd play the game I want to run, and damn their eyes.
So, bugger off, and do what you want. Your position is intellectually
hollow, and I can't see that you have raised a single valid point.
But, whatever else, don't try and tell me what I can discuss in my game,
or how I run it. If I want to raise some challenging points about the
existence of God, or devil worship or whatever the damned hell I want,
then I'll do it, whether you support me, or call for a crusade against
me.
I just really don't give a toss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
