First, some arguments against role-paying games, saying they are evil:
In ‘Dungeons and Dragons: Concern for the Christian’ (http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=603) by Mr. & Mrs. Mel Gabler, the ultraconservative Texas textbook critics, they warn that young people may be introduced to world mythology, and may devote excessive time and energy to role-playing. Interestingly, there is no talk of the game leading to suicide or murder. This site also has long essays against Judaism, Islam, Michael Jackson, Mormonism, Hinduism, Carl Sagan, and much more. This is the same Mel Gabler who is quoted in "The Stupidest Things Ever Said": "Too many textbooks and discussions leave children free to make up their minds about things."
Chick Publications, (www.chick.com) radical Protestants, once published a comic book called "Dark Dungeons", depicting gamers acquiring supernatural powers and being driven to suicide. The company has also published a collection of young-earth creation-science lies in comic-book form, and an anti-Roman Catholic comic which calls communion "the death cookie". The latter speaks for itself, while young-earth creationism was condemned as dishonest by every U.S. Nobel science laureate in the amicus brief to the Supreme Court in "Edwards". Of course, if you would rather believe a comic book, that is your business.
Demonbuster (www.demonbuster.com) gives only passing reference to Dungeons and Dragons. The same page claims that Cabbage Patch dolls also teach satanism, and that people who are born out of wedlock "have so much trouble with their church relationships; they are cursed." The site also devotes a full page to diabetes (http://www.demonbuster.com/diabetic.html) -- "squid-like demons attacking ten parts of your body."
The links above are listed at www.pathguy.com/lipo.htm#relright. It’s the site of a Christian D&D gamemaster and pathologist. Elsewhere, he gives an inspiring argument for why Christians should play role-playing games (http://www.pathguy.com/whyrpg.htm).
If role-playing games are wrong, why are there so many Christians who enjoy them, and even create role-playing games especially for Christians?
The Christian Gamers Guild: http://www.christian-gamers-guild.org/welcome.html
Holy Lands, the free Christian RPG: http://www.holylands.net/
The Way (http://www.rollspel.com/engelsk/way.htm) is an educational fantasy role-playing game for church youth groups. It is Christian, but non-denominational, and therefore useful in all mainstream churches. It lets the players deal with complex moral problems and serves as a basis for teaching a Christian way of life.
The Way was developed at the youth works section of the Västerås Bishopric of the Church of Sweden (the Lutheran church that is the main denomination in Sweden). The project was endorsed of Bishop Ytterberg, financed by the Administrative Board of the Bishopric and managed by Len Howard. Reverend Åke Eldberg has provided theological and pastoral advice during the development.
Is fantasy, stories about magic and monsters, bad?
J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, two Christians, wrote the most popular fantasy series of the 20th century, The Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia respectively.
Fantasy actually helped Lewis, a former atheist, to become a Christian. Lewis converted to Christianity because of the influence of Tolkien, his Christian friend, and Christian fantasy writer George MacDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis#Conversion_to_Christianity). In Narnia, Lewis actually set out to create a vision of Jesus in a fantasy world. The Jesus figure in The Chronicles of Narnia is Aslan, the talking lion, who sacrifices himself for his friends but returns as king. Lewis also wrote many books defending Christian faith (Bob quotes him often).
Pathguy.com also says D&D fantasy was derived mostly from the Christian fantasy milieus, including Tolkien, and that even Pat Robertson's channel (very conservative Christian) has a medieval cartoon called Prince Valiant. Valiant has been in newspapers since 1937. Prince Valiant once used the guise of a demon, and began his adventures by meeting Merlin in King Arthur’s court. Magic and demons appear in a fantasy that even the most conservative Christians enjoy. Hmmm.
Finally, Tolkien’s lengthy essay on fairy stories (http://www.pathguy.com/ofs.htm) says the following:
The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels—peculiarly artistic, beautiful, and moving: ‘mythical’ in their perfect, self-contained significance; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatasrophe [unexpected happy ending] …
But in God's kingdom the presence of the greatest does not depress the small. Redeemed Man is still man. Story, fantasy, still go on, and should go on.
Just remember to be an effective steward of your time. Heroic fantasy games may be a good way to explore what good is, but the Bible describes what good we ought to be doing: 1 Corinthians 13, Ephesians 4:11-13, Romans 12:6-8. Shepherding God’s lost sheep is always a better use of your time than just gaming, so look for opportunities to be a shepherd more often. I’m personally hoping I can use fantasy role-playing games themselves as a ministry.
All materials in this document were borrowed from the named sources for non-profit instructional and coaching purposes by Jason Przybycien (przybycj@gmail.com).
P.S. If you like Harry Potter, be aware that there are a lot of sites which bash it as witchcraft/Satanism. Those claims are argued at the urban legend site Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.asp). And it seems arguments that children become witches or Satanists after reading Potter all point to a fake news article on www.theonion.com:
If The Onion's parody has demonstrated anything, it's that we should be worrying about adults not being able to distinguish between fiction and reality. The kids themselves seem to have a pretty good grasp of it.
Showing posts with label role-playing games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label role-playing games. Show all posts
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Devil worship in roleplaying games
I did a lot of reading today on Dungeons and Dragons and its alleged causal relationship to Satanism. I think the evidence is questionable, and probably pales in comparison to violence stemming from religious zealotry.
Now, I would offer up World of Darkness games as an alternative to D&D. It has a stronger focus on morality, and those who are immoral are punished. Albeit, they are punished in this life with no mention of a Judeo-Christian afterlife.
Faith is also a strong force in the game. Within the Hunters Hunted and Hunter the Reckoning, mortals have the power to reveal, fight, slow and destroy supernatural forces with faith. Also, the Huner scenarios seem rather benevolent, ie: the players are defending humans or themselves, fighting dark forces. I like that idea a bunch. So much, I want to lead hunter games and maybe never let my players be vampires or werewolves or even mages. The danger is this: is a player who believes themselves an invincible religious zealot, or a paradise-bound martyr, any better than a selfish sorceror? Maybe, but only when their goals are for the glory of God and the good of mankind.
Also present in HH is some simple magic. Mortal hunters have a few simple psychic and magical abilities. If you think magic is evil, then there is evil there. I don't think magic is inherently evil, though I think it has no power in the real world. In a world where magic were real, it's all about how you use it, and then about how you live with it after it's done.
However, in Masquerade, the Player's Guide, and beyond into the new WoD, vampire magic is all about blood rituals. Sacrificing this and making that. Vampire existence revolves around blood so this should come as no surprise. Still, no matter how many actions I can look at objectively, blood magic seems evil. It seems like Satanism to me. It seems like some ancient, scary pagan ritual. It certainly employs the magic worldview, that the caster can do things God would not do for them Himself. It also gives the character an opportunity to fuel his or her goals with the suffering, death and destruction of others. That's a very scary propositon, and one I hope to avoid delving into.
On a lighter note, I am utterly tired of the D&D bestiaries' focus on demons and hell. Lords of the levels of the underworld based on real demonology scare me. I suppose that's the point, but I really would rather work with some inexplicable or inconceivable horrors, even Lovecraft. Judeo-Christian demons have a stronger possibility, in my mind, of being real. That makes me quite hesitant to throw around their possibly real names during the wee hours of the morning.
Now, I would offer up World of Darkness games as an alternative to D&D. It has a stronger focus on morality, and those who are immoral are punished. Albeit, they are punished in this life with no mention of a Judeo-Christian afterlife.
Faith is also a strong force in the game. Within the Hunters Hunted and Hunter the Reckoning, mortals have the power to reveal, fight, slow and destroy supernatural forces with faith. Also, the Huner scenarios seem rather benevolent, ie: the players are defending humans or themselves, fighting dark forces. I like that idea a bunch. So much, I want to lead hunter games and maybe never let my players be vampires or werewolves or even mages. The danger is this: is a player who believes themselves an invincible religious zealot, or a paradise-bound martyr, any better than a selfish sorceror? Maybe, but only when their goals are for the glory of God and the good of mankind.
Also present in HH is some simple magic. Mortal hunters have a few simple psychic and magical abilities. If you think magic is evil, then there is evil there. I don't think magic is inherently evil, though I think it has no power in the real world. In a world where magic were real, it's all about how you use it, and then about how you live with it after it's done.
However, in Masquerade, the Player's Guide, and beyond into the new WoD, vampire magic is all about blood rituals. Sacrificing this and making that. Vampire existence revolves around blood so this should come as no surprise. Still, no matter how many actions I can look at objectively, blood magic seems evil. It seems like Satanism to me. It seems like some ancient, scary pagan ritual. It certainly employs the magic worldview, that the caster can do things God would not do for them Himself. It also gives the character an opportunity to fuel his or her goals with the suffering, death and destruction of others. That's a very scary propositon, and one I hope to avoid delving into.
On a lighter note, I am utterly tired of the D&D bestiaries' focus on demons and hell. Lords of the levels of the underworld based on real demonology scare me. I suppose that's the point, but I really would rather work with some inexplicable or inconceivable horrors, even Lovecraft. Judeo-Christian demons have a stronger possibility, in my mind, of being real. That makes me quite hesitant to throw around their possibly real names during the wee hours of the morning.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Requiem recant
I have re-examined the new World of Darkness and found more to like.
Vampire the Requiem is not so bad. You have clans, 5 basic ones nearly identical to the original 7.
You have the _option_ of bloodlines, which are more specialized versions of the clans. There are also do-it-yourself bloodlien creation instructions if you want more options.
You have the option of covenant, which is the beliefs your Lick subscribes to. I think they lead to paths of enlightenment but I'm not sure. Some of the covenants allow spells, so you aren't restricted to magic by clan.
So, new WoD is an option for my gamemastering. I still think it gives a much better, more diverse system for playing mortals. There is a core set, just called World of Darkness, which I think describes the world from the human perspective.
The new Promethean line is promising, too. If I hadn't seen the sourcebooks I'd never have believed frankensteins could be more diabolical than vampires. They can.
Vampire the Requiem is not so bad. You have clans, 5 basic ones nearly identical to the original 7.
You have the _option_ of bloodlines, which are more specialized versions of the clans. There are also do-it-yourself bloodlien creation instructions if you want more options.
You have the option of covenant, which is the beliefs your Lick subscribes to. I think they lead to paths of enlightenment but I'm not sure. Some of the covenants allow spells, so you aren't restricted to magic by clan.
So, new WoD is an option for my gamemastering. I still think it gives a much better, more diverse system for playing mortals. There is a core set, just called World of Darkness, which I think describes the world from the human perspective.
The new Promethean line is promising, too. If I hadn't seen the sourcebooks I'd never have believed frankensteins could be more diabolical than vampires. They can.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Review of Vampire the Requiem
Just skimmed Vampire the Requiem. It's a helluva lot different from The Masquerade. I don't know why. I appreciate that they simplified the system, or at least I thought they did. It looks like they tried to keep everything, reorganize it (unsuccessfully), and add a plethora of new (and questionably interesting) content.
Complaints: 1. The heading font is light, handwritten cursive in pale red. Some of the headings are simply indecipherable.
2. The headings have no clear order. Some are bigger than others for emphasis, while others to denote categories and sub-categories. Plus, and worst of all, things are addressed multiple times. Why do I have to find clans listed in 3 or 4 different places? Holy shit.
3. Why all the new content? Covenants, Clans, Bloodlines ... Your character can be a member of at least three overlapping categories and for what? I can understand one or two levels of complexity in vampire society, but why a third? There are so many levels of organization THINGS AREN'T ORGANIZED.
4. Why drop or drastically change the old content? The old bloodlines mostly survive, but some are clans and some bloodlines. (And Malkavian is now Malkovian) It's like they want the names to pull in older players, but it's in a parallel universe where things aren't related in the same way. Why, pray tell, is the Camarilla dismissed as a silly historical construct? I thought it was central to the old system. Keeping only three of the five traditions? I just don't get it.
5. Now you need an extra book? There are a few places in Requiem where it directs you to the new World of Darkness "core" book. Thing is, the core book doesn't add much to Requiem that you need. And alone, the core book is barely playable. You can only be a mortal, and there are no explanations of vampires, werewolves or mages AT ALL. That means you can't fight them or hunt them down, much less play them. The best you can hope for with the core book is an encounter with police and wild animals, or maybe some ghost hunting.
Conclusion: Play Masquerade or Requiem. Expect no carry-over from the old World of Darkness to the new. If you switch, disregard your previous experience because it's so different you will only be confused. Personally, I prefer the style, layout, feel and mood of the Masquerade. I am, however, torn because the new system has such straightforward usage of morality. Vices, virtues, degeneration, derangement ... It all works, but I think it falls apart when you have to be a member of a coterie, a clan, a bloodline, and a covenant while still obeying your prince.
Complaints: 1. The heading font is light, handwritten cursive in pale red. Some of the headings are simply indecipherable.
2. The headings have no clear order. Some are bigger than others for emphasis, while others to denote categories and sub-categories. Plus, and worst of all, things are addressed multiple times. Why do I have to find clans listed in 3 or 4 different places? Holy shit.
3. Why all the new content? Covenants, Clans, Bloodlines ... Your character can be a member of at least three overlapping categories and for what? I can understand one or two levels of complexity in vampire society, but why a third? There are so many levels of organization THINGS AREN'T ORGANIZED.
4. Why drop or drastically change the old content? The old bloodlines mostly survive, but some are clans and some bloodlines. (And Malkavian is now Malkovian) It's like they want the names to pull in older players, but it's in a parallel universe where things aren't related in the same way. Why, pray tell, is the Camarilla dismissed as a silly historical construct? I thought it was central to the old system. Keeping only three of the five traditions? I just don't get it.
5. Now you need an extra book? There are a few places in Requiem where it directs you to the new World of Darkness "core" book. Thing is, the core book doesn't add much to Requiem that you need. And alone, the core book is barely playable. You can only be a mortal, and there are no explanations of vampires, werewolves or mages AT ALL. That means you can't fight them or hunt them down, much less play them. The best you can hope for with the core book is an encounter with police and wild animals, or maybe some ghost hunting.
Conclusion: Play Masquerade or Requiem. Expect no carry-over from the old World of Darkness to the new. If you switch, disregard your previous experience because it's so different you will only be confused. Personally, I prefer the style, layout, feel and mood of the Masquerade. I am, however, torn because the new system has such straightforward usage of morality. Vices, virtues, degeneration, derangement ... It all works, but I think it falls apart when you have to be a member of a coterie, a clan, a bloodline, and a covenant while still obeying your prince.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
More Role-Playing, Less Game
I was just browsing my free Holy Lands manual. It looked like there was no mention of levels at first. What a brilliant idea. People IRL never go up levels, so why bother with all the damn math? Have all the challenges on a table and set out the DC simply for commons, heros, enemies, animals. Boom.
It would be so much simpler, and more realistic. It also makes it easier to create a character. So much less calculation, especially to create a new character with advanced levels. The GM would have to make some changes and decisions as necessary. People wouldn't need to be attached to their character, making killing them easier. Great. If everything is always at the same level, everything is always balanced for your level. Boom. Work more with plot and less with numbers.
No levels. No experience. No guarantee the PCs will live to the next adventure. It would be great for a horror setting.
Attributes? What another pain in the ass. Skills? Don't get me started. I want a game with common people. I like to build characters but what the hell do I need all this stuff to deal with. I just want heroes to be better than the average joe. Villains should be close to heroes. Animals are less than the above. Done. That's it. I don't want characters to be that damned different and I don't want to worry whether Biff can thread a needle with a bullet at 40 paces because he learned a skill at his last level up. Brotha please. Let's make a game that's fun to play and not be so damned proud of ourselves for creating, refining and then endlessly expanding a system. All that does is showcase our overblown creativity without allowing any obstacles. What if this game isn't sellable? What if it isn't much fun? What if it isn't playable by anyone but the absolute suckas with nothing but time on their hands and allowance to buy the latest book? What the hell do we need another DND clone for? It's been done. You can't make it better by adding content. It doesn't work for anyone but the nerds. Niche market bullshit.
New Game. New rules. Simple game. Some dice. Some markers. Characters aren't different numerically. They are set in stone. The only thing that changes is the equipment. I don't want ot hear, "My character was built for this situation. I have a solution on a bag." That's not the kind of play I want to support and I either need to convince that player that that isn't a fun damned experience for anyone else, or change the rules so that gameplay is impossible. I want a game anyone can play at any time, and all they need to worry about is the plot they are involved in and maybe the equipment involved in the current mission. Character building is not part of hte gameplay anymore. That's it. It's done.
Example 1: Player bump into a special forces soldier. IRL he would probably best the average joe, but a martial arts master in the party might be able to take care of him. Why damn well bother? Make the players think of a way to stop the dude. Try something other than combat. Every enemy is a puzzle, not an opponent to roll some dice against. You build a character and write him as a martial arts master. I don't give a fuck. The reason you win is that PCs are better than the average NPC. If I want it to be a challenge I'll put you on the same level., not 5 or 3 but both PC level. I don't want you to be able to level up and beat up the dude I never meant you to beat either, or trick the system by using a weapon in a way not intended by the rules. THE GAME IS NOT TO BREAK MY RULES SO YOU CAN WIN. The game is for me to have fun writing a story and telling it to you as you experience it through a character within it, as we play out roles in life. We will address philosophical problems and questions of faith, politics, religion, ETHICS. Role-playing is a game, a story and a discussion. IT IS NOT YAHTZEE WITH MORE COMPLICATED SCORECARDS. Fuck your DND. I want to ROLE-PLAY.
It would be so much simpler, and more realistic. It also makes it easier to create a character. So much less calculation, especially to create a new character with advanced levels. The GM would have to make some changes and decisions as necessary. People wouldn't need to be attached to their character, making killing them easier. Great. If everything is always at the same level, everything is always balanced for your level. Boom. Work more with plot and less with numbers.
No levels. No experience. No guarantee the PCs will live to the next adventure. It would be great for a horror setting.
Attributes? What another pain in the ass. Skills? Don't get me started. I want a game with common people. I like to build characters but what the hell do I need all this stuff to deal with. I just want heroes to be better than the average joe. Villains should be close to heroes. Animals are less than the above. Done. That's it. I don't want characters to be that damned different and I don't want to worry whether Biff can thread a needle with a bullet at 40 paces because he learned a skill at his last level up. Brotha please. Let's make a game that's fun to play and not be so damned proud of ourselves for creating, refining and then endlessly expanding a system. All that does is showcase our overblown creativity without allowing any obstacles. What if this game isn't sellable? What if it isn't much fun? What if it isn't playable by anyone but the absolute suckas with nothing but time on their hands and allowance to buy the latest book? What the hell do we need another DND clone for? It's been done. You can't make it better by adding content. It doesn't work for anyone but the nerds. Niche market bullshit.
New Game. New rules. Simple game. Some dice. Some markers. Characters aren't different numerically. They are set in stone. The only thing that changes is the equipment. I don't want ot hear, "My character was built for this situation. I have a solution on a bag." That's not the kind of play I want to support and I either need to convince that player that that isn't a fun damned experience for anyone else, or change the rules so that gameplay is impossible. I want a game anyone can play at any time, and all they need to worry about is the plot they are involved in and maybe the equipment involved in the current mission. Character building is not part of hte gameplay anymore. That's it. It's done.
Example 1: Player bump into a special forces soldier. IRL he would probably best the average joe, but a martial arts master in the party might be able to take care of him. Why damn well bother? Make the players think of a way to stop the dude. Try something other than combat. Every enemy is a puzzle, not an opponent to roll some dice against. You build a character and write him as a martial arts master. I don't give a fuck. The reason you win is that PCs are better than the average NPC. If I want it to be a challenge I'll put you on the same level., not 5 or 3 but both PC level. I don't want you to be able to level up and beat up the dude I never meant you to beat either, or trick the system by using a weapon in a way not intended by the rules. THE GAME IS NOT TO BREAK MY RULES SO YOU CAN WIN. The game is for me to have fun writing a story and telling it to you as you experience it through a character within it, as we play out roles in life. We will address philosophical problems and questions of faith, politics, religion, ETHICS. Role-playing is a game, a story and a discussion. IT IS NOT YAHTZEE WITH MORE COMPLICATED SCORECARDS. Fuck your DND. I want to ROLE-PLAY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)