Vortigern

I am interested, despite the relatively high price. The previews have given me an indication of consistent quality and improvement on the system, and I can't wait to see it. Though the price factor does worry me for the sales/long term propects of the line... I hope it succeeds anyway. Best wishes on this venture, I am sure you are full anticipation, positive and negative. Congratulations on seeing it through.

Any idea when Chaosium may have this product back in stock?

Has anyone seen a good writeup of this type of magick for an S&S game?

An initial stab at it myself was having it be an advanced skill.

Mesmerism: ( Pow + Cha )

Manipulation: For one magic point the Sorcerer can add his Mesmerism skill to his normal Influence or Insight skill for one check, to represent the subtle use of the power in a social setting. This use of the power does not contain the ability to achieve completely unplausable results, yet... the highly unlikely is possible. It allows the Sorcerer, to say the least, to be highly 'persuasive', getting targets to shift their opinions or agree to things they normally wouldn't, or divulge small clues to information they may otherwise desire to keep hidden. This use of the power/skill requires a calm and noncombative setting where social interaction may willingly take place.

Another possible variation of this is allowing the user to add +10% to the skill check in question, per Magic Point spent, up to their rating in Mesmerism.

Entrancement: This use of the skill requires the expenditure of a magic point, and one CA. If the user succeeds in an Opposed Mesmerism/Persistence ( or something on the resistance table if you prefer... ) test with the target, the target becomes Entranced. While Entranced the target loses all CAs, becoming hopelessly and completely fixated on the hypnotic ( pick one: voice/eyes/movements/breasts ) of the skill user. The Mesmerist must maintain this state by spending one CA per round.

Domination: This skill allows the user to give commands or suggestions to targets by clouding their minds with hypnotic power. ( Blah, Yadda, Blah. ) Such a use requires the expenditure of a magic point, and an opposed test of Mesmerism vs. Persistence. Affecting more than one target requires the expenditure of one magic point per target on the action. In a combat situation the target must first be Entranced to be affected. Dominating in combat, post Entrancement, requires one CA.

Actions that are deeply opposed by the target, or suicidal actions especially, should recieve a bonus to resist judged by the GM. ( No more than +20% )

In combat a failed Domination means the target breaks completely free and is no longer even Entranced.

Treatment: If the game uses fear/insanity rules, depending on the structure of those, this skill should be quite useful in treating Psychological problems and/or even restoring Sanity to subjects/patients.

The results depend on which bible you read, since they are not at all identical.

There are very different translations of the original sources, and often different

sources are used, too. For example, the bibles of several Christian churches do

not include the Book of Revelation, because their theologians consider it as non-

canonical. Other Christian churches do not accept the entire Old Testament, in

their case their bible contains the New Testament only, and even there are major

differences concerning which texts - especially letters - are accepted as canoni-

cal parts of the Acts of the Apostles. So the results you get from plain reading

of your bible can be very, very different from the results another Christian gets

from his plain reading of his bible. And, frankly, only god could tell with any au-

thority which of the churches got it right, and which is reading the wrong texts.

Which is an entirely different discussion that the relative merits and inconsistencies within 'the bible' as generally commonly accepted. Which I grant has more merit.

The process by which given texts are selected for Canon and which become apocryphal I've always found rather interesting and dubious at the same time. Mmm. Yet the existence of different versions of the Bible I suppose is a natural by-product of schisms in the religion. Some of which seem to be genuine religious and interpretive differences, and some of which seem to go plainly against established mores and be more of what I mentioned previously... Altering the religion to suit their own views. It seems the world is full 'heretics' these days.

Your plain meaning response was a reply to someone nitpicking the bible to make it seem "evil" or contradictory; thus, context, and you are doing exactly what you accuse other people of!

One can't really 'nitpick' while being unspecific and speaking in generalities. When -you- made specific points, I went through them, one by one, and attempted to explain the context and the genuine meaning of the scriptures that you had quoted.

Conrad didn't do that. He spoke in very vague terms about the flaws and inconsistencies of the text, and I expressed an equally emphatic disagreement with his vague assertion. How am -I- now the one who is now speaking out of context?

Not true in the old testament. Jews are god's "chosen" and pretty much are allowed to kill, rape and pillage (and they DO). Also, god is full of hatred and vengeance, and even demands human sacrifice.

Not true that a plain reading yields plain results?

I don't see how that is at all incompatible with the rest of your statement? Not that I think you are at all on-point with all of it. Yet I'm beginning to tire of picking through individual points in this thread, as... there are so many of them. So, to keep things to one point, how does any of the rest of what you said in any way contradict the principle of plain reading yielding plain results?

Dial down the melodrama a bit seneschal. Whenever someone forces you to confront the ambiguities in Christian belief you take it as a personal attack. This is a sure sign of faith becoming dogmatic armour. You are the bigot if you cannot admit that your holy book has glaring inconsistencies. Not ALL Christians are as extreme as the anti D&D crowd (and they still exist after all these years) or the antievolutionists, or the batty Biblical literalist minority. I've known many types of Christian from the frankly mad to the spiritually uplifting so I don't hate them all; in fact I've loved some of them. So get off your high horse and deal with things in a less drama queenish fashion.

You might want the whole thread stopped by moderators but that really is about your uncomfortable feelings, not reality. Christian censorship? Nein danke!

Christian Censorship? Really?

Have you never seen a thread anywhere shut down for perfectly reasonable 'anti-muslim' comments? I'm not in favor of censorship, yet, as one poster has already noted the 'double-standard' in some circles against Christians is plain to see. It is Liberal types who started the whole 'Offensive' language taboo to begin with. Funny how they only seem to apply it when convenient to them. Frankly your outcry of 'Christian Censorship' makes me see -you- as the drama queen in this situation. Hyperbole in the extreme.

And you show your own contempt as you use 'anti-evolutionists' or 'Biblical literalist' as examples of people that are 'batty' or completely 'extreme' or crazy etc. You have not been alone in this. As if no reasonable person could ever hold a viewpoint that you disagree with... Perish the thought.

And I would say that the odds are that your 'ambiguities' and 'inconsistencies' in the Bible that you refer to are most likely either your own limited knowledge thereof, or misinterpretations seeking that end even if unintentional.

Most of the time a plain reading of the text, in context, leaves one with a quite plain meaning in my experience.

Well, these words are first recorded (and the various records often contradict

each other), then translated (often several times through a series of languages),

then selected as canonical or not canonical (the Bibles of the different churches

often contain different texts), and finally interpreted (in each case with at least

as many different interpretations as the texts have words).

All this is done by humans, not by angels, so it really should not come as a sur-

prise that it is difficult to agree which of the words at the end of that chain are

identical to any words at the beginning of the chain, and what the original mea-

ning might have been.

Some Christian scholars go to great lengths to try and find the oldest possible or indeed original versions of texts, in their original languages, and study them in that manner in an attempt to seek deeper understanding over just such issues.

Yet essentially it comes down a question of faith. Either you believe that the work is 'inspired' by the Divine, or you don't. Finding that belief contemptable is something else entirely.

So much for the Lord's word and guidance.

Not that you would have any detectable bias yourself, of course?

You just declared about all European members of Lutheran churches to be non-

Christians, because almost all of these Churches have agreed that homosexua-

lity is not in contradiction to the spirit of the Bible. Perhaps you should tell them

that you know more about theology than they do ?

But this just underlines my point that one needs to distinguish, and that there is

no such thing as "Christian", there are only many very diverse churches which

cannot even agree what the basics of their supposedly common believes really

are.

It seems like plain sophistry to say that you believe something does not violate the 'spirit' of a text, when it plainly violates an explicit prohibition. When scripture directly states that something is an abomination before God, it cannot then be declared otherwise without boldy and baldly seeking to revise the religion and faith. And my point is that if you disagree with something to that extent... you shouldn't be seeking to undermine and change it, you should be going your own way and seeking a philosophy or faith that is a better match for you. The problems of 'inconsistency' for Christianity these days stem from the large number of people who purport to be Christians but in fact believe in things that are totally different from the scriptures and doctrines of the faith, and thus misrepresent the religion to outsiders.

Hmmm ... Stockholm has an openly lesbian female bishop, openly gay priests are

no rarity at least in most countries in western Europe ... the idea that Christians

don't agree with gay people sounds rather outdated to me.

Are they really Christian if they openly violate the tenets of what is supposedly their faith? You can't live your life in complete opposition to scripture and still claim to be a devout priest of that faith. Have the courage to be something else, if you genuinely don't agree with it.

But thats europe, everyone knows preety much every other dude is gay over there

Also, christians have bishops?!? I thought that was a catholic thing!

AAAANYWAY, Biblosium's BGB says its bad, under spot rules:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.(Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

I get it... you disagree with Christianity about the scriputural/doctrinal stance concerning homosexuality. And you are correct. Homosexuality is, scriputurally, an abomination before God. Yet you consider that grounds for complete contempt? The fact that they have a moral/ethical disagreement with you about that one facet of human behavior? It seems you are instead displaying your own narrow-minded intolerance to other people's ideas.

I agree with rust that this thread has been unproductive. The title wasn't "A few misinformed people from 30 years ago and RPGs." It was "Christianity and RPGs." If the statements made about Christians had been made about any other group, forum members would have been outraged and the moderator would have shut the thread down. Unfortunately, the thread has demonstrated that rational, polite discussion has little effect on bigotry -- in this case, not bigotry by Christians but bigotry by their detractors.

I quite agree.

Im sceptic of this, would you be so kind to provide a source please?

Generated by a quick google search.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers

Q. We often hear that religious people give more to charity than secularists. Is this true?

A. In the year 2000, “religious” people (the 33 percent of the population who attend their houses of worship at least once per week) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists” (the 27 percent who attend less than a few times per year, or have no religion). They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer. When considering the average dollar amounts of money donated and time volunteered, the gap between the groups increases even further: religious people gave nearly four times more dollars per year, on average, than secularists ($2,210 versus $642). They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times).

Very little of this gap is due to personal differences between religious and secular people with respect to income, age, family, or anything else. For instance, imagine two people who are identical in income, education, age, race, and marital status. The one difference between them is that, while one goes to church every week, the other never does. Knowing this, we can predict that the churchgoer will be 21 percentage points more likely to make a charitable gift of money during the year than the nonchurchgoer, and will also be 26 points more likely to volunteer.

I made a comment about christians, someone thought it wasnt good, i clarified and apologized on my 2nd post, then people wouldnt let them go, so i started trolling. Not that im bitter cause its 1 am on a friday and ive nothing to do but watch tv or anything.

Still, im not a christian so im going to hell, so i guess i can get some entertainment out of the topic!

As a non-christian myself, my objection is more to the tone of contempt with which you seem to treat the subject and Christians in general. Which I find objectionable in and of itself.

A god that created the whole universe AND is allmighty and knows it ALL has room for reproval, finds stuff irredeemable? If he doesnt like evil, why did he create it? Free will is not an argument, since we are incapable of great many things, so theoretically we could be incapable of evil.

Also, he hates SHRIMP... C'mon!!!

So, I'm only allowed to use arguments or positions that you consider valid in premise? That isn't usually how this works.

Free Will most certainly is a rather cogent argument. That the vast majority of evils in the world come directly from decisions made by people. And therefore are acts of Free Will.

There are also a variety of interpretations of the Devil and Satan, that are much more in-depth as to the existence of hardship and want in the world. Suffice it to say that Christian Theology and Doctrine rather adequately explain these things from a variety of different angles.

The question is whether you find the explanations believable, on a personal level, and choose to have Faith in them.

You quite plainly do not. Neither do I. But I do /not/ choose to have contempt for those who do. You seem to quite readily do so, and that I rather strongly dislike.

No, im saying that our families are more important than a makebelief about an intollerant god.

Which is a personal value judgement based on your concious decision to consider someone else's religion hopeless make-believe, rather than respecting the fact they chose differently in that decision making process.

So basically, you must put religion over real people, and god HATES. Got it!

God, in scripture, has expressed hatred and/or disapproval or wrath over a great many things. This is not unusual. Generally these are things he finds evil and irredeemable. Such as Sodom and Gomorrah. Even still, those that 'could' be redeemed, were, in that instance. Reference 'Lot'.

And really? Seriously? Being ready and willing to accept the costs of faith and belief is to 'put religion over real people'? Your bias is showing again. The teaching isn't telling the believer to cast aside all family bonds, as a tenet of faith. It is saying that you should be ready for any possible or potential strife within your family that such belief and faith might cause. Rather distinct there. And I don't see how that is 'putting your religion before others'. Unless you mean to say that we should all adhere only to beliefs that our families approve of, at all times?

Non-Christians also do all that stuff.

Not that I have figures on-hand to quote, yet, all statistical information about this subject that I have ever seen shows consistently that Christians donate far more often and far larger proportional to their income than any other area of society. And they do it willingly, out of genuine charity, rather than from being compelled by some tyrannical government seeking to 'redistribute' their wealth.

Downplaying that is downplaying the facts. By the numbers, straight up, Christians do more for the disadvantaged than anyone else.

Just from the new testament, the old one is much much worse:

Not that there is any bias what-so-ever in 'that' statement? Of course not.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-37)

Quoting out of context, to say the least.

A passage, read as a whole, that indicates that Christians are going to persecuted for their belief and faith. That divisions will occur, even within families. That the true believer should adhere to their faith despite such divisions and pressures, or they are not ultimately a believer/saved, and worthy of the Grace of God.

But then cherry-picking seems to be common practice in these sorts of things.

"I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?" (Luke 12:49)

This is part of the same passage, only from a different Gospel.

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Luke 12:51-53)

Same. You seem to like this passage.

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

Again. Yet I find this ironic, a scripture essentially saying knowing misdeeds are greater than misdeeds in ignorance you find reprehensible?

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

Again, upon consulting the entire chapter/scripture, this passage speaks as to the potential costs of being a believer, and having to deal with persecution.

As for example comparing to the parable concerning the careful weighing of costs during the construction of a building etc.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

Leaving completely aside that the speaker in this parable is the rightful ruler and these enemies so mentioned are rebellious subjects?

"But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate." (Revelation 2:6)

Speaking of an early heretical branch of Christianity which did not adhere to the doctrines of the faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism

"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." (Revelation 2:9)

What is it exactly you think is so objectionable here, speaking about people operating under false pretext and misrepresentation while actually being other than virtuous?

"So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which the thing I hate." (Revelation 2:15)

As before.

"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee." (Revelation 3:9)

And again.

---

Really, I am not a fan of cherry-picking. You may disagree with some of the teachings represented here... even find them reprehensible. But cherry-picking things out to lead others to a distorted view to suit yourself is... less than honest.

Though I will grant perhaps I misunderstand your intent. If you would like I would freely discuss any of the relative merits or flaws of any of these ideas. In full context.

That's only because most christians are not very familiar with their own scriptures, that have "good christians" engaging in murder, rape and slavery all the time.

Again, on the one hand I would agree most people in general do not seem to have a very good grounding in 'any' religious education these days. Yet that said, your words seem to project a rather solid anti-christian bias, which is what I was pointing out. And this statement doesn't really do much to refute that. Which isn't to say you don't have logical or well considered reasons why you feel the way that you do. I just don't care for such blanket statements attributing things to a whole group rather than the espousing individuals unless a given idea or statement actually 'is' endorsed by the whole group. Which it is plain that RPG = Devilry is not a 'Doctrine of the Faith' in Christianity of any sect and that people have varying opinions on the matter. Which is why the 'U.S. Christians Are Hilarious' statement annoyed me. It lowers any possible debate and is, frankly, offensive to me... and I'm not even a Christian. If I were, I could imagine my annoyance being rather greater.

As for Christians in scripture being involved in various 'nefarious' or 'immoral' activities... that is rather difficult to discuss in a 'general' kind of way. Specific points are more or less necessary to have any meaningful discussion on that. By so-called 'modern' standards, I would agree in principle that there are a variety of different behaviors described in scripture that 'modern' people don't tend to agree with however.

Please DO offer a counter argument! I promise i wont laugh nor poke at it's dignity.

My point wasn't that I agreed with the 'RPGs = Devilry' perspective. Rather that lumping all Christians into one group and ascribing these view to all of them, and mocking them collectively over it, is illogical and instead ( to me ) lowers my opinion of the one doing the mocking.

There are a variey of different interpretations and schools of thought as to Christianity. It is hardly a monolithic group. It makes no more sense than ascribing terrorism to all Muslims and saying that therefore all Muslims are bad.

As to a counter argument itself it really isn't that difficult, if you actually understand Christianity and know scripture, to pose a variety of different arguments against RPGs with certain thematic elements as being 'Un-Christian' and therefore activities that 'Good Christians' shouldn't engage in. That however is rather not the point. It doesn't sound as if the original article really did this in an intelligent way to begin with.

Sigh! More gamer Christian-bashing, based on brief events from 30 years ago? It's a regular cycle at rpg.net. Why do it here?

In the 1970s many Christian parents became concerned, legitimately, about the rising popular interest in the occult and the growth of neo-paganism. D&D, hitting the mainstream in the early '80s, seemed to fit into this trend and was aimed squarely at children. Parents, desiring to instill a Christian worldview in their kids, would naturally be suspicious of anything that appeared to encourage an undue interest in the occult, including fantasy role-playing. Remember, this was years before the Internet; good information was harder to find and misinformation was all too available in the form of reactionary paperbacks, magazine and newspaper articles, pamphlets, and TV shows. And it wasn't only Christians expressing alarm. The mainstream media and secular parents groups got into it, too.

Also, look at Ben Alexander's biography: http://www.espministries.com/about_ben.html

He became a Christian in the 1960s after deep involvement in the real occult. Naturally he'd be touchy about anything that he thought might direct folks toward the lifestyle he's rejected. True, his conclusions are based on half-truths and misconceptions. On the other hand, the Scriptures tell Christians to avoid the appearance of evil and to think only on good things. If the quotes from Ardruin (note, not from D&D) are accurate, that might well qualify that game as one observant kids should avoid. Also, just because he may be misinformed, that doesn't make him a nut case.

Today, tabletop roleplaying is off the radar for most Christian and parent groups. They're much more concerned about the content and values of computer and online games, which are devouring the time, money and attention of both children and adults. Dredging up dated anti-roleplaying material by outliers like Ben Alexander does a disservice to both parents and Christians. It's no longer relevant, and the only motive for doing so is to flog an inaccurate caricature of particular religious group.

Agreed.

Such as commenting that 'U.S. Christians are Hilarious'.

It seems an unfortunate trend.

Though on the one hand I can understand the desire to poke fun at and/or cut back at someone who obviously spouts untruths... doing so in such a generic and overly inclusive way doesn't lend any dignity or credence to a counter argument.

True. The Conan setting can easily in fact to be argued to be, and often is considered, a part of the Mythos body of writing/history.

And the distinction between depicting and emulating the 'setting' as opposed to the 'stories' I think is exactly the point. Some people are quite captivated by the muscle-bound barbarian who defeats all with honest strength and good steel. While I like the Howard Conan stories myself, I'm not one of those people.

Though even the character of Conan changes with his own chronology. The later-period Howard Conan is actually quite educated and constantly depicted as being a very aware and astute King in Aquilonia. Often being nostalgic for his 'days of adventure' while constantly going through papers and accounts and such.

But yes. Most of the 'adventure' tales are of his younger days. Though even there I feel he was far from the stupid muscle-bound cretin some later authors and the seemingly common pre-conceptions people have depict him as. He was uneducated, and filled with supersititioun. But he was far from stupid, and was certainly not trying to just muscle his way through 'every' situation. ( Some he definately 'did' muscle through, I will grant. )

If you are shooting for a direct emulation of the stories, that is one thing. The stories constantly have the heroic warrior getting the drop on the nefarious sorcerer somehow. And some people really like that. Yet that seems incredibly limiting, and only so believable, to me. I'm far more interested in the 'Setting' emulation, with the group having a the freedom to make and do what they are interested in and find compelling. And I definately strive to break some of the 'classic fantasy' tropes/assumptions with my depiction of an S&S setting. For example in S&S the physically unskilled, unarmed, and therefore easily killable Sorcerer is... while depicted on occasion, hardly a hard and fast rule. Some can be quite skilled in arms as well. And since 'Conan' style magic usually isn't a battlefield art to begin with, it usually doesn't interfere in the slightest even if there 'are' rules about magic and armor or some such.

LOL.

Well. While I will grant the whole 'Insanity' thing is kind of hardwired into CoC, the whole conversion into an NPC thing never really sits well with me.

In CoC I can understand the need to kind of enforce that dark horror and mystery of the Mythos. But I think perhaps it goes a tad beyond what is really necessary to keep things to theme and becomes often rather debilitating to characters.

And the S&S genre, while similar, isn't quite the same thing as the cosmic horror of the Mythos.

Ok, do you really NEED magic for conan? Conan sorcerer's scream NPC.

Yes!

Why people seem to think that in the Swords & Sorcery Genre Sorcerers should only be NPCs, I just don't get. Personally that style of Howard-esque archetypal Sorcerers are what I find most compelling and interesting. Way more than a 'high fantasy' type of setting.

And, for that matter, IMO if you don't have a clear idea of how things work, and are just continually 'winging it' as a GM? That is a no-no. People eventually will catch on that magic is just a hollow plot-device without any internal consistency. And the simple fact that making it NPC only crosses a boundary of mine. NPCs are, or should be, no different than PCs. It is just who owns the character. Having artificial divisions between what is achievable between each group is bad. That artificiality is not something that fades into the background for me. It is visible, and annoying, ruining my suspension of disbelief.

GM: Alright! You guys managed to kill Tsotha-lanti, and are now riffling through his Evil Lair!

Player: Great! What do we see?

GM: Well the treasure trove is over there, the slave pens are downstairs, and the personal living quarters are positively opulent. Oh, and they have their own slave pen, if you know what I mean. Ah, yes. And the library is-

Player: To the Library! I'mma learn me some Sorcery. This is going to be 'my' Red Citadel soon!

GM: Umm. Well. There are books there and stuff. But... you can't understand any of them. Or even if you could, prolonged study will just drive you crazy and turn you into an NPC before you could ever become a Sorcerer...

Ummm. No. Bad GM.

Has anyone done any previous work on an Ars Magica conversion? Would anyone be willing to share their ideas regarding such?

I'm relatively new to BRP/RQ, and I find a great deal that I like about it. However my favorite setting has always been the Mythic Europe of Ars Magica, and the Order of Hermes etc. that accompany it.

Before I begin turning my own hand to the task as it were, I thought it would be perhaps be better to see if anyone else with more system experience had already approached this?