Tabletop Games Have Weird Politics: If the players bring about Jesus' death, great!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Tabletop Games Have Weird Politics: If the players bring about Jesus' death, great!

«‹›47 »

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

Xander77 posted:

It feels like "a modern day definition of an atheist, someone who outright doesn't believe the gods exist, wouldn't really work in a universe where the gods are demonstrably real. But they might refer to a deist or theist, who doesn't believe the gods are anthropomorphic \ deserving of worship, as an atheist" isn't that complex of a notion.

I would say once something simply exists it stops being part of the supernatural and starts being part of the natural. Like maybe we thought lighting was a god thing in the year 600BC but now we know what really causes it. If what really caused it turned out to be actually zeus, eventually the existence of zeus would also just be a part of the mundane world just as much as gamma particles making ionization trails and electron charges is. Like eventually you'd learn about zeus in the science books. Why zeus, and your cat, and you and everyone you know are in a law/chaos good/evil system that just seems to exist as a fundamental part of the world outside of the world and what that means and why that exists, well there is a supernatural question about real gods. Like there would be religious debate in D&D planet on why thac0 exists than where you go when you die.

# ? Mar 15, 2022 14:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 05:43

Haystack: Jan 23, 2005

https://twitter.com/gshowitt/status/1501642466725965832

I always wonder about this. RPGs are kind of singular among forms of entertainment in just how much they blur the line between the players, the character, and the environment, so the ways people play feels especially revealing. One of the things I find weirdest about the OSR, for instance, its that 90% of it seems to revolve around of sending lovely dirt-farmers into obvious, often cartoonish, peril and then laughing it off when they splatter against said obvious peril.

# ? Mar 15, 2022 14:51

Whybird: Aug 2, 2009; Phaiston have long avoided the tightly competetive defence sector, but the IRDA Act 2052 has given us the freedom we need to bring out something really special.

https://team-robostar.itch.io/robostar; Nap Ghost

I think it's also true of non-OSR games though. I think the big difference is that in non-OSR games the cycle is that a PC's personality or history pushes them down a hole, and their skillset digs them out again. There's still a degree of player buy-in. The OSR cycle feels more like it's the GM and the module pushing the PC down the hole, so there's less buyin from the player (besides , I guess, the fact that they're turning up to play at your table at all)

# ? Mar 15, 2022 16:18

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

Haystack posted:

https://twitter.com/gshowitt/status/1501642466725965832

I always wonder about this. RPGs are kind of singular among forms of entertainment in just how much they blur the line between the players, the character, and the environment, so the ways people play feels especially revealing. One of the things I find weirdest about the OSR, for instance, its that 90% of it seems to revolve around of sending lovely dirt-farmers into obvious, often cartoonish, peril and then laughing it off when they splatter against said obvious peril.

PC mortality really, really differs from OSR game to OSR game, especially as we move out of pure retroclones into new old-school inspired games. Like, there are many OSR games where there's a fair bit of PC fortitude built in (AS&SH and a lot of the Crawford stuff off the top of my head), and some if not all of the most commonly used house rules actually give PCs more chances to survive: shields must be sundered, death and dismemberment tables, even just using Gygax's post-2000s house rules with negative hp until death.

However, most of what has been popularly shown about the OSR and its most popular products do promote that mortality: DCC's funnel adventures, LotFP negadungeons, and 39,000 B/X clones or hacks with incredibly dangerous, precise low-level dungeon play. Excepting LotFP's negadungeons, the idea that's behind these and how people play them themselves is that low-level characters are interchangeable and consumable, but the lucky ones who survive are incredibly precious, experienced, and strongly characterized by the dangers they've already escaped from (which DCC shows off quite clearly). So the common model is "it's fun to kill a bunch of dirt farmers" and then the game changes significantly as soon as one hits level 2 or 3 or gets some special items or something going on.

If you think about most "modern" RPGs with involved character creation as creating a character "you want to play" that you can inhabit the role of, OSR games have a much thinner line between player and character, and the character you're playing is developed for you during play instead of being chosen ahead of time.

Whybird posted:

I think it's also true of non-OSR games though. I think the big difference is that in non-OSR games the cycle is that a PC's personality or history pushes them down a hole, and their skillset digs them out again. There's still a degree of player buy-in. The OSR cycle feels more like it's the GM and the module pushing the PC down the hole, so there's less buyin from the player (besides , I guess, the fact that they're turning up to play at your table at all)

One of the big things that gets reiterated in how to GM for OSR games is that the GM needs to be an impartial narrator. If danger lurks at every turn and the players are supposed to use their wits and skills to figure out how to get through, the GM fudging dice significantly damages the players' ability to make those decisions. In other words, the world is an unforgiving place and the GM presents it fairly and accurately that way the players can get one over it with their smarts and teamwork.

Arivia fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Mar 15, 2022

# ? Mar 15, 2022 16:29

TheCenturion: May 3, 2013; HI I LIKE TO GIVE ADVICE ON RELATIONSHIPS

I mean, up until the late 80s/early 90s, RPGs were war games with role playing tacked on.

I still remember being really intrigued when Oriental Adventures introduced the idea of non-weapon proficiencies; maybe your character has skills beyond what they use to kill things. But even the name pointed out the baseline assumption of �it�s about simulating combat.�

# ? Mar 15, 2022 19:13

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

Arivia posted:

One of the big things that gets reiterated in how to GM for OSR games is that the GM needs to be an impartial narrator. If danger lurks at every turn and the players are supposed to use their wits and skills to figure out how to get through, the GM fudging dice significantly damages the players' ability to make those decisions. In other words, the world is an unforgiving place and the GM presents it fairly and accurately that way the players can get one over it with their smarts and teamwork.

I don't know, x-com has written tons about how playing it 'real' feels bad and dumb and how a ton of the game is built around the 75% on screen actually being a complex formula to give the player the most intuitively 75% esq experiance instead of being a real 75% odds. Computers in general could be perfect objective arbiters and videogames design in tons and tons of slack and fudging, to make it feel more fun. Even games like xcom that are known to be tough and unforgiving make sure when you die it feels like you messed up, not because three guys got a low odds crit 5 times in a row in one turn before you could move.

# ? Mar 15, 2022 19:19

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

I don't know, x-com has written tons about how playing it 'real' feels bad and dumb and how a ton of the game is built around the 75% on screen actually being a complex formula to give the player the most intuitively 75% esq experiance instead of being a real 75% odds. Computers in general could be perfect objective arbiters and videogames design in tons and tons of slack and fudging, to make it feel more fun. Even games like xcom that are known to be tough and unforgiving make sure when you die it feels like you messed up, not because three guys got a low odds crit 5 times in a row in one turn before you could move.

How many tabletop RPGs have you played? What�s your personal experience with the culture of slinging dice at the table? Because you frankly sound like you�re freshly arrived from Mars with how poorly fitting this argument is.

# ? Mar 15, 2022 19:26

TheCenturion: May 3, 2013; HI I LIKE TO GIVE ADVICE ON RELATIONSHIPS

Diablo had the same issue; random tends to feel unfair.

To be fair, old school d&d also felt unfair. 🤷‍♂️

# ? Mar 15, 2022 19:37

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

TheCenturion posted:

Diablo had the same issue; random tends to feel unfair.

To be fair, old school d&d also felt unfair. 🤷‍♂️

And it makes sense to try and craft a player-positive experience in X-Com where player agency is significantly curtailed - you�re able to use your tools to fight the mutoid or whatever, or you lose. That�s it.

Old-school RPG dungeon design is instead about alternatives or lateral thinking - the GM is crafting difficult situations for the group to collectively think out of band about. It�s okay to have early monsters that are mathematically unfair with the fun being in finding ways to do unfair things to those monsters in turn. That�s why comparing the play experience to X-Com is so absurd, because you�re not going �oh I�ve only got a 10% chance to hit this sucks� to yourself, you�re instead scheming with the other players about how to make a chlorine bomb or something.

# ? Mar 15, 2022 20:09

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

Arivia posted:

How many tabletop RPGs have you played? What�s your personal experience with the culture of slinging dice at the table? Because you frankly sound like you�re freshly arrived from Mars with how poorly fitting this argument is.

Every tabletop RPG I've ever played has the GM considering what would be fun instead of simply executing a perfect cold simulation. Every battle is some "this is what the wolves would do to have a good fight" instead of "it is maximally optimum for wolves to always use their best attack on the healer" or a simulation of "this is what real wolves would do" RPG wolves fight in a varied and interesting way that is generally a terrible and suboptimal idea for the wolves

# ? Mar 15, 2022 20:20

Xiahou Dun: Jul 16, 2009; We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Every tabletop RPG I've ever played has the GM considering what would be fun instead of simply executing a perfect cold simulation. Every battle is some "this is what the wolves would do to have a good fight" instead of "it is maximally optimum for wolves to always use their best attack on the healer" or a simulation of "this is what real wolves would do" RPG wolves fight in a varied and interesting way that is generally a terrible and suboptimal idea for the wolves

That�s a much newer play and design ethos that isn�t what Arivia is talking about.

She�s talking about old school RPG�s where the GM is explicitly there to gently caress the players over in an adversarial way from an authorial/game design perspective and then is supposed to run the game in a �fair� way that is internally consistent even if it�s emulating genre conventions and not necessarily strict physical reality with perfectly researched wolf behavior or whatever. Part of the point is for players to overcome these challenges by thinking outside the box.

# ? Mar 15, 2022 20:28

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

Xiahou Dun posted:

That�s a much newer play and design ethos that isn�t what Arivia is talking about.

She�s talking about old school RPG�s where the GM is explicitly there to gently caress the players over in an adversarial way from an authorial/game design perspective and then is supposed to run the game in a �fair� way that is internally consistent even if it�s emulating genre conventions and not necessarily strict physical reality with perfectly researched wolf behavior or whatever. Part of the point is for players to overcome these challenges by thinking outside the box.

Eh, older games had lots more instant death mechanics but they were still games meant to be played. The GM is always in on it being a game. It's not like you'd be like "oh wow, he must be the best GM!" if you heard about a guy where no player ever got to play past their first battle at level one because the GM always wins.

Like you say the point is to defeat the wolves by thinking outside of the box. The secret is, the GM is the guy who is facilitating that working. If you see rocks and outsmart the wolves by pushing them down on them, turns out the GM is the guy that decided there could be rocks there and they could fall on the wolves. He just wants it to be fun too. It wasn't like there was naturally occurring rocks he couldn't control being there then you made him really mad by ruining his wolves that he was simply doing everything to defeat you with.

# ? Mar 15, 2022 21:07

Xander77: Apr 6, 2009; Fuck it then. For another pit sandwich and some 'tater salad, I'll post a few more.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

I would say once something simply exists it stops being part of the supernatural and starts being part of the natural. Like maybe we thought lighting was a god thing in the year 600BC but now we know what really causes it. If what really caused it turned out to be actually zeus, eventually the existence of zeus would also just be a part of the mundane world just as much as gamma particles making ionization trails and electron charges is.

Ok? You'll have to define "supernatural" in a very modern sort of way for that to be a meaningful distinction, because people had carefully established and widely understood rules and rituals for magic, sacrifice, and contract with the gods \ spirits, who were, to them, perfectly real.

I don't really appreciate magic systems for the sake of magic systems rather than metaphors in non-game scenarios in general, but there are two things that are guaranteed to bug me - magic has to be inexplicable (which... it never was to people who believed magic is real) and magic has to abide by physical laws in some form (in which case, it's telekinesis or some other form of non-physical manipulation of matter, but not magic).

# ? Mar 15, 2022 21:43

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

Xander77 posted:

Ok? You'll have to define "supernatural" in a very modern sort of way for that to be a meaningful distinction, because people had carefully established and widely understood rules and rituals for magic, sacrifice, and contract with the gods \ spirits, who were, to them, perfectly real.

People have been using the word supernatural in it's modern meaning for at least 700 years. People pretty quickly realized that the mystic world was real in a different sort of way than hogs and trees are real, even when they thought both existed.

# ? Mar 15, 2022 21:56

shimmy shimmy: Nov 13, 2020

90s Cringe Rock posted:

There's always T�kumel but setting aside the weird child sacrifice it turns out the creator was publishing ss revenge fanfic through a serious white nationalist press.

Can you expand on this a bit? It sounds interesting and like a good thing for this thread, but I have no idea about any of it.

# ? Mar 15, 2022 22:57

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Telsa Cola posted:

I never really found it lovely because in order to be an atheist in that setting you have to ignore the many many many gods and divine poo poo and actual loving angels and demons popping out all willy nilly.

Yeah, you kind of have to be an rear end in a top hat to be an atheist in FR. You can think the gods are huge pricks (they pretty much are) and think they should all be destroyed, but that doesn't make you an atheist; that makes you a Cyricist.

Arivia posted:

It's important to know that the D&D designers on 5e have publicly said they don't consider anything other than the actual 5e game book products canon so making critical comparisons between editions is now sadly illegible. Of course, whatever works for you and your game is what matters most.

The Wall's necessity was reiterated when the relationship between Powers and mortals was reconstructed after the Time of Troubles, so when Cyric and then Kelemvor were gods of the dead. It's entirely possible it wasn't necessary beforehand, but it was explicitly so afterwards (and frankly as horrible as the Wall is, I shudder to think of what utter nightmare Jergal had going beforehand.) And yes, you're right that it's never really connected to the non-Faerunian pantheons, I think there's a note in the Player's Guide to Faerun for 3e that they have their own separate afterlives.

In one of the Avatar sequels, Mystra says that the gods of Kara-Tur's Celestial Bureaucracy are the Faerunian gods by different names. But that's just one aside in one novel.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Define your terms. Why would a buddhist think of Lorth as a "god"

It's Lolth or Lloth. Salvatore moves that second L around, but he never adds an R. :v:

# ? Mar 15, 2022 23:00

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

shimmy shimmy posted:

Can you expand on this a bit? It sounds interesting and like a good thing for this thread, but I have no idea about any of it.

More discussion starting here:

Sax Solo posted:

I don't think this was too well known before, but apparently the Tekumel / Empire of the Petal Throne guy, MAR (Phil) Barker, wrote a Nazi sci fi novel under a pseudonym -- Serpent's Walk. This is especially disappointing (and even a little odd) because Tekumel is one of the very few published RPG worlds that isn't shot through with white European medievalism.

There's no direct admittance of this, but it seems beyond dispute. The people who know the most about him seem to already know. From this paper trying to be real delicate about it (pdf):

edit: I should add that this was not really known in the Tekumel fan community and people are generally pretty shocked, horrified, and disgusted.

# ? Mar 15, 2022 23:05

shimmy shimmy: Nov 13, 2020

Absurd Alhazred posted:

More discussion starting here:

Haha, holy poo poo

quote:

Really not a bad book. Good fiction; would also be good from someone who is open and learning. It's a little on the weak side philosophically and very weak on the Jewish Problem (sort of makes them out to be just another bad group but not special really). But I will say it had a lot more explanations of political stances (from what I can remember) than some other fiction in it's uncommon/rare genre.

# ? Mar 15, 2022 23:12

Plan R: Oct 5, 2021; For Romeo

When you're role-playing an axe-wielding tiger up against the gargoyles from that show (and you're fourteen) I say go for it!

# ? Mar 15, 2022 23:15

Xiahou Dun: Jul 16, 2009; We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Eh, older games had lots more instant death mechanics but they were still games meant to be played. The GM is always in on it being a game. It's not like you'd be like "oh wow, he must be the best GM!" if you heard about a guy where no player ever got to play past their first battle at level one because the GM always wins.

Like you say the point is to defeat the wolves by thinking outside of the box. The secret is, the GM is the guy who is facilitating that working. If you see rocks and outsmart the wolves by pushing them down on them, turns out the GM is the guy that decided there could be rocks there and they could fall on the wolves. He just wants it to be fun too. It wasn't like there was naturally occurring rocks he couldn't control being there then you made him really mad by ruining his wolves that he was simply doing everything to defeat you with.

Hey hoss, it�s not my gaming philosophy, I play hippy story games, but that is a play style and people love it.

And that�s what is being discussed.

Do you just make poo poo up about topics you don�t know about recreationally? Is that your weird hobby?

# ? Mar 15, 2022 23:52

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

Xiahou Dun posted:

Hey hoss, it�s not my gaming philosophy, I play hippy story games, but that is a play style and people love it.

And that�s what is being discussed.

Do you just make poo poo up about topics you don�t know about recreationally? Is that your weird hobby?

He just got banned(+30) for doing some gross poo poo in CSPAM, so don't expect an answer lol.

In tabletop games politics, I'm seeing scattered references (sourced in languages I don't read) that Ukrainian Azov fighters are specifically calling Chechens orcs who deserve to be slaughtered. D&D monster politics leading to actual real life war crimes, gross! https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/28/ukrainian-fighters-grease-bullets-against-chechens-with-pig-fat

(And yes, orcs originally come from Tolkien but it's D&D and Warhammer and Warcraft that have kept the idea going strongest I think.)

Arivia fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Mar 16, 2022

# ? Mar 16, 2022 16:07

90s Cringe Rock: Nov 29, 2006

The bayraktar song translation I saw most often did have a line calling the invaders orcs. No idea if that's leakage from the nazis.

# ? Mar 16, 2022 16:38

Epicurius: Apr 10, 2010; College Slice

90s Cringe Rock posted:

The bayraktar song translation I saw most often did have a line calling the invaders orcs. No idea if that's leakage from the nazis.

There's this Russian literary interpetation that associates Russia with Mordor, and you find Russian Tolkien fans calling themselves "Orcs"

This probably can be traced back to a 1999 Russian Lord of the Rings parody called "The Last Ringbearer", which had Mordor as this beacon of scientific progress opposed by western superstition.

I'm oversimplified, and there's probably some racism involved, but it's not all racism. See here for more.

https://jordanrussiacenter.org/news/eye-sauron-moscow-revenge-orcs/#.YjIWQWkpA0F

# ? Mar 16, 2022 18:51

LashLightning: Feb 20, 2010; You know you didn't have to go post that, right?
But it's fine, I guess...
You just keep being you!

That parody gets shut down by the Tolkien Estate but that lovely, generic, LOTR-themed mobile game gets their approval. :argh:

# ? Mar 16, 2022 18:59

Epicurius: Apr 10, 2010; College Slice

Also, in regards to the God Learners in Gloriantha, I don't even know if I'd call them deists so much as monotheists. The Invisible God of the God Learners realized that his immense essence and ineffiabilty made it hard for him to be worshiped, so he sent Malkion as a prophet to teach people how to live and achieve Solace, the Malkioni paradise, after death. (He would go on and send Hrestol, as well, but that was post God Learner). So it isn't that he doesn't care about mankind or their behavior, He's just too vast to be understood fully

# ? Mar 16, 2022 20:05

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Hrestol was part of the God Learner world view. New Hrestol idealism was the post godlearner revival in Loskalm. Hrestol was at the dawn

# ? Mar 16, 2022 20:23

Epicurius: Apr 10, 2010; College Slice

Josef bugman posted:

Hrestol was part of the God Learner world view. New Hrestol idealism was the post godlearner revival in Loskalm. Hrestol was at the dawn

Oops. Ok, so the Invisible God sent two prophets.... Weren't a lot of Hrestol's teachings about weakening the older caste system ?

# ? Mar 16, 2022 21:18

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Epicurius posted:

Oops. Ok, so the Invisible God sent two prophets.... Weren't a lot of Hrestol's teachings about weakening the older caste system ?

Specifically they were a rejection of the Brinithi conception of the invisible God and the idea that there is a life after death. Hrestol appears to have had things to say on the caste system and how it should have either been moved through or ignored entirely.

It's interesting, and I will get more into it later, but I do need to go to bed!

# ? Mar 17, 2022 00:07

SirPhoebos: Dec 10, 2007; WELL THAT JUST HAPPENED!

Very early in the thread someone asked about the politics of Palladium games. All you really need to know is a quote from the FATAL & Friends thread regarding Palladium (and Kevin Siembieda in particular) that has stuck with me:

quote:

There comes a point where it no longer matters whether this is a dog whistle or if [Kevin's] just that stupid.

# ? Mar 17, 2022 20:43

TheCenturion: May 3, 2013; HI I LIKE TO GIVE ADVICE ON RELATIONSHIPS

I mean, the Autistic Savant character class in Beyond the Supernatural speaks for itself.

# ? Mar 17, 2022 21:55

citybeatnik: Mar 1, 2013; You Are All
WEIRDOS

All the talk earlier about whether classical buddhists were atheists or deists or not reminds me of that bit in The Name Of The Rose where William's talking about his political views.

Dude's basically trying to describe a modern, enlightened representative democracy. But he's trying to do it without the necessary tools, theories, and philosophies because those didn't start to come together until several hundred years in the future.

# ? Mar 17, 2022 22:53

Xander77: Apr 6, 2009; Fuck it then. For another pit sandwich and some 'tater salad, I'll post a few more.

citybeatnik posted:

All the talk earlier about whether classical buddhists were atheists or deists or not reminds me of that bit in The Name Of The Rose where William's talking about his political views.

Dude's basically trying to describe a modern, enlightened representative democracy. But he's trying to do it without the necessary tools, theories, and philosophies because those didn't start to come together until several hundred years in the future.

Any chance you could quote that?

Xander77 fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Mar 18, 2022

# ? Mar 18, 2022 07:39

citybeatnik: Mar 1, 2013; You Are All
WEIRDOS

Xander77 posted:

Any chance you could quote that?

I'll need to track down my copy of the book, since it's a longish passage that I can't find quoted anywhere on the internet.

It's just a potentially throw away section that's always stuck with me. And it ties in with things like Gloriantha because part of that game is being able to go "okay, have to get in the headspace of a bronze-age cow thief".

# ? Mar 18, 2022 14:14

Toph Bei Fong: Feb 29, 2008

Is it this bit? (Name of the Rose is a must read, IMHO)

Chapter Terce posted:

But now Bertrand del Poggetto was inviting William to expound the theses of the imperial theologians. William rose, reluctantly: he was realizing that the meeting was of no utility, and in any case he was in a hurry to leave, for the mysterious book was now more urgent for him, than the results of the meeting. But it was clear he could not evade his duty.

He began speaking then, with many �eh�s and �oh�s, perhaps more than usual and more than proper, as if to make it clear he was absolutely unsure about the things he was going to say, and he opened by affirming that he understood perfectly the viewpoint of those who had spoken before him, and for that matter what others called the �doctrine� of the imperial theologians was no more than some scattered observations that did not claim to be established articles of faith.

He said, further, that, given the immense goodness that God had displayed in creating the race of His sons, loving them all without distinction, recalling those pages of Genesis in which there was yet no mention of priests and kings, considering also that the Lord had given to Adam and to his descendants power over the things of this earth, provided they obeyed the divine laws, we might infer that the Lord also was not averse to the idea that in earthly things the people should be legislator and effective first cause of the law. By the term �people,� he said, it would be best to signify all citizens, but since among citizens children must be included, as well as idiots, malefactors, and women, perhaps it would be possible to arrive reasonably at a definition of the people as the better part of the citizens, though he himself at the moment did not consider it opportune to assert who actually belonged to that part.

He cleared his throat, apologized to his listeners, remarking that the atmosphere was certainly very damp, and suggested that the way in which the people could express its will might be an elective general assembly. He said that to him it seemed sensible for such an assembly to be empowered to interpret, change, or suspend the law, because if the law is made by one man alone, he could do harm through ignorance or malice, and William added that it was unnecessary to remind those present of numerous recent instances. I noticed that the listeners, rather puzzled by his previous words, could only assent to these last ones, because each was obviously thinking of a different person, and each considered very bad the person of whom he was thinking.

Well, then, William continued, if one man can make laws badly, will not many men be better? Naturally, he underlined, he was speaking of earthly laws, regarding the management of civil things. God had told Adam not to eat of the tree of good and evil, and that was divine law; but then He had authorized, or, rather, encouraged, Adam to give things names, and on that score He had allowed His terrestrial subject free rein. In fact, though some in our times say that nomina sunt consequentia rerum, the book of Genesis is actually quite explicit on this point: God brought all the animals unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And though surely the first man had been clever enough to call, in his Adamic language, every thing and animal according to its nature, nevertheless he was exercising a kind of sovereign right in imagining the name that in his opinion best corresponded to that nature. Because, in fact, it is now known that men impose different names to designate concepts, though only the concepts, signs of things, are the same for all. So that surely the word �nomen� comes from �nomos,� that is to say �law,� since nomina are given by men ad placitum, in other words by free and collective accord. The listeners did not dare contest this learned demonstration.

Whereby, William concluded, is it clear that legislation over the things of this earth, and therefore over the things of the cities and kingdoms, has nothing to do with the custody and administration of the divine word, an unalienable privilege of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Unhappy indeed, William said, are the infidels, who have no similar authority to interpret for them the divine word (and all felt sorry for the infidels). But does this perhaps entitle us to say that the infidels do not have the tendency to make laws and administer their affairs through governments, kings, emperors, or sultans, caliphs, or however you chose to call them? And could it be denied that many Roman emperors�Trajan, for instance�had exercised their temporal power with wisdom? And who gave the pagans and the infidels this natural capacity to legislate and live in political communities? Was it perhaps their false divinities, who necessarily do not exist (or do not exist necessarily, however you understand the negation of this modality)? Certainly not. It could only have been conferred by the God of hosts, the God of Israel, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. ... Wondrous proof of the divine goodness that conferred the capacity for judging political things also on those who deny the authority of the Roman Pontiff and do not profess the same sacred, sweet, and terrible mysteries of the Christian people! But what finer demonstration than this of the fact that temporal rule and secular jurisdiction have nothing to do with the church and with the law of Jesus Christ and were ordained by God beyond all ecclesiastical confirmation and even before our holy religion was founded?

He coughed again, but this time he was not alone. Many of those present were wriggling on their benches and clearing their throats. I saw the cardinal run his tongue over his lips and make a gesture, anxious but polite, to urge William to get to the point. And William now grappled with what seemed to all, even to those who did not share them, the perhaps unpleasant conclusions of his incontrovertible reasoning. William said that his deductions seemed to him supported by the very example of Christ, who did not come into this world to command, but to be subject to the conditions he found in the world, at least as far as the laws of Caesar were concerned. He did not want the apostles to have command and dominion, and therefore it seemed a wise thing that the successors of the apostles should be relieved of any worldly or coercive power. If the pope, the bishops, and the priests were not subject to the worldly and coercive power of the prince, the authority of the prince would be challenged, and thus, with it, an order would be challenged that, as had been demonstrated previously, had been decreed by God. To be sure, some delicate cases must be considered�William said�like those of the heretics, on whose heresy only the church, custodian of the truth, can pronounce, though only the secular arm can act. When the church identifies some heretics she must surely point them out to the prince, who must rightly be informed of the conditions of his citizens. But what should the prince do with a heretic? Condemn him in the name of that divine truth of which he is not the custodian? The prince can and must condemn the heretic if his action harms the community, that is, if the heretic, in declaring his heresy, kills or impedes those who do not share it. But at that point the power of the prince ends, because no one on this earth can be forced through torture to follow the precepts of the Gospel: otherwise what would become of that free will on the exercising of which each of us will be judged in the next world? The church can and must warn the heretic that he is abandoning the community of the faithful, but she cannot judge him on earth and force him against his will. If Christ had wanted his priests to obtain coercive power, he would have laid down specific precepts as Moses did in the ancient law. He did not do it; therefore he did not wish it. Or does someone want to suggest the idea that he did wish it but lacked the time or the ability to say so in three years of preaching? But it was right that he should not wish it, because if he had wished it, then the pope would be able to impose his will on the king, and Christianity would no longer be a law of freedom, but one of intolerable slavery.

All this, William added with a cheerful expression, is no limitation of the powers of the supreme Pontiff, but, rather, an exaltation of his mission: because the servant of the servants of God is on this earth to serve and not to be served. And, finally, it would be odd, to say the least, if the Pope had jurisdiction over the things of the Roman Empire� but not over the other kingdoms of the earth. As everyone knows, what the Pope says on divine questions is as valid for the subjects of the King of France as it is for those of the King of England, but it must be valid also for the subjects of the Great Khan or the Sultan of the infidels, who are called infidels precisely because they are not faithful to this beautiful truth. And so if the Pope were to assume he had temporal jurisdiction�as pope�only over the affairs of the empire, that might justify the suspicion that, identifying temporal jurisdiction with the spiritual, by that same token he would have no spiritual jurisdiction over not only the Saracens or the Tartars, but also over the French and the English�which would be a criminal blasphemy. And this was the reason, my master concluded, why it seemed right to him to suggest that the church of Avignon was injuring all mankind by asserting the right to approve or suspend him who had been elected emperor of the Romans. The Pope does not have greater rights over the empire than over other kingdoms, and since neither the King of France nor the Sultan is subject to the Pope�s approval, there seems to be no good reason why the Emperor of the Germans and Italians should be subject to it. Such subjection is not a matter of divine right, because Scripture does not speak of it. Nor is it sanctioned by the rights of peoples, for the reasons already expounded. As for the connection with the dispute about poverty, William added, his own humble opinions, developed in the form of conversational suggestions by him and by some others such as Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun, led to the following conclusions: if the Franciscans wanted to remain poor, the Pope could not and should not oppose such a virtuous wish. To be sure, if the hypothesis of Christ�s poverty were to be proved, this would not only help the Minorites but also strengthen the idea that Jesus had not wished any earthly jurisdiction. But that morning he, William, had heard very wise people assert that it could not be proved that Christ had been poor. Whence it seemed to him more fitting to reverse the demonstration. Since nobody had asserted, or could assert, that Jesus had sought any earthly jurisdiction for himself or for his disciples, this detachment of Jesus from temporal things seemed sufficient evidence to suggest the belief, without sinning, that Jesus, on the contrary, preferred poverty.

William had spoken in such a meek tone, he had expressed his certainties in such a hesitant way, that none of those present was able to stand up, and rebut. This does not mean that all were convinced of what he had said. The Avignonese were now writhing, frowning, and muttering comments among themselves, and even the abbot seemed unfavorably impressed by those words, as if he were thinking this was not the relationship he had desired between his order and the empire. And as for the Minorites, Michael of Cesena was puzzled, Jerome aghast, Ubertino pensive.

Toph Bei Fong fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Mar 18, 2022

# ? Mar 18, 2022 15:39

citybeatnik: Mar 1, 2013; You Are All
WEIRDOS

That's the bit, yeah.

Poor dude's fumbling about in the dark attempting to express a philosophy that we'd recognize today using contemporary theology during a time where they were burning heretics. It's like trying to carve a delicate flower out crystal using a lump hammer and a rock you found you found on the ground.

Vampire: Dark Ages, White Wolf's vampire game set in (you guessed it) the dark ages touches on this vaguely and inelegantly. But at least the feudalistic mindset makes sense for the setting. It's when you have their modern games fumbling about going "yeah this is totes the way" that it goes off the loving rails.

# ? Mar 18, 2022 16:31

Xander77: Apr 6, 2009; Fuck it then. For another pit sandwich and some 'tater salad, I'll post a few more.

Ok, so it's not the idea of a republic (which was very well known to any educated medieval person), but rather a medievalist foundation for religious freedom (not familiar enough with the theology of the time to see if it actually makes sense).

(As an aside, how do I get that Ukraine thread tag?)

# ? Mar 18, 2022 18:44

Toph Bei Fong: Feb 29, 2008

Xander77 posted:

Ok, so it's not the idea of a republic (which was very well known to any educated medieval person), but rather a medievalist foundation for religious freedom (not familiar enough with the theology of the time to see if it actually makes sense).

(As an aside, how do I get that Ukraine thread tag?)

There's a bit in an early Discworld novel (Light Fantastic?) where Pratchett describe a character's outfit as "a diving suit designed by men who have never seen the sea" which has stuck with me whenever trying to consider "What ideas is this character aware of? What things couldn't they know given their circumstances? Even if they want something that I, too, want, what ideas and language would they have to express that idea?"

There's a similar bit in HBO's Rome, talking about the stars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erPu_t7tgQ4

# ? Mar 18, 2022 19:05

citybeatnik: Mar 1, 2013; You Are All
WEIRDOS

Xander77 posted:

Ok, so it's not the idea of a republic (which was very well known to any educated medieval person), but rather a medievalist foundation for religious freedom (not familiar enough with the theology of the time to see if it actually makes sense).

(As an aside, how do I get that Ukraine thread tag?)

Religious freedom, separation between church and state, *and* undoing the divine right of kings. William of Baskerville is dealing with a way of thinking that predates the Protestant Revolution by 200 years to try and express an idea that we *still* struggle with implementing today.

It also pointedly *doesn't* make much sense with the main-stream theology, with William making edge cases and cherry picking bits and pieces while relying on Aristotelian logic to make his argument. The background of the story involves peasant uprisings brought about by arguments about how seriously one should take the vows of poverty coupled with "do you go to Hell *immediately* after you die or only after the Last Judgment?".

In short it is very much a must read.

When a game line tries to make value judgments about stuff and relies on 'well it's *always* been this way' (Werewolf's whole revanchist, blood purity set up is one I always look at) my knuckles itch. But when it involves removing the tools we use to comprehend stuff, or points out that they've been perverted (Mage the Awakening's Exarchs warping reality to write tyranny into its defining traits so they will always be in power) it bothers me less.

And Glorianthia just goes whole hog which i appreciate. Unknown Armies's magic system is another one that comes to mind.

# ? Mar 18, 2022 21:21

Epicurius: Apr 10, 2010; College Slice

Honestly, it just sounds like William is making a Ghibelline argument.

# ? Mar 18, 2022 22:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 05:43

SirPhoebos: Dec 10, 2007; WELL THAT JUST HAPPENED!

One thing that I've noticed about publishers is that the more obviously fraught a subject is, the better and more considerate the writing turns out even if the rest of their line has a bunch of :catstare:

moments (assuming the writer isn't a full-on chud). The oWoD supplement on Holocaust ghosts is a perfect example. Another great example can be found with the 2nd edition of the the Warhammer Fantasy RPG.

There was a supplement for that RPG on Bretonnia, a land with rigidly codified rules for class and gender. And the book goes out of it's way to explain that if a player doesn't want to deal with that, they don't have to, they have full permission to be the special exception or not have it come up at all. And even if a player wants navigating a society that doesn't accept them to be part of their story, the book makes it clear that for all of Bretonnia's rules, it's relatively easy for an adventurer to take on a role that society says they shouldn't ('if someone is dressed as a knight, then clearly they are a knight!'). Overall it's very well thought out and goes out of its way to make sure that nothing the players aren't comfortable dealing with in their game gets tossed about just because "it's part of the setting".

Meanwhile, the default polity the game is set in (the unimaginatively named "Empire") the topic of gender is "yeah some roles have pre-assumed gender preferences but men and women can have any occupation". And it seems that some of the writers took that as a green light to insert IRL misogamy into the game without any sort of warning or sidebar that perhaps this isn't cool with everyone at the table.

# ? Mar 20, 2022 16:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Tabletop Games Have Weird Politics: If the players bring about Jesus' death, great!

«‹›47 »