I am old enough to remember the Satanist scare of the eighties, and whether or not you agreed with those attacks (personally, I think they were wildly misplaced and had the opposite effect than their stated goal), they had a marked effect upon how the game is perceived. A perception, by the way, that is pervasive even today.
Starting with 2e, D&D hardwired paganism into its system. Coupled with the poor quality of TSR products thereafter, this was a huge factor in my drifting away from the game. At the time, I didn't know if I would ever be able to play again — despite the new enthusiasm for the game that 3e generated.
Thankfully, the passing of Gary Gygax stirred in me a nostalgic longing that was duplicated in many a gamer, especially of my vintage. Many of us cracked open older editions of D&D to hold onto what the world lost with the passing of Gary. Personally, I found a game not only friendly to a Christian world-view, but one that, in places, can only be described as Christ-centric.
Recently, I ran across this eye-opener while re-reading some of the monster descriptions from the Holmes Basic Edition:
All vampires, regardless of religious background, are affected by the cross which is sovereign against them.Is there any way to see this statement as non-Christian? I, for one, can't see it.
Christ is the King of kings, sovereign Lord through whom all things were created. He is I AM, Yahweh and Elohim — He is the Most High God. He took on our nature, which was nailed to the Cross — the very place where He became the King of Glory, who has authority over both the living and the dead and through which He saved His creation. Since vampires are creatures that grasp at immortality sans Christ, His symbol of His own victory over death is repellant to them.
This, frankly, is one of the strongest Christian statements I have yet found in any of the various editions of D&D. I wish I had been aware of it back in the 80s because I could have used it to put all those anti-D&D propagandists crying "satanist!" to shame.
Early D&D -- and indeed many other fantasy RPGs -- uncritically included a lot of "fairy tale" Christian elements, which is to say, religious truths that have been transmitted through the medium of myths and legends. In general, I don't think they're anything more than cultural echoes of a time when there was still widespread belief in the sources of those echoes. Indeed, Gygax was pretty clear on a number of occasions that he didn't think explicit Christian belief or practice belonged in the game. Even, I prefer those echoes to much of what came later.
ReplyDeleteQuite honestly, the Christian thing really stymied me for my Enigmundia project. I couldn't come up with another symbol in my mind that had the same echoes as a cross.
ReplyDeleteSure, I could go with an "X" or the Tau cross, but they also look like letters unless they're stylized sufficiently.
I also read in some books concerning Exorcisms and spirits that a wooden crucifix (not cross) always seems to have efficacy regardless of bearer -- sometimes even if it's just placed in the room.
Holmes took that statement from 1975's Supplement I: GREYHAWK (page 34):
ReplyDelete"All Vampires are affected by the cross, despite any former religious background, as it is sovereign against them."
This passage, word for word, first appeared two years earlier in Greyhawk in the "Additions and Corrections" section.
ReplyDeleteI am a Christian, along with you and Gary, but I'm not sure how much I'd read into the passage. It could be that Gygax was primarily trying to come up with a reason why an adventurer would ever want to spend 2 gp for a wooden cross (or 25 gp for a silver one).
My feeling is that D&D CAN be evil or even Satanic, if you will. Recall C.S. Lewis talking about what it was like taking on the persona of Screwtape, even for a few weeks of writing. I think he called it "soul-wearying" or some such. Now contemplate a 13 year old "role-playing" a human sacrificing-cleric-assassin, once a week for two years. I walked into that during "kid's night" at one of the game stores. (Actually, it was a ten year-old--his father was helping him out with the human sacrifices.)
Great minds think alike, but some work faster, and some take too long to write their comments. :)
ReplyDeleteDespite the efforts of the demigods cyclopedia, it's definitely more work trying to run D&D as a 'pagan, polytheistic' campaign and having to retcon the cleric's abilities and themes, than just cleaving closer to the cleric's inspirations and going with the flow.
ReplyDeleteEvery now and again I still encounter the D & D is devil worshiping crowd, but not nearly as often as the 80's. We never used crosses in Dragonquest, character could buy medallions, medals or prayer items of their deity to ward of vampires and the like. Thanks for the post.
ReplyDelete@James
ReplyDeleteI don't much care where the Christian elements of early D&D came from, I am just thrilled they are there. As with many other things, early D&D leaves enough room for all kinds of interpretation. Therefore Gary could play his way (sans explicit Christian belief) and I can play it my way (with explicit Christian elements).
@Alexander
You've hit upon a very important reality about the cross. It isn't the faith of the person wielding the cross, rather it is the cross itself through which the power of God manifests.
@Geoffrey
Thanks for the note — it just goes to show how much more friendly early D&D was to folks like me.
@Oaks
Question: why is it perfectly acceptable for us to read into various passages in D&D all kinds of mechanic interpretations, but when I read into this passage some very strong Christianity, I shouldn't read too much into it? Just asking.
By the way, from my Orthodox Christian perspective, D&D cannot be evil based on its own merits. As you implied, it depends upon how one uses it. Certainly, there have been folks out there who have used D&D to think and do some pretty vile things; however, that is not the game's fault. For a more practical example, take an axe. It isn't inherently good or evil until it is used — to cut wood to build a house to shelter people or a fire to keep people warm (good) or to murder someone (evil). D&D is no different.
@FrDave:
ReplyDelete"When I read into this passage some very strong Christianity, (why) shouldn't (I) read too much into it?"
Because as James points out, that would be inconsistent with other things Gygax said and did. And as we all know, Gygax was scrupulously consistent in all things. (Okay, so that last sarcastic statement doesn't help my case. :) ) But seriously, I was just being a sceptic. he may well have meant to slip in a bit of Christianity. Or not. Who knows?
With respect, I think the "D&D can be used for good and evil as with all things" is a bit facile. Role-playing is an immersive experience. That's part of what makes it fun. Playing a Satanist (or something similar) every weekend is almost certainly spiritually harmful. Now, it's certainly less harmful than using an axe to, say, murder someone. But what potentially makes, say, playing a Satanist insidious is that many if not most gamers don't have a problem with it, and indeed, if you mention it at all, they will jump all over you for being a religious extremist, etc. it's after all, just a game, etc., etc.
I will admit that I'm one of those Christians who believes Halloween and even (perhaps) Harry Potter can be dangerous--again, partly because the "fictional" or "pretend" nature of them makes them seem harmless. I could of course be wrong and I wouldn't want to use that opinion to "out-Christian" better Christians than myself. My blog header features a cartoon woman with bare breasts (a lift from one of the original OD&D 1974 booklets) something many of my sort of Christians would probably be scandalized at, so I am probably a bit of an inconsistent freak.
I think the real riddle is why TSR responded to the satanic panic by obliterating both the "good" and "evil" ends of religious reference instead of bolstering the "good" end.
ReplyDeleteIt's easily enough answered, I think. First, the American tendency to respond to problems of church and state in a typical zero-tolerance fashion by expunging all mention of real-world religion rather than engaging with it. Second, the Puritanical streak in Anglo-American Protestantism, which sees any contact between religion and worldly play-acting, feasting, or imagination as dangerous.
It's noteworthy that most of the modern apologists for religion in fantasy have been Catholic or Mormon. When evangelicals turn their hand to the genre they tend to produce direct allegories about salvation itself, rather than the role of religion in life, like Pilgrim's Progress, the Dragonraid RPG or the Redemption CCG.
@Oakes
ReplyDeleteWith respect, I think the "D&D can be used for good and evil as with all things" is a bit facile.
I cannot disagree with you more strongly. To say otherwise is to diminish or to ignore completely player (and therefore human) freedom. Those players who play a Satanist every weekend are not forced or coerced to do so by the game (even later editions which hardwire paganism into the cleric & paladin classes). As Beedo states within this thread, older versions of the game are easier to play from a Christian POV, therefore to play those games in a pagan/satanic way is very specifically a result of player choice.
To say that D&D is the source of evil in these cases is to excuse the choices made by players.
But what potentially makes, say, playing a Satanist insidious is that many if not most gamers don't have a problem with it, and indeed, if you mention it at all, they will jump all over you for being a religious extremist, etc. it's after all, just a game, etc., etc.
One of the reasons I started this blog was to start having this discussion — why is it okay for FRPGs to emulate a pagan POV and not a Christian one?
@Roger
ReplyDeleteFirst, the American tendency to respond to problems of church and state in a typical zero-tolerance fashion by expunging all mention of real-world religion rather than engaging with it.
I would argue that this is unAmerican (our founding documents are entirely dependent upon a Christian God and a Christian POV). Rather this is the result of bullying by the non-religious and secularists to remove God from the public sphere so as to more easily impose their vision of the world on the rest of us.
Second, the Puritanical streak in Anglo-American Protestantism, which sees any contact between religion and worldly play-acting, feasting, or imagination as dangerous.
To varying degrees, Protestants are modern-day iconoclasts. One of the reasons that Eastern Christendom rejected iconoclasm was that at its root is a distrust of matter. Iconoclasts argued that the material (fallen) world was not worthy of depicting the divine. This distrust can be found throughout various denominations with their stance that X is evil and therefore to be associated with X means you are disobeying God. The stance of Orthodox Christianity, rather, acknowledges that God declared His creation good (very good, in fact) and that He went to the cross in order to save His creation. Therefore all things need to be sanctified and ordered towards God. This is one of the functions of the Church and is why I am so adamant about D&D not being evil.
I am curious, Oakes, would it be spiritually harmful to write MacBeth, or to spend week-after-weeek playing the lead role, in your view? And I don't mean "potentially so," because walking across campus or getting in my car can be "potentially so." I mean, these activities inherently are spiritually harmful and so should be avoided?
ReplyDeleteThe only way I can see FrDave's position based on use and intention as possibly being facile is if something were inherently evil. So, for example, no one could put the One Ring to good use other than to destroy it. I cannot see how one would proceed to make an argument that D&D was inherently evil.
I'd also like to point out that pagan and Satanic are not coterminous. If one uses the term pagan to mean non-Christian or non-Israelite, for example, it does not follow that what is being described is Satanic. For example, most of the names for God in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible are pagan names, and I would hope that Jews and Christians would not be discomforted to know that such was the case. (This speaks to FrDave's point about the goodness of creation, among other things.)
FrDave: What about playing an Assassin? Do you think there's anything wrong or spiritually dangerous about playing an Assassin? If so, then you cannot simply ascribe it to "player choice". It's a player CLASS, for goodness sake.
ReplyDeleteTheodric: Yes, I think "playing" at evil in whatever context CAN be spiritually dangerous. That doesn't mean it IS or ALWAYS IS, etc. In general, I don't think writing Macbeth or playing the character is usually spiritually harmful, no. But you could push it to make it so. Where that line is in a particular context might be unclear. That's the way the world is sometimes.
Again, I would refer people to C.S. Lewis's comments about "playing" at being the devil, Screwtape. That Lewis said something, doesn't mean it's correct, but he does have the reputation of being a thoughtful Christian. I don't think having worries about some kinds of pretend means that you must be against Macbeth, etc. Things don't have to be that simple.
You're absolutely right that Paganism doesn't equal Satanism. For the record, I'm not against playing D&D in a Pagan universe. I'm against playing Assassins but I'm not against playing Thieves (well sort of, depending on the kind of thief).
Putting the issue of right and wrong aside for a moment, I actually think D&D would be more INTERESTING (for Christians and non-Christians, alike) if moral issues were not treated in the sort of cartoony way that most versions of the game (in my opinion) treat it--you pick an "aligment" and then act it out, or whatever.
@Oakes
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite villains of all time is The Operative from the movie Serenity. He could easily be classified as an assassin. The reason I like him so much is his rationalization of his villainy. He starts with moral choice — the promotion and safety of civilization is more important than his individual soul. He chooses to do awful and violent things so that others don't have to (a choice, by the way, made by U.S. soldiers overseas on a daily basis). He is destroyed, not by killing him, but by confronting him with the corrupt, rotten and evil heart of the civilization that he is protecting. Awesome, awesome stuff.
I have long since wanted to play an assassin with a similar moral center — to see where an interaction with the game world would take me from that beginning. Personally, I have played many characters that began with questionable beginnings — alcoholism, murder, etc. and have been rewarded with fascinating character arcs that end with either damnation or redemption. I will grant that when I find that my characters choose damnation, I stop playing that particular character because I have long ago found that playing evil characters is not fun. I would also be hesitant to allow a player to be an assassin without talking through the rationale and what the player expects to do with the character. If it ends up that all they want to do is get paid to kill people, I wouldn't allow it simply because that (again) wouldn't be much fun.
Playing flawed characters, however — even assassins — that have the potential for redemption is incredibly rewarding. Again, all this comes down to player choice and how one chooses to play the game.
Ehud was an assassin AND one of God's judges (Judges 3:15-30). And does God himself not send out angels of death? There is much more to biblical morality than most people, even Christians, are aware.
ReplyDeleteIt does bring up an interesting question. If one were to make a distinctly "Christian" version of D&D (where clerics/paladins are explicitly "Christian"), what would it look like?
While I don't necessarily disagree with the points you made, I do find it interesting that at the same time paganism was hard-wired into AD&D, there were several historical setting books published that were specifically designed to - among other things - allow players to play Christian characters. These remain some of my favorite TSR publications to this day.
ReplyDeleteI do regret, though, that Gygax and company didn't respond to the Satanic Panic with assertions that AD&D presented demons and devils as adversaries, complete with XP rewards for their defeats. Having said that, I felt that Gygax's defense on "60 Minutes" was pretty good. Still, a strange and frustrating time that has unfortunately cast a very long shadow over our hobby.
Let's try this again with better thinking.
ReplyDeleteDid you feel that 2e was less "Christian-compatible"? If so, why? My sense from your post is that you liked how Christian-rooted assumptions underlay the earlier editions of D&D - that in a few places bones of Christianity showed through the skin of fantasy. When those bones went away you found the product (a)deracinated, (b) less appealing. Is that right?
Those bones bothered me in 1e because they contradicted what I understood to be the point of clerics in various worlds of D&D (notably Greyhawk) - AIUI clerics served various gods, which coexisted less in a pantheon than in a system of neighboring, exclusive religion-nations. As Beedo observes, this view was hard to sustain, but it was also actively put forward and, I'd say, no harder to sustain than any other.
Maybe, in short, "paganism" (multiple viable gods, is what I think you mean here) was hard-wired into the Greyhawk boxed set and maybe into Deities and Demigods? I guess I never actually played an edition without it.
@richard
ReplyDelete2e and its descendants are indeed much less "Christian-compatible." The idea of domains were introduced to the cleric class, where each god was given a number of domains through which their clerics were able to get spells. Christ has dominion over all things, a POV which is incompatible to the POV put forth by the mechanics of of 2e+ (especially when you are dealing with such domains as Evil and Necromancy). While it is possible to house rule 2e+ to better reflect a Christian POV, it is a lot of work (I know, I've tried). Why bother, when I've got older editions which take so much less effort (hardly any at all)?
FWI Greyhawk, from my perspective, does not push or insist on a pagan POV. Remember, Greyhawk has St. Cuthbert — an historic Christian saint. Especially in earlier editions and as implemented in T1: The Village of Hommlet,it is very easy to understand the religion of St. Cuthbert to be worshipping his God (Christ) and that all the other gods are part of the Old Religion. Thus, Greyhawk is akin to many places in Northern Europe in the early Middle Ages.
I don't even have much of a beef with Deities and Demigods because all of the gods therein have stats in the same way as demons and devils do. It is therefore possible to understand them in a similar light — they are material beings playing at being God, but that can be defeated in combat by PCs.
While I would agree that playing older editions are easier to play with polytheistic/pagan POV than 2e+ is to play from a Christian POV, it nevertheless needed a lot of explanation/house ruling. Why would a cleric of an Odin-like god of War (who would see wounds and death on the battlefield as a good thing) ever have Cure Light Wounds? Or why would a cleric of the god of knowledge ever have Purify Food and Water? The spell list reflects a Christian/pseudo-Christian POV.
"Why would a cleric of an Odin-like god of War (who would see wounds and death on the battlefield as a good thing) ever have Cure Light Wounds?"
ReplyDeleteIt seems to fall in line with most classical polytheistic myth that gods, once they begin to meddle in human affairs, do all manner of things outside their sphere of influence to accomplish their individual goals. This was just never much of a strain for me, just as having vampires cower before any holy symbol wasn't (for basically the same reason you outline for the cross- the gods don't tolerate mortal pretenders).
What *is* somewhat curious is that "polytheistic" D&D still has clerics engaged in a kind of competitive monotheism (actually not dissimilar to pre-Jewish tribal religions in the mideast). That's a mode of worship that is buried somewhere in the cultural DNA of the West, but it's not tangible to most people outside of the fever-dreams of the satanic panic in the 80's. So maybe the whole episode was just the friction of cognitive dissonance.
On the other hand: So what? It'd be absurd to think that Christianity, particularly as modern myth, had no place in the origin of D&D- leaping, as it did, from the late-20th century midwest. D&D treats religion as the stuff of fantastic stories, just as it does combat, thievery, and being a magical subterranean humanoid. So do Hammer horror films.
@charlatan
ReplyDeleteIt seems to fall in line with most classical polytheistic myth that gods, once they begin to meddle in human affairs, do all manner of things outside their sphere of influence to accomplish their individual goals.
Well, it was enough of a "problem" that they "fixed" it with domains in 2e+.
What *is* somewhat curious is that "polytheistic" D&D still has clerics engaged in a kind of competitive monotheism
Actually, I always assumed it was more along the lines of the kind of competition among gods found in mythology: Horus vs. Set, Eris vs. (Aphrodite vs. Athena vs. Hera), Tezcatlipoca vs. Quetzalcoatl etc.
On the other hand: So what?
It matters enough that folks attacked D&D as satanic and D&D mechanically changed in reaction to the accusation. I have to continually justify my involvement in this hobby — from both Christians and non-Christians. It matters because a lot of people still make it a big deal.
@FrDave
ReplyDeleteWell, it wouldn't have been the only thing "fixed" in 2e+ that I didn't think was broken ;)
I didn't mean to imply that mythological gods didn't compete- just that the worshippers in question didn't really stick to one of the gods they knew of. The priesthood might more likely have, granted.
My "so what?" was in reference to what I had to say in that throughout that comment- thanks for not reading the worst into it!
'The Operative from the movie Serenity. He could easily be classified as an assassin. The reason I like him so much is his rationalization of his villainy. He starts with moral choice — the promotion and safety of civilization is more important than his individual soul.'
ReplyDeleteSuch an assassin is an example of good, thought-provoking fiction.
'He chooses to do awful and violent things so that others don't have to (a choice, by the way, made by U.S. soldiers overseas on a daily basis). '
That is exactly WHY fiction for U.S. audiences should be thought-provoking!
An earlier commenter wrote:
'But what potentially makes, say, playing a Satanist insidious is that many if not most gamers don't have a problem with it, and indeed, if you mention it at all, they will jump all over you for being a religious extremist, etc. it's after all, just a game, etc., etc.'
RPGamers have some weird cultural biases. The topic of Satanism is complex enough to warrant several of its own threads. It's hard to write about Satanism for RPGamers.
FATAL, for example, is considered to be in poor taste. DIME munitions, beehive rounds, and carpet-bombing are not. Torture is mostly dismissed as boring; issues like depleted uranium are rarely mentioned.
I don't have a quick solution to this confusing mish-mash of ethical and cultural problems; I think there are a lot of modern ethical problems that need to be cataloged and eventually reflected in fiction (such as Serenity) and games (including RPGs).
FrDave, I was curious as to whether or not you are amiliar with the GURPS Fantasy world of Yrth? It presupposes that a "Banestorm," a magical ritual of the elves went wrong and humans from the Middle Ages (mostly Christians and Muslims) were transported there and slowly become the dominant religion.
ReplyDelete@Anthony
ReplyDeleteI am; however, despite the fact that I was an early adopter of GURPS (I still own Man to Man), my friends and I were militant DYIers and hardly ever used published campaign worlds.
Yrth, though, does reflect an S&S trope as well as an early campaign design as reflected by an article written by Joseph R. Ravitts which I blogged about here:
http://bloodofprokopius.blogspot.com/2011/03/blog-post.html
>Since vampires are creatures that grasp at immortality sans Christ, His symbol of His own victory over death is repellant to them.
ReplyDeleteThis is the single best explanation of the cross versus the vampire that I have ever come across. You have just changed how I will interpret this trope from now on.
@TJ
ReplyDeleteCool. I am glad I was able to put a few words together that inspire. Thanks.