Christ is Risen!

Hades took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown! – St. John Chrysostom, Paschal Homily

Christ is Risen!

  

[Hades] received a body and encountered God. It took earth and came face to face with heaven. It took what it saw and fell by what it could not see. Death, where is your sting? Hades, where is your victory? Christ is risen and you are overthrown. Christ is risen and demons have fallen. Christ is risen and angels rejoice. Christ is risen and life rules. Christ is risen and not one dead remains in the tomb. — Paschal Homily by St. John Chrysostom

On the Importance of Fandom

[I ask] that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. — John 17:20-21

One of the important principles in Orthodoxy Christianity is the idea that multiplicity is capable of becoming one. Through Christ, the various nations of the earth become one church despite all of the various things that we humans do to try and separate ourselves from each other.

This idea of one and many exists in every order of creation from the most high (God is both One and Three) all the way down to subatomic where electons, protons, and neutrons are gathered together as the building blocks of matter.

I don’t normally lead with such theological musings, but I want make clear the persupposition for why I find such beauty and joy in the idea of fandoms. When a fandom manifests itself properly, the love that each individual has for said franchise, game, hobby, sport, etc. can overcome all kinds of differences we impose upon ourselves and each other. 

For example, the majorty of the folks who read this blog are not Orthodox Christan, and I would venture a good chunk do not even consider themselves Christian. Despite this, we can all gather in this corner of the internet and revel in the love we have for RPGs. That love overcomes the fact that we do not all agree about religion. It can also overcome all kinds of barriers such as language, race, politics, ethnicity, gender, etc.

To put it theologically, the unity that Christ gives us through the Cross, the Resurrection, and His Church manifests itself in a small way through fandoms. Conversly, the unity we find in fandoms demonstrate that the unity promised by Christ is very real.

As a consequence, I firmly believe that the reason our beloved IPs from Star Wars to Indiana Jones, to Star Trek, to Dungeons & Dragons are in such bad shape is the fact that the companies that are in control of these IPs have roundly rejected the fundamental premise of unity from multiplicity and the role fandoms play in overcoming differences.

Companies such as WotC, Disney, Warner, etc. have almost universally adopted ideas found in Critical Race Theory, Intersectional Feminism, and Diversity Equity and Inclusion. At first glance, all of these concepts are laudable. There is no question that various groups of people have suffered at the hands of others throughout history and that trying to fix the various problems that come from this suffering is something I would hope everyone is on board with.

There is one very large however here, though. All of these ideas are based on a dialectic — the Opressed versus the Opressor. As a consequence, every single one of these ideas requires division. Not a single one of these ideas can ever unify humanity because the smallest possible number in a dialectic is always two.

Thus, when the fandom becomes hostile to the direction a company is taking a particular IP, these ideas don’t allow for love to overcome differences of opinion. They don’t allow for fandoms to become part of the solution. Rather, the fandom is moved from the in-group (the Oppressed) into the out-group (the Oppressor). This is why fans have been accused of being bigoted in all kinds of ways over the last several years.

Those of us who participate in RPGs are very fortunate because the OGL was born out of fandom. It was designed in such a way that the love we have of D&D could empower us to produce a plethora of products for this hobby. We have seen the fruits of that love and don’t every want to go back. This is why WotC’s attempts to ditch the OGL has been received with such a pushback from across the entire fandom. At some level, we have come to understand that the unity we find in participating in this hobby at all levels is much more profound and valuable than anything WotC could offer alone as the gatekeeper of everything D&D. 

While RPGs are a different medium than television or film, nonetheless, what has happened in the world of TTRPGs is a blueprint for fandoms to move forward and beyond the dialectic being imposed upon us by the likes of WotC, Disney, etc. We can participate in our fandoms (and make money doing so) in all kinds of ways that don’t involve us giving these corporations a dime.

We have a capacity to be one. They have limited themselves to merely being two.

They need us far more than we need them. 

May the Φος Be With You

The only Star Wars product
I have enjoyed in the last decade

Star Wars taught me a tough but valuable lesson: just because something has a particular label on it, doesn’t mean that it is good. This lesson took a long time for me to understand, however. Star Wars was a huge part of my childhood and a formative experience in my life. One of my favorite RPG campaigns of all time was played with d6 Star Wars. One of my favorite computer franchises of all time is the X-Wing/Tie-Fighter series. I was all in.

I couldn’t bring myself to understand that the emotion I was feeling after watching Episode I at a midnight showing on opening day was disappointment. I spent hours and a lot of money watching Phantom Menace trying to convince myself that it was good. Then I saw Episode II in theaters at a matinee a couple of weeks after it opened and came to terms with the idea that Star Wars was no longer a brand I could trust. 

I had hope that Disney could turn things around. So, when my kids wanted to see Episode VII in the theaters, I went. I walked out of the movie with a feeling I was familiar with and now was accustomed to: disappointment. This time, however, I refused to spend another dime.

I suppose that is why I was so adamant to ditch WotC when they put their “warning” labels on legacy products. The disappointment I had when realizing WotC saw me as a racist simply for buying and playing one of the most important games in my lifetime was similar to what I was feeling walking out of Phantom Menace. So, I didn’t spend another dime, despite several legacy products being released in POD that I would have otherwise snatched up in a second.

The last several months have proven my instincts correct. WotC has rendered the label “Dungeons & Dragons” worthless. It seems that the shenanigans Hasbro has pulled have finally woken some people up to the fact that WotC and Hasbro are run by people who care nothing about gamers or the games we play.

I realize I am a small voice in the wilderness, but I not only encourage everyone to stop buying something simply because it has the label “Dungeons & Dragons” on it, but to create your own systems, adventures, and worlds. I can almost guarantee that whatever you produce is going to be a whole lot better than whatever WotC has put the label "Dungeons & Dragons" on.

BTW for those interested, the title of this post comes from the fond memories of an alum of my seminary who went to my school in the 70s. In response to the popularity of Star Wars and the Force, which from an Orthodox Christian POV is a dualistic heresy, one of the bishops printed up a bunch of T-Shirts that said, “May the Φος Be With You.” In Greek, φος (phos as in phosphorescence) means “light” as in John 8:12, “Again Jesus spoke to them, saying,  ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’”

Ever since May 4th became a thing where Star Wars fans say, “May the Force Be With You” I have gently corrected their spelling…  

Christ is Risen!

Foreseeing this, Isaiah proclaimed: "Hades," he said, "was angered when he met You below." It was angered because it was abolished. It was angered because it was mocked. It was angered because it was slain. It was angered because it was shackled. It received a body and encountered God. It took earth and came face to face with heaven. It took what it saw and fell by what it could not see. Death, where is your sting? — The Catechetical Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom

On Gods and RPGs

A reader of this blog recently asked me to comment on their favorite TTRPG, Fading Suns, which they partly describe as follows:

…it's base premise is that the major religion is a mix of real world ones, predominantly Christianity, but with lots of Islam, Buddism and so forth. There are lots of theological disputes within the system, there's "magic" that "works", when you're praying to a game version of God (Pancreator, a semi-gnostic syncretic deity). Lots of saints and rituals resembling the Church's rituals and so forth.

The question here is whether or not it is okay, from a strictly Christian POV, to allow for magic to be awarded to followers of, for lack of a better word, “pagan” gods?

First, we must clear up something. Neither Orthodox Christianity or Scripture posit strict monotheism, as understood by most moderns, Jews, and Muslims. Take for example this prayer from the Presanctified Liturgy and the Vespers service:

Compassionate and merciful, longsuffering and very merciful Lord, hear our prayer and attend to the voice of our supplication. Give us a favorable sign. Guide us in Your path that we may walk in Your truth. Gladden our hearts that we may fear Your holy name, for You are great and work wonders. Only You are God, O Lord, and there is none like You among the gods. You are great in mercy and gracious in strength and in aiding, exhorting, and saving all those who place their hope in Your holy name. [My emphasis]

When I first encountered this prayer, I was a bit scandalized because it explicitly acknowledges the existence of other gods(!); however, this prayer merely reflects a viewpoint expressed by Scripture. Take Psalm 82:

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I say, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince.” Arise, O God, judge the earth; for to thee belong all the nations! [My emphasis] 

In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used by the ancient Church), the “divine council” from the first verse is συναγωγή θεών. That first word is a root word of Synagogue and the second is a declension of ο θέος — God. There is no escaping the idea of other gods or their existence.

The polemic presented here in Psalm 82 is that Yahweh — the Most High God — is the creator of all things, including these other gods. This is made clear by the line, “you shall die like men.” Within the context of the Fall, everything that has a beginning also has an end. These gods were originally created to watch over and protect the various nations, but turned against their cretor and accepted worship from those very same nations.

It is important to remember that within the context of a Fantasy or Science Fantasy world, whatever magic system exists is part of creation and something God made. Like all things given by God, this magic system can be used as God intended or used in a manner that does not. In Scripture, we see this happen with technology.

The Book of Genesis presents us with two Civilization builders: Cain and Noah. As the first city-builder, Cain uses technology to build a society of personal pleasure, power, and sin. This civilization is so evil that God deems it unsalvagable and calls forth the Flood in order to start over. Noah is the means by which this happens. He uses technology in obedience to God. Through this use of technology, humanity and through humanity all of creation, gets to participate in a salvation event.

Thus, if I were to play a TTRPG where various gods grant magic to their followers I would portray it as the gods of Scripture giving out technology to Cain’s civilization. While it might temporarily give a character influence and power, it ultimately will lead to destruction. In contrast, that same magic used in context of the Most High God and in obedience to Him and His Church can be salvific.

One of the reasons I like 0e and B/X is that the mechanic of arcane vs divine magic make this distinction very easy to emulate and communicate in game play. I myself have never read anything about the Fading Suns game world or mechanics, so I don’t have any explicit advice about how to implement these ideas mechanically or mythically within that setting or rules; however, Scripture can help here, too:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. — Matthew 16:18

No matter what situation a TTRPG places humanity or what alternate history it proposes, it is very easy to insert the Most High God as creator of all things. In a scifi or future fantasy setting, the Church survives somewhere, however big or small. As long as I present this knowledge and this reality in some way shape or form, the story that emerges from play is an exploration of the consequences of our relationship (or lack thereof) with the Most High God.

If you are interested, this is a subject I have written many times about. You can find several here.

Christ is Risen!

 

Your resurrection, O Christ our Savior, has illumined the entire earth, and has recalled your creation. O almighty Lord, glory to you. — Aposticha from the Agape Service  

Orcs and the One and the Many

Over on BX Blackrazor, JB is meditating on the D&D trope of killing gods. In the comments, I pointed out that the game has been giving gods Hit Points since 1976 and the publication of Supplement IV: Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes. I also tried to explain why I (as a Christian) don’t really have a problem with giving gods Hit Points. 

This struck off a conversation that I think deserves its own post, because I make some hefty claims that need their own space to be meditated on and discussed. The most important (and probably controversial) claim is that reality as we experience cannot be fully explained by anything other than the Christianity of the Early Church (by which I roughly mean the first millennia or so). At the core of my argument is a problem that has confounded philosophers since the ancients first tried to understand reality. It is called the Problem of the One and Many. To illustrate this, I present to you this illustration of an orc:

But, Padre, you say, that is not an orc, it’s an owlbear! To which I respond: how do you know?

This may seem an idle question, because it should be obvious that the above illustration is, in fact, an owlbear and not an orc. Even so, in order for us to be able to make that distinction two things need to be very real: owlbears and orcs.

As we all know, however, owlbears and orcs are not real — outside of our imagination. Yet, there exists something that allows us to not only imagine these non-existent creatures but to recognize something we have never before encountered as one of these imaginary creatures. To say that “something” is “the brain,” or “chemicals,” or “an electrical current in our nervous system” side-steps the real issue:

You have very likely never seen the above illustration. I know, because I am the one who drew it and this is the first time I have ever shared it. This new empirical experience that you have just had of seeing this illustration for the first time has triggered an interaction with an interpretive framework that not only allows you to understand that you are looking at an owlbear, but also allows everybody else to see an owlbear despite being potentially thousands of miles apart and growing up in completely different circumstances in terms of language, culture, and beliefs. If we didn’t have this nigh-universal interpretive framework, this brand new experience of seeing my illustration could not result in you seeing an owlbear. It would just be light.

And finally, we come to the crux of the problem:

This illustration is unique. It is its own particular illustration by yours truly. At the same time, it is also an owlbear — it shares the nature of owlbear-ness that all owlbears do. In other words, it is one and it is many. Ancient philosophers wrestled to explain how it is that everything is both one and many at the same time. We must wrestle with it because it is part of reality. I am Fr. Dave and I am a human being. Without the one and the many we would not be able to function in the world. We would have no idea how to interpret the data coming in through our senses.

Materialism does not do an adequate job of explaining the reality of the one and the many, because it cannot merely come down to physical, material things. Owlbears aren’t material, physical things, after all. Yet they are real.

In contrast, it logically follows that a God that is both one and three, who created humanity according to His image and likeness, and, as Paul says in Romans 1:20, reveals his eternal power and divine nature in the things that have been made, would create a world where everything would demonstrate both His oneness and his multiplicity.

In other words, our modern, secular, materialist explanation of the world as we know it, really doesn’t explain the world as we know it; however, ancient Christianity does.

Christ is Risen!

Though You went down into the tomb, O Immortal One, yet You brought down the dominion of Hades; and You rose as the victor, O Christ our God; and You called out "Rejoice" to the Myrrh-bearing women, and gave peace to Your Apostles, O Lord who to the fallen grant resurrection. — Kontakion of Pascha

How to Write Strong Women Characters Pt. 2

The Magnificat

My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; for behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with His arm; He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent away empty. He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed forever. —Luke 1:47-55

In my last post, I gave a recent positive example of strong women characters; however, these women were playing roles normally filled by men — professional wrestlers. I do not want to take anything away from women who want to excel in those types of rolls; however, it is indicative of our current culture that the best positive example of strong women I could find is were women are exhibiting masculine strength. As a consequence, I am inclined to go back to the greatest story of all time to find the archetype of feminine strength: the Virgin Mary and the Mother of our God. I lift her up not only because of her prophecy from the Gospel of St. Luke — every generation will call me blessed — but because Orthodox Christianity sees her as the best of humanity. In our churches, she sits at the right hand of Christ on the iconostasis and we sing of her almost every day:

Greater in honor than the Cherubim, and in glory greater beyond compare than the Seraphim; you without corruption gave birth to God the Word, and are truly Theotokos. You do we magnify.

No other saint has more hymns sung in their honor than the Virgin Mary, who has been given the title Theotokos — the Mother of God.

Of course, from the perspective of modern feminism, we run into a problem with the virtues that this archetype champions — Chastity and Motherhood. I mention feminism specifically because phrases such as "because it's time" and "young white men have been pandered to" find their source in that philosophy. In addition, our current cultural landscape celebrates, in the name of feminism, the antithesis of Chastity and Motherhood — Promiscuity and Abortion — as virtues.

Couched in the language of empowerment, we have been told that women armed with birth control can stand on equal footing with men in their ability to have sex without consequence and with that most extreme form of birth control options, abortion, can pursue careers over families. This is shouted to the rooftops despite growing evidence that women are less and less happy the further away from the Archetype of the Virgin Mary and Mother of God we get.

Allow me a moment to critically examine what our modern culture calls "empowerment." Promiscuity is never risk-free. There is no type of birth-control that is 100% effective outside of abstinence. Additionally, multiple partners increases the chance of disease. Regardless of all the medical advances we have made, women are still taking the greater risk when engaged in promiscuous behavior.

This risk becomes even greater when coupled with the denigration of men. We have an entire generation of young men that have been told that they are the source of evil in the world, that their natural behavior towards women is hateful, and have been accused of rape for engaging in consensual sex. In other words, we have a culture that expects women to have a lot of sex and for men to behave badly. We live in an upside down world where men are interested in long-term monogamous relationships and women are interested in multiple partners. Given this reality, the type of man who would willingly participate in the promiscuity of women is not the type of man a women is safe to be promiscuous with.

As much as conservatives balk at the existence of rape culture, the #metoo movement has clearly demonstrated that a rape culture does exist in the very institutions that promote the idea: Hollywood, the Media, and other forms of Entertainment. For decades, men who see women as mere objects to use for their own desires have been able to maintain their positions of power by selling us the feminist ideal of female empowerment.

In contrast, Chastity actually empowers women to manipulate the behavior of men. It is quite simple: you want a piece of this? then live up to what I want in a man and commit to being that man for the rest of your life.

Our current culture celebrates abortion as a positive experience. All of the troubles and sacrifices necessary to see a pregnancy through are gone in an instant. What the brochure and abortion clinics across the country fail to mention is that there are consequences. Killing your own child in the womb can and does have long term physical and mental repercussions. Once done, it can never be taken back.

While Motherhood does, in fact, require sacrifice and a radical shift in life priorities, it also is a source of feminine power. Nothing motivates like trying to do your best for your children. Everyone knows not to mess with a mother bear, the same can be said of a mother trying to protect her children. In addition, throughout the ages, women have had access to political power through their children. The term Queen Mother exists for a reason. Let me give an example from Church history:

In the Orthodox Church, we celebrate Sts. Irene and Theodora as critical players in the defeat of Iconoclasm. Both acted as regents for their sons. Both sons were children when they were crowned Emperor. Both women were married to Iconoclasts. Both lovingly bided their time knowing that they would be able to effect change through their children.

While it is true that women can (and even should) excel in professions normally dominated by men (as can men excel in professions normally dominated by women), these are exceptions. While female characters that succeed through masculine characteristics can and do work, the number of good stories that can be told are limited. This can be seen in the failures of modern cinema to shoehorn women into normally masculine roles.

If we are truly interested in strong women and if we are truly interested in telling stories about strong women, I would propose that we embrace the archetype personified by the Virgin Mary. Tell stories where Chastity and Motherhood are not only embraced, but celebrated.

Why Star Wars, etc. Now S*cks

I was one of those kids who saw Star Wars (before it was dubbed A New Hope) in the theater. I was doomed to be a sci-fi/fantasy fan for the rest of my life. I began to buy comic books. I found Dr. Who on my local PBS. My mom brought home the Holmes Basic Box set. I tried reading the Lord of the Rings and found I could scratch my fantasy itch elsewhere. I even tolerated watching Star Trek with my Trekkie friends. Though for many years my entertainment dollar has rarely gone towards anything beyond RPGs and war games, I am still a fan at heart and hope that some day there is a franchise out there that I will find worthy of my time and my dollar.

Unfortunately, companies like WotC, Disney, WB, Paramount, etc. have all decided that I am toxic and whatever is the most recent flavor of -ist this week. I want Star Wars, Marvel, DC, and even Star Trek to be good; however, I don’t just think they won’t be anytime soon, I know they won’t be.

In the past, I have critiqued various movies and shows for abandoning the Divine in their story telling. God is the first storyteller. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament quoted by the writers of the New Testament and the oldest version of the OT we have today, the verb in the first sentence in Scripture (In the beginning God created) has the same root as poetry. This version of to create is only used when in association with God, and he creates (makes poetry) through speaking, “Let there be light.” Thus, just as all creation was doomed to decay and death by humanity turning its back on God, stories are doomed to meaningless drivel when the storyteller turns their back on the source of all stories.

While I still stand by this critique, there is another level of horrid storytelling that has been cropping up recently that I think needs to be addressed because it goes beyond turning its back on God and turns its back on the human person. Let me explain.

Reality can be broken up into two categories: the general and the particular. For example, I am using a computer in order to write this post. Some portion of those who are reading this post will also be using a computer to do so. While the term “computer” helpfully describes all of these devices, I am using a particular computer and the reader is using another particular computer. All computers = the general; my computer = the particular.

The crux of my critique depends on the fact the human beings always experience the particular and never experience the general. Whenever I encounter “computer” in my life, it is always a particular computer. The general “computer” is an immaterial concept that, although outside the particular experience of human beings, is nonetheless very real. The general allow us to make sense of the particular. Without the general, our empirical experience of the world would be a chaotic string of ever-changing data with no basis for interpretation or understanding.

From a Christian POV, this is how we experience and understand the Trinity. The general is God and the particular is the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is why Christ became a human being — so that we can intimately know God in the particular.

The reason story telling in the present is so awful is that the characters that occupy our stories are the general instead of the particular. Let me illustrate this my favorite literary inspiration for the Thief class — Bilbo Baggins. In JRR Tolkien’s works, Bilbo Baggins is important because he is a particular hobbit with individual quirks, strengths, weaknesses, and interests that qualify him to be the burglar that Gandalf chooses for the purpose of recovering what was lost to the dragon Smaug. If The Hobbit were written by today’s crop of storytellers, Gandalf would have chosen Bilbo because he is a hobbit and no other reason.

Characters today are largely just a collection of general categories based on immutable characteristics. While I acknowledge the reality of bigotry in the world — there is no question that bigotry exists and affects people on a regular basis — none of us have ever experienced “white,” “black,” or whatever category is fashionable in the present moment. We have, however, experienced particular human persons that have these immutable characteristics.

Herein is the insidious nature of the kind of storytelling we see in today’s popular culture, and why it is so awful. Characters are no longer human persons. They are no longer unique, irreplaceable, and valuable individuals. Characters are merely categories. As individual persons, they have no value because they can be replaced by another character from the same general category.

This type of storytelling can only produce uninteresting and valueless stories because the individual characters that occupy these stories have no intrinsic value in their particularity. As consumers, it becomes increasingly difficult to care about these stories because there is no particular to encounter — these stories deny us the very basic human experience of the particular that is our reality.

This also explains why it is so easy to label fans who demand the particular as toxic and -ists of various flavors. We are denying and criticizing the immutable characteristic — the general category — of the character. Since there is no particular and only the general, we must therefore be toxic and -ist.

All of this dehumanizes everybody. History has shown again and again that when we dehumanize the other, nothing good follows.

Christ is Born!

Notice that the Christ child is wrapped in burial clothes and lying in a tomb underground

 I wanted to take a moment on this strange and lonely Christmas to not only wish you joy and a Merry Christmas, but to remind all of us that Christ is born today because we are in pain. The peace and the joy the Christian world proclaims today may seem hollow, but contemplate the following hymn of the Orthodox Church:

Born of a Virgin, O Good One who also endured crucifixion for our sake, who by death took the spoils of death as plunder and showed resurrection, being God, O despise not the ones that You formed with Your own hand. Demonstrate Your love for man, O Lord of mercy, and accept Your Mother, the Theotokos, who intercedes on our behalf, O Savior, and save us a despairing people.

He who holds all things in His hand is lying in a feeding trough. He is preparing to go to the Cross, to suffer and to die so that we might have a path through the pain and the despair into the hope and joy of His Kingdom. I am always reminded that He knew me then, when He was born. He knew me when he went to the Cross. Despite this, He still went, for me and for you.

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Revisiting World-Building and Clerics

JB of BX Blackrazor has been interested in having religion being part of his RPG experience for a long time. As a consequence, our two blogs have bounced off of each other several times over the years. So, it came as no real surprise that JB decided to use my last post as a jumping off point for discussing his current state in the ongoing struggle of all us who play D&D with Alignment. As it so often happens with these kinds of things, JB has inspired me to revisit a post I did earlier this year on world-building.

In his own attempts at world-building for the purpose of creating a campaign that he could be entertained by for the rest of his life, JB wanted to ground his world by

…picking an epoch in our real world past that is so far removed from today that who knows WHAT might have happened "way back then"

To this end, he has gone far back enough in time that Judeo-Christianity is not a thing. He does, however, indicate that he still wants his cosmology to be sensible.

He opts for what he calls a “New Age-y” cosmology than boils down to a form of pantheism. Historically speaking, the word “pantheism” was coined in the late 17th century and as a concept only really ever showed up as a tendency in other non-pantheistic religious traditions.

While not my cup of tea, he does pose a world-building conundrum that I find tantalizing: how would I build a FRPG game world based on a real world human epoch in the far distant past? As suggested by the title of this post, this isn’t my first time meditating on such things, but JB lays out a few needs that I find inspiring:

• The cosmology need to be sensible
• There needs to be a answer as to what is evil and how it came about
• The cosmology needs to justify the existence of a megadungeon as a central focus of the campaign

In a move that will surprise no one, I am going to turn to the Biblical narrative of Genesis for a lot of these answers; however, where I go in Genesis may be unexpected:

So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth. — Genesis 11:8-9

So, the idea here is that Tower of Babel represents that move away from the monotheism of ancient man towards the development of a pagan pantheon as humanity moved from hunter gatherers to agriculture. The people who built the Tower seek to elevate themselves and the gods they have created to the heavens. God came down (which in a Christian context would have been the Angel of the Lord, aka the pre-incarnate Christ) and scattered the people and confused their tongues. In a fantasy context, this could be the genesis of all the various fantasy races. Humanoids in this context can be seen as members of the different races that are twisted because they continue to strive for the goals of the builders of the Tower in defiance of God.

This event also marks the collapse of the prior, more technologically and magically advanced age. These artifacts are not inherently evil, though one might be tempted to have the occasional intelligent sword remind players that the civilization that created the sword set itself against God. So, there would be a desire for the current civilization to recover what it could of the old and use it in a more appropriate way.

The Tower itself could be the megadungeon. The city that built it was abandoned. Given the apparent size of the building, it would be a perfect vehicle for a megadungeon. Want something resembling volcanic caves? No problem, the presence of God Himself walked down to earth using the Tower. Given that God tells Moses that anyone who looks upon the face of God would not survive, we have a lot of leeway as to what the Tower looks like in the present campaign.

In terms of building a civilizational ethos without the advent of the Covenants of the Old and New Testaments, we have the command of God to tend the garden. The People (which will cover all of the various fantasy races, given that God’s action at the Tower is the origin of all the races) are created according to the Image and Likeness and therefore bear the responsibility of representing God to creation and to lift up creation to God. Thus, being caretakers of creation and attempting to return it to a pristine condition might be the motivating factor for lifting up the sword against the humanoid hordes which seek to claim creation for their own.

Following up on the Unsavory Past

It seems that my last post has caused some confusion. There are those that don’t quite grasp why I take issue with the weak and subjective language used by WotC in regards to their legacy products:

Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today.

This leaves a tremendous amount of room for interpretation, which might very well be the intent. “There is nothing here in The World of Greyhawk that suggests anything wrong, therefore I can ignore it,” is what some seem to say, and what I believe WotC is hoping we say.

As I stated in my last post, I am a trained historian. As a consequence, I tend to see patterns in behaviors and the pattern of behavior I see in the weak and subjective language used by WotC is not a pretty one. I could simply go to the first half of the 20th century to illustrate my point, but I think it will be much more useful tell a story from the 4th century.

There was a charismatic priest in the city of Alexandria (Egypt) by the name of Arius who started to preach that there was a time when the Son was not. He and his followers represented an existential crisis for the early Church. Known today as Arianism, the theology espoused by Arius was biblical, trinitarian, and philosophically sound. Their view of God, however, absolutely destroyed the soteriology of the Church.

As a consequence, the First Ecumenical Council was convened. Their ultimate goal was to clearly define what was Orthodox and what was Arian. In the end, they created what is today known as the Nicene Creed. In process, they made a very controversial move by using the word ὁμοούσιος — a word that is not anywhere in Scripture.

The reason they used ὁμοούσιος and not a word found in Scripture was that every time a word from Scripture was used, both Arians and Orthodox could say the same words and mean two very different things. By choosing the word ὁμοούσιος, they made it impossible for there to be any misunderstanding. Everyone had to choose: are you Orthodox or are you Arian? Without this choice, human freedom and our clear understanding of who God and what His salvation is was in serious jeopardy.

In our present, words have been weaponized. People can and have lost their reputations, their jobs, and their livelihoods over the use of mere words. Yet, most of these words are ill-defined and largely subjective. Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to keep up with how quickly the meaning of words can change.

In such an environment, clarity is needed. We very much need to follow in the footsteps of the First Ecumenical Council. In order to understand each other, to talk with each other, to accomplish anything positive we need to define terms. Nothing gets done when people have different definitions of words. This reality can only lead to chaos.

Indeed, the very reason people have been able to weaponize words is due to the fact that their definitions are fluid and subjective.

Thus, rather than placing our small community on a solid foundation to move through and beyond the chaos of the moment, WotC has empowered chaos and those who wish to weaponize language.

The very fact that WotC has used such weak and subjective language has made everyone who ever played this game a potential target. Anything and everything that has ever been published for this game now officially may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice. In other words, literally anything from the legacy products of WotC can be weaponized to declare any of us as bigots that were wrong then and wrong today. It doesn’t matter that you and I understand that Gary Gygax did not intend his game to promote prejudice. Because WotC has admitted that such prejudice exists (why else would they need to make such a statement if their weren’t), anything and everything can, and probably will, be weaponized.

Christ is Risen!

Resurrection Day! O peoples, let us brilliantly shine! Pascha, the Lord's Pascha! For Christ our God has out of death passed us over into life, and likewise from earth to heaven, as we now sing unto Him a triumphal hymn. — Ode I of the Katavasias of Pascha


BTW: This whole COVID-19 situation has made my life a whole lot busier, which is why there has been a dearth of posts of late. Me and mine are doing well, I still make time to game...I just haven't been able to make time to do this. Hopefully that will change soon. God willing.

World Building and Clerics

Earlier this year, Circas K meditated about rethinking clerics and religion on his Sword of Mass Destruction blog. He and I are of one mind when it comes to the way later iterations of D&D model the cleric class: the game uses a pseudo-christian monotheistic foundation upon which is built a polytheistic structure. As a consequence, later editions of D&D don't do either monotheism or polytheism justice. For those of you who are interested in the latter, you can go and see how Circas K suggests building a polytheistic foundation. Of course, if you are a long time reader of this blog, I have spilled a lot of digital ink explaining how older editions of D&D actually do a really good job of emulating a Christian fantasy world with little to no modification.

One of the assumptions made in gaming where any form of religion is involved is that monotheism is a later development. Animism and Ancestor worship develop into polytheism which then develops into monotheism. A great example of this is Avalon Hill's Advanced Civilization, where Monotheism is one of the most expensive Civilization Cards in the game. Thus, in context of a pre-historical fantasy age like that found in REH's Conan stories, it seems to make sense to default to a polytheistic world-building foundation.

This, of course, is not what is found in the Biblical narrative. Scripture suggests that the most ancient peoples were actually monotheists. Polytheism arrises later as civilizations grow and develop. Despite the apparent uniqueness of the Hebrews, this pattern even develops within the nation of Israel. The prophets are constantly warning the People of God to stay true to the ancient ways of monotheism instead of adopting the polytheism of the nations around them.

Recently, I came upon this video done by Inspiring Philosophy:

I realize it is 55 minutes long, but given the fact that most of us are isolated at home why not take the time?

It takes us through a bunch of evidence that suggests that the general shape of the Biblical Narrative is actually far closer to historic reality than what is assumed by the games we play. Again and again we find that primitive, nomadic cultures tend toward monotheism. Some even have strikingly similar stories and concepts found within the OT. Thus, the whole hypothesis that monotheism is a later development than polytheism is neither tenable nor realistic.

Thus, for the purposes of world-building a fantasy world inspired by Swords & Sorcery pulp stories about a Pangean/Hyperborean age it is actually quite realistic to use a monotheistic belief in a Creator god who spoke the world into being. This god might go by many names, but the fundamentals are pretty much the same across cultures.

If one wanted to add some polytheistic pantheons, these would be features of decadent city-states and urban areas rather than the more "primitive" areas outside the cities.

This creates an interesting inversion of my own classic campaign structure of Christian Civilization  (Law) vs. the Demonic Wilderness (Chaos). Indeed, a campaign could be centered around retrieving objects and treasure hidden inside the City rather than the Dungeon and the classic fantasy and D&D trope of raiding a Temple could be a central activity.

In this context, I do find it quite ironic that the D&D ruleset itself mimics this historic development of religion. The farther back one goes, the easier it is to see the roots of a monotheistic influence on the game; however, as time goes on the game becomes more and more polytheistic not just in its assumptions, but in the rules themselves.

The real irony, though, is that the assumption made by both myself and Circas K that those later editions of D&D do a bad job of portraying clerics (whether you prefer monotheism or polytheism) may be less true than I ever thought.

On Being a Referee and a Christian

In my extended absence from writing anything on my blog, I recently got this comment from David B. and it deserves its own post:

Greetings Father. I don't know exactly where to post this but I had question for you regarding the cosmological portion of your universe. I'm running a West Marches game type since last year and, I'll be honest, I stole your three main divinity when I read about them (Frumos, Arta and Tizan). I think it's great.

I'm playing with friends used to D&D and such so it's all good. But I was wondering about the long-term: my wife and I will have children, and I want to use D&D as a game and an educational tool. What would be the thing to do regarding the world and the cosmology of it ?

Pseudo-historical RPG set in Christian kingdom/mpire ? Analogical/allegorical like yours ? Or straight up remote to create a form of mythopoesis like Tolkien ?

Which one do you think has more value ? The goal is not to teach the creed through the game, that I understand very well, but mostly to make sure that the background imagination landscape, so to speak, it cohesive with the whole of education. What do you think ?

Thank you.

First of all, thank you for letting me know that you have implemented one of my various attempts at a metaphorical trinitarian cosmology. Not only do I think it’s awesome, it makes me really happy that it’s being used in actual game play by someone not me. Again, thank you!

To get to your question, let’s compare the Bible, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. All three take different approaches to infusing God and Christianity into their stories. All three tell terrific yarns. All three plant the seeds of Christian values. So the answer really isn’t about which approach works best. Rather, in context of playing an RPG, what is going to be the most fun for you and your players, because fun games get played. The longer a game gets played, the more you and your players get to wrestle with God at the gaming table.

Personally, I find that players like the approach you and I generally use at the table — we use a metaphor for the Trinity and as a stand-in for the Christian Church. This makes the fantasy world approachable. Not only is it familiar (it feels a lot like institutions we already have in the real world), but it is alien enough that we aren’t obligated to engage in a real-world kind of way. Devout Christians can explore characters that make choices they would be reluctant to if we were actually invoking the name of Christ. Secularists and atheists can explore religious characters because they don’t feel obligated to reject Christ and His Church as they do in their own life.

Once players bypass their own real world prejudices, it gives everyone the freedom to explore the moral landscape of human experience with little of the real world consequences. To make this work, you as the Referee need to consistently offer your players the freedom to do what they want, but be firm with the consequences of those choices. The only time I Refereed an actual TPK was when the first level thief decided to try out his Pick Pocket skills and got caught. Then the rest of the party decided to try and fight their way out of the situation. That group of players was a lot more cautious about following the laws while in town after that.

The other thing that makes campaigns like this interesting is offering moral dilemmas — situations that have no right answer. Introduce NPCs like the Operative from Serenity — people who know they are monsters doing monstrous things for the greater good. Which is worse, allowing these NPCs to be monsters or allowing the greater evil they are keeping at bay to have one less obstacle to getting their tentacles into Civilization?

In this way, you allow players to embrace the image and likeness of God and to wrestle with God. Freedom and consequence, when done consistently and well, will go a long way to making your game fun and something people will want to come back to. Moral dilemmas will also not only be fun, but will be chewed on for years to come.

I hope that helps.

On Vitriol: This Zak Smith Thing

Almost four years ago, Zak Smith and wundergeek had a very public fight about gender politics. At the time, I had been away from blogging due to the health of my child, but decided to use the situation as a launching point for a meditation On Vitriol in the digital age.

Ironically, at the end of this past December, right before Christmas, my youngest again had a surgery and has been in and out of the hospital since. Having walked away from blogging again to deal with this situation, Zak Smith is again at the middle of a storm within the OSR due to accusations launched at him by his girlfriend, Mandy Morbid. Again, I feel compelled to say something about this whole Zak Smith thing.

Let me be blunt. I do not like Zak. I find him to be an abrasive personality that I would not wish on anyone. I experienced this first hand when he leaped onto the comment section of my first meditation On Vitriol. While actively ignoring and dismissing the message of the post, he attacked the means in which I delivered that message and kinda proved the point I was trying to make in that post. While something I would be willing to do again, I cannot say that it was a pleasant experience.

Let me be even more blunt: I don’t even like his gaming material. I bought Vornheim way back when, didn’t find it particularly useful or inspiring and have never been much interested in anything he’s authored since. Thus, I wouldn’t miss much if he disappeared from the gaming community altogether and the world never saw another RPG-related publication by Zak.

Having said all that, I am still troubled by the reaction many have had to Mandy’s accusations. Cutting Zak completely off is not an answer I can endorse. Let me explain:

When I read the Facebook Post that started the purge of Zak Smith from all things gaming, I saw a bunch of broken people. Zak, Mandy and everybody else involved in this mess are broken. They were broken long before Zak ever did a thing to Mandy. It was this brokenness that led to Zak behaving in such a reprehensible way towards others. It was this brokenness that led to Mandy going along with the abuse as long as she did. This brokenness has also led to this community cutting Zak off. As James Raggi said in his announcement that LotFP won’t be publishing Zak’s stuff anymore:

[Everyone I talked to] was bummed out. They recognized this was a tragedy from top to bottom. Even the people who agreed with my course of action here, hell, even someone that thought I wasn't going far enough, recognized what we were losing, even while they said we needed to lose it. 

I recognize the brokenness for what it is because of my Christian world-view. We are all sinners. I also believe that everyone deserves an opportunity to repent and to allow God (who went to the Cross to give all of us a second chance) to transform the sinner into a saint. I still hold out hope for Zak that he can use this disaster as an opportunity to turn around his life and become a person we can all enjoy at the gaming table.

I say this, of course, as a Christian; however, we no longer live in a Christian society. As an openly practicing Christian who brings Christ to the gaming table I am acutely aware that I am in an extreme minority both within the OSR’s corner of the internet and gaming at large.

So, I have a serious question, not only for those who have cut off Zak, but for anyone who embraces secularism/atheism: How is it that abusive behavior (especially against women and children) is universally condemned?

As a Christian, I can answer this very easily. As the source of all good things in the world, God provides us with a standard that is eternal and universal. For secularism and atheism, answering this question is a much harder task.

Without the existence of God, there is no such thing as an eternal, universal standard, because all standards are generated by humans. Since humans are finite and mutable, any standard that we make is also finite and mutable. Considering that we have around 7 billion possible standards in the world (one for each person who lives on the planet), to expect any one of those standards to stand the test of time and continue to endure generation after generation is, well, folly.

Indeed, if we insist on the relativism of “my truth,” Zak’s opinion that breasts of a certain size have no value is perfectly valid. My truth may disagree with Zak’s truth, but since the source of these truths in both cases are human beings (the only real source of truth in a world without God), each is just as legitimate as the other.

Further, if we insist on organizing a society around one version of “my truth” over and against other versions of “my truth,” there is only one avenue for ensuring that one supersedes the others: force. As such, Zak’s abusive behavior is completely justified. He was imposing his version of “my truth” on everyone around him in hopes that his version would prevail.

Instead, we are all condemning Zak’s abusive behavior in the same way that humans have condemned abuse (especially against women and children) generation after generation after generation. Even if we refuse to acknowledge His existence, we are all using God’s eternal and universal standards to judge Zak’s behavior.

Due to the fact that this standard is actually God’s and not our own, I would invite everyone to consider the reality that this very same God knew who Zak would be when he went to the Cross. Despite all the vitriol and all the abuse, Christ still got up on that Cross for Zak.

For my part, I refuse to condone Zak’s lifestyle or to tolerate Zak’s abuse; however, if he ever needs someone that will listen in an attempt to turn his life around, he is always welcome.

Mathetes to Diognetus Chapter 10

In the 10th Chapter of his Epistle to Diognetus, Mathtetes explains:

If you also desire [to possess] this faith, you likewise shall receive first of all the knowledge of the Father. For God has loved mankind, on whose account He made the world, to whom He rendered subject all the things that are in it, to whom He gave reason and understanding, to whom alone He imparted the privilege of looking upwards to Himself, whom He formed after His own image, to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved Him.

For the purposes of world-building, the salient point here is the idea that humanity is created in the image and likeness of God. We are created with the potential to be like God. As Mathetes says:

And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing.

Since the Trinitarian metaphor for our analogue of the Father is Tizan (Artisan), it follows that the main way of imitating God in context of our campaign world is that of co-creator. We are given creation by God and are expected to work it with our own hands and present something newly created back to God. This is why the eucharist is bread and wine and not wheat and grapes.

Mechanically, this suggests a house rule where PCs are given some kind of crafting skills. I see two distinct choices as to how to do this practically:

• A table with various types of skills (like the Tool Proficiencies from 5e). Players would randomly roll on this table and their PC would then be skilled in that particular area. As long as the character is doing something reasonable using that skill, no roll is necessary. The character can do extraordinary things using the skill with an appropriate roll.
• Crafting skills that are class-specific. This follows the logic of Holmes allowing 1st level magic-users to craft scrolls at a cost of 100gp and a week per spell level. Each class would be able to spend time and money create a class-specific item for use on an adventure. Given the one-use property of a scroll, this should probably be universal across all classes.

Here are some ideas for this latter approach:

Cleric

• Healing salve (equivalent of a Laying on Hands)
• Incense (bonus to a single Turn roll)
• Holy Oil (bonus to AC for a single combat)

Fighter

• Liquid Courage (bonus to hit for a single combat)
• Baning Oil (bonus to damage for a single combat)
• Ablative Armor (absorb 1 hit per damage die until destroyed; has 1d6+1 hits when made)

Magic-user

• Scrolls
• Duration Component (double the duration of a spell)
• Range Component (double the range of a spell)

Thief

• Liquid Courage (bonus to hit for a single combat)
• Jury-rigged Tool (bonus to a single Thief ability roll)
• Smoke bombs (bonus to a surprise roll)

Since scrolls are 100gp for a 1st level spell and all the various bonuses are less than what one would gain from a 1st level buff spell, I would suggest that the non-scroll items would all be 1d6 x 10 gp per use and would take 1d6 days to make.

Mathetes to Diognetus Chapter 9 Part 2

In the 9th Chapter of his Epistle to Diognetus, Mathetes understands death as a natural consequence for humanity’s sins against God. This understanding, of course, comes from Judaism which forms the foundation upon which Christianity is established. In paganism, death is better understood in context of the person of Hades/Pluto, or whatever name the God of death in a pagan pantheon goes by. I mention the name Hades because not only is that Puto’s name under the Greek pantheon, but it was used by the Romans as the name for Pluto’s kingdom of the underworld.

Rather than a consequence of human sin, death is just the way things are in paganism. Pluto, being the God who rules the realm of death, is someone who needs placated so that one’s experience under his rule is tolerable.

Interestingly, the pace of the dead in Judaism — Sheol — is very similar to the Greek and Roman conception of Hades. Both are seen as being underground and dark. In fact, when Greek speaking Jews began translating the OT into Greek beginning in the 4th century B.C., they translated the Hebrew Sheol (שְׁאוֹל) as Hades (ᾍδης).

Given the focus on the undead within the Empire of this nascent campaign world, this suggests that the Empire itself is an extension of the realm of the dead. Hades has bled out onto the surface world and has been imposing its will upon the living. This, in turn, helps define a few things and raises a few questions:

• The Greek word ᾍδης suggests a name for the Empire — the Aidisian Empire or Aidisia.
• In certain applications of old school D&D play, the Mythical Underworld plays a large role in how dungeons work. Doors for PCs are all locked while they open easily for monsters. PCs can’t see in the dark (even with ultra- or infra-vision), while monsters can. As parts of the underworld are cleared out, monsters are replaced and even geography changes. The question becomes, how much of this reality bleeds out onto the surface world within the Aidisian Empire?
• Another question is the relationship of the Mythical Underworld, the person of Hades, and the God-Emperor of Aidisia. I am most tempted to understand them as three different entities. The Mythical Underworld is a manifestation of the Natural Order being corrupted by Chaos. Hades is a demon that has tempted humanity onto the path of Chaos. The God-Emperor has embraced lichdom through the influence of the demon Hades. In order to pay homage to early versions of D&D, this demonic version of Hades can be replaced with Orcus.
• Since the Mythical Underworld has such a significant influence on the Aidisian Empire, this suggests that it is easily accessed. The adventure trope of the Temple suggested from Mathetes’ description of idols being guarded from theft suggests that the primary bleed points of the Mythical Underground into the world at large are the pagan temples. This, in turn, suggests that every pagan temple has a dungeon complex underneath it.
• Finally, there is the question of what relationship the Artanian Church has to the Mythical Underground. Historically, Christianity met secretly in house churches and catacombs. In older editions of D&D, the end game involved conquering a piece of Wilderness and making it into the demesne of a PC. Would the “end game” of this nascent campaign world be to conquer sections of the underworld to be consecrated as safe havens for Artanians to congregate?