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.

The Unsavory Past

As someone who originally went to school to become an historian, I have learned over the years that human nature is the same no matter the location or the time. As a consequence, every people, in every place and every time, are capable of soiling the image of God and are capable of revealing the image of God. Good and evil emerge from each of us every single day. Everyone sins.

The first time this was driven home to me was when I read Thucycides and his History of the Peloponnesian War. At the time, the Cold War was still raging and I was shocked at how similar the opening chapter was to the behaviors of the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Indeed, had I read a transcript of Thucydides where the names of places were swapped out for the U.S., the Soviet Union and their satellite states I would have been hard pressed to tell the difference.

It should be no surprise, then, that I am not fond of the recent disclaimer by Wizards of the Coast on their legacy publications. When we make blanket condemnations about entire histories and peoples, we condemn both the good with the bad.

For example, I recently was going through the first two editions of The World of Greyhawk because I am contemplating how I would set up a sandbox campaign using the original material found therein. I happened across this statement by Gygax about the fantasy races that inhabit his world:

In general, the skin color of an individual is of no particular importance.

Since we have been informed that legacy products, and The World of Greyhawk specifically:

…may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time

and that

These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today

Wizards of the Coast have opened the door to declaring that the racists position of judging someone exclusively by the color of their skin is proper and correct. Is that really what you wanted to say WotC?

As a serious aside, for those unfamiliar with the history of the Soviet Union, they played fast and loose with history, bending it to their will in order to justify the starvation and murder of millions of their own citizens.

The path taken by Wizards of the Coast will end up having us consuming ourselves.

BTW, this nonsense was announced just as I was contemplating getting the 1st edition of Greyhawk in POD. I won't be buying that or anything from WotC anytime soon.

Saintly Saturday: The Transfer of the Relics of St. John Chrysostom

Today is the Feast of the Translation of the Relics of St. John Chrysostom. Thirty years after St. John's death in exile, St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, persuaded the Emperor Theodosius II (A.D. 408-450) to allow the relics of St. John to return to Constantinople. The emperor’s mother, Empress Eudoxia, had sent St. John into exile because he, as the Patriarch of Constantinople, openly criticized her vices. Theodosius issued an edict for the return of St. John’s relics; however, those sent to retrieve could not lift his reliquary. It was not until the emperor wrote a letter of apology and humbly asked the saint to return that the reliquary was able to be moved.

The moniker “Chrysostom” means Golden-mouthed because St. John was a gifted homilist. Fortunately for us, St. John is one of the most well-documented saints in the history of the early Church. We have more of his writing than just about any other saint, including his analysis of the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. John as well as the Letters of St. Paul.

There is a story of St. John from the time when he was writing on St. Paul that a man who had come to see the saint was turned away because St. John was seen to be meeting with someone at his writing desk who was leaning over and whispering into the saint’s ear. This went on for three days. When St. John openly wondered at what had happened to the man, who he had arranged to meet, those around him became aware of the icon of St. Paul hanging over St. John’s desk and realized that the person they saw whispering in St. John’s ear was St. Paul himself. To this day, that ear remains incorrupt (and I can attest to that because I have seen it myself).

St. John looms very large in the life of the Orthodox Church, because the liturgy we do most of the year is attributed to St. John. Indeed, because of the large number of surviving writings by St. John, modern textual analysis confirms that the Anaphora of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysystom was indeed written by St. John himself. It is a rather humbling and awesome thing to pray his words knowing that 1600 years of Christians before me have prayed the very same thing.

It is a reminder that in our present age, we delusionally believe we have progressed beyond our forbears. While we may have some pretty amazing technology at our fingertips, human beings knew just as much (if not more) about being human hundreds and even thousands of years ago. St. John’s writing is as relevant today as it was in the 4th century. My daughter recently had to read Thucydides for school. I challenge anyone to read that with “United States” in the place of Athens and “Soviet Union” or “China” or “North Korea” in the place of Sparta and be able to tell me that (beyond the technology involved) that the conflict was any different.

We doom ourselves by ignoring the wisdom of those who came before.

In a way, this is why the OSR has been so important for this hobby. We refuse to ignore the past. Indeed, some of us insist that past versions of D&D are better than what came after. I count myself among them. I recently got back together again with some high school buddies of mine to play. Despite a lot of talk about how good 3.5 is and how we all should give 5e a go, we ended up going back to B/X because the wisdom there just cannot be ignored.

I pray we all apply this axiom beyond the gaming table. Pick up a classic and realize that humanity has always been human (both wise and foolish) and that we have a lot to learn from those who came before.

Saintly Saturday: St. Eusignius of Antioch

Today is the feast of St. Eusignius of Antioch. He was a soldier of the Roman Empire who served under several emperors, including the father of the St. Constantine the Great, Constantius Chorus and St. Constantine himself. He was present when St. Constantine saw the Chi Ro appear in the sky predicting his victory against his rival Maxentius. For those curious, these are the first two letters of the word Christ in Greek. All told, he served the Empire six decades as a soldier. By some accounts, this service lasted until Julian the Apostate came to power in A.D. 361 and by others he had retired to Antioch where he was denounced by a fellow citizen and therefore appeared before to the Emperor.

In both accounts St. Eusignius upbraided the Emperor, recalling Julian’s own history: Julian was the nephew of the first Christian Emperor, he had been raised within the Church and baptized, he attended school with Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian and had been a Reader of the Church he attended in Nicomedia. Eusignius recounted the image of the Chi Ro in the sky and the victory it presaged. Despite these admonitions, Julian had St. Eusignius beheaded in A.D. 361. Julian’s reign would be short. Foolishly, he went to war with the Persians and died in battle in A.D. 363.

I have got to admit, as an old grognard I really like this guy. Unfortunately, he is emblematic of the time we live in. Ever since I was a kid, I have had the Baby Boomer mantra “Don’t trust anyone over 30” forced on me (ironically, normally by people who were over 30) and it is pervasive in the culture. We cater to the young instead of listening to the wisdom of our elders. In fact, we have created an entire industry out of various retirement homes so we don’t even have to see them, let alone listen to them.

As a trained historian, I see this path fraught with danger. There is truth in the old axiom, those who don’t understand the past are doomed to repeat it. Not only have we forgotten much of our own past, we are willfully ignoring it and, in some cases, actively trying to shut down any attempt to learn that history. Cultures tried this path already in the 20th century. It ended in the death of millions.

Thus, I find in St. Eusignius a kindred spirit — an old grognard willing to stand up and remind an Emperor of what an idiot he was for ignoring the past. I also think that the OSR, in its own way, has followed in his footsteps. We have doggedly reminded the RPG world that the past is not only important to remember, but that games written 40+ years ago are still relevant and fun to play. Imagine for a moment, if WotC had listened to the Julian Apostates of world and turned its back on TSR, D&D and all that history. Imagine a world without the OGL. Without our past remembered, honored and played, we would not be living through the Golden Age of RPGs that we are living through today.

In this sense, we stand forth as icons of why the past is not only important, but why it is necessary to bring the past into the present in order to make that present better than the past. If only we could bring that message beyond our wonderful little corner of the internet.

Meditating on Realism

So I noticed a couple of sorties in what Talysman has dubbed The Realism War. It began with Noism trying to make the claim that it is absurd to try and be realistic in a fantasy game:

Fantasy gaming rests on a fiction: that you could have a society like England in 1200 AD which also has supernatural beings, magic, and active deities. That fiction, in turn, rests on the understanding that nobody thinks about it too hard.

Talysman countered:

it's not the attempt to inject realism into a game that is absurd, but the fetishism of realism and application of a scientific world-view to a fantasy game.

To a certain extent, both are correct. Fantasy worlds are just fantasy and applying our scientific world view upon a world where magic exists can be absurd. I would argue, however, that they both miss a greater point and a magnificent opportunity.

To me the fun of it all isn’t trying to explain how radically different AD 1200 England would look if dragons went around eating cattle by adjusting historic cattle/people ratios or cultural norms. For me, the fun is trying to explain how AD 1200 England and dragons can coexist without having to do all that obsessive number crunching.

Herein, our scientific world view can actually be a boon rather than a bane. What if, for example, dragons were an silicon based alien life form trapped here on earth when an ancient space ship crash landed? Their diet would not consist of carbon based life forms. They would rather be interested in crystals, minerals, gems and precious metals (thus the need for giant treasure hordes). It would also explain the whole breath weapon thing. The byproduct of breathing oxygen would be silicon dioxide — a solid. In order to easily expunge this byproduct, the dragon simply heats it up and expels it in liquid form as a breath weapon.

There, now you have an entirely plausible, entertaining and geektastic explanation for how dragons could exist in context of an otherwise historically accurate AD 1200 England without having to crunch one number. All you have to do is dash on a little science to get your fantasy even farther out of the box.

Happy Independence Day!

As someone who is very much interested in history and as someone who is very interested in examining texts, I hope you'll indulge me as I spend some time on this 4th of July doing something that I wish more would do — reading and examining the document whose signing we are celebrating today:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

This is an 18th century way of saying that you don't just start a revolution without explaining why.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Founding Fathers are setting forth their presuppositions — those things that they all see as true and fundamental. If one is honest, these truths are only self-evident from a Christian world view. God is the source of life. God is ultimately free, therefore, being made in His image and likeness we are free and have free will. True equality can only be accomplished in Christ, who shares our humanity and loves us all — despite all the obvious inequality that exists between us. The Pursuit of Happiness is probably the most misunderstood. It does not equal hedonism, rather the ability to use one's time, resources and skills to pursue a vocation that one wants. Wrapped up into this is the idea that this vocation will not only benefit the individual, but the family, the community and humanity as a whole. This has a striking resemblance to St. Paul's image of the Church as the Body of Christ.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

We get the government we deserve.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Note again that sticky word happiness — here it means to ability to affect the overall well-being of society and humanity.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

This is a passage I really find quite interesting. The Founding Fathers only did this reluctantly. They were willing to suffer evil as British citizens and would have rather remained within the confines of the British Empire — those forms which they were accustomed. It is also an admonishment to all those who would start a revolution — don't do it unless you can demonstrably prove that the evil suffered under the current government is truly insufferable.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

The word I find interesting here is duty. If government is evil — if it actively and consistently denies the image and likeness of God in its citizens — we have an obligation to make sure that the government changes.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

This begins the longest section of the Declaration of Independence where the Founding Fathers set out to prove that the British Crown has indeed committed insufferable evil. They list over 25 abuses of King George III. We always remember unfair taxation, but there are worse. For example:

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

For brevity, I won't quote them here but I encourage all to read them through.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states;that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;

This is the declarative statement. Having set out their argument that given self-evident truths and that the government of Britain has abused its citizens in the colonies, it is right and just that the U.S. declare its independence and set up its own form of government. Note the phrase "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world." This is a title given to Christ. This again demonstrates the assumed Christian world-view that is the foundation of this document.

and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.

This is an interesting historical reality that we don't appreciate in the post-Civil War era. Note that the Founding Fathers understood at this time that the Thirteen Colonies were thirteen separate states all with the independent power to declare war, etc. Prior to the Civil War we referred to ourselves as These United States, not The United States.

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Note how this statement paints a relational image of the Cross. They rely upon God through the protection of Divine Providence, indicating a vertical relationship with God. They pledge to each other — indicating a horizontal relationship with their fellow human beings. The result of this pledge was sacrifice. Many of the men who signed the Declaration did indeed give to their new country their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. They picked up their cross so that those who followed might know freedom and liberty. In other words, they lived out the words of Christ — He who willingly went to the Cross for our salvation:

If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

May we all follow.

Robin Hood: Un-American?

While I was watching TV this evening with my family, we were bombarded with images from the most recent version of the tale of Robin Hood. In turn, this reminded me of a tasty little historical tidbit that puts me at odds with the famous bandit from Sherwood Forest.

Robin Hood fought against King John. In several renditions of the story, the bandit remains loyal to King Richard, John's Brother. A quick look at history reveals that King John became king anyway, after Richard died. He then got into a political battle of wills with Rome over the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury. When John was forced to back down, his barons gathered together and forced their king to sign a little piece of paper that stated no man is above the law and became the foundation upon which the United States is built. It was the Magna Carta.

Eventually I will see the newest version of Robin Hood, but I will always be grateful to King John and part of me will root for the villain. Without him wearing the crown, I don't get to be who I am today.