D&D General The Satanic Panic never really died?

[FrogReaver]

When you are taught that you can implore in a poetically phrased fashion while clasping your hands in an appropriate gesture to achieve miraculous supernatural intervention in your everyday life. You may be right the entirety of the game may well freak you out. Even if they include no incantations or gestures.

Though Ars Magica kind of had gestures.

You shouldn't belittle other's beliefs.

 

[MGibster]

Michelle Remembers had nothing at all to do with RPGing. It was (later proven to be) a work of almost complete fiction.

Michelle Remembers was fairly important in getting the ball rolling on the whole Satanic panic think in the 1980s. The book firmly planted the idea in the minds of many people that a vast conspiracy of Satanist abusing children existed. Without Michelle Remembers we probably wouldn't have so many stories about people being bothered about Dungeons & Dragons because they believed it led to Satanism.

 

[Garthanos]

You shouldn't belittle other's beliefs.

Its straightforward descriptive of a subset of recent beliefs that correspond to elements directly in the game. What is belittling?

 

[Yaarel]

You shouldn't belittle other's beliefs.

Coming from @Garthanos, I suspect, he was heightening the description for effect but without any intention of insult.

 

[FrogReaver]

Coming from @Garthanos, I suspect, he was heightening the description for effect but without any intention of insult.

Yet it was insulting.

 

[Yaarel]

Its straightforward descriptive of a subset of recent beliefs that correspond to elements directly in the game. What is belittling?

I nailed it!

 

[Yaarel]

Yet it was insulting.

I think it is ironic, but can be positive.

Spirituality is something that humans can do instinctively and simply.

 

[Eric V]

You are weirdly but intentionally discounting all of the original demons Wizards have created not based on current religious beliefs. This is the very definition of cherry picking and intentionally skews into bias. In fact Paizo has more demons based on current religious beliefs than Wizards does.
Come on now.

Let me help.

The idea being presented is that, for someone of a particular worldview, the use of "real demons" (through their names) in the game their child is engaged with would be problematic/concerning.

It is a choice by WotC to use those names. Lots of people appreciate that choice! That there are other names they come up with, though, is irrelevant to the concern outlined above.

There are other companies who, while still having supernatural entities, do NOT use "real demon names," and would therefore not present the same concern.

If you want to say Paizo contributes to the 'Satanic Panic' that's fine. More for the mother to be concerned with. Paizo doesn't have to use "real demon" names either.

It would be bizarre to say to the mother in question "I know you're concerned about the presence of Baalzebul and Asmodeus, but don't worry, they also have stuff like Yeenoghu."

Maybe you're just one of those guys that jumps in at perceived slights to WotC or something, but that's not what this was; it was an attempt to understand a fairly different worldview.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Based on what you say next, I think, maybe, you meant, "no, but I'm going to change the subject".

EDIT: Oh, wait, I think I missed something about what you said.



Yes, as I noted in my response to @Ovinomancer, that is an interesting, but different discussion. I accept that the assertion you made is a religious assertion (or could be, which is good enough).

But the distinction is important, as demonstrated by @Morrus' post about his personal experience. In that instance the answer to the factual question was, apparently, decisive. In other instances, perhaps the family in the OP, perhaps not, the objection may not distinguish between actual occult practices and pretending. However, I still think it is critical to the discussion to be clear which kind of assertion one is addressing.

More EDIT: Your second assertion (bolded) is definitely (to me) a religious assertion because 'sin' is defined by religion. Your first assertion (underlined) is quite interesting because you might consider it equivalent to "Playing D&D increases the likelihood of becoming wiccan." However, I intended that assertion as something that was testable, in a statistical sense. But I can see that if you thought it meant the same thing as your first assertion, then you weren't changing the subject. Sorry.

Yep, also of note, for some religious folk, actively imagining doing something in a way that includes a desire to do it or a wish that you could do it is morally the same as actually doing it.

So, in that sense, there is no distinction unless you can show the person that it’s not that serious. A lot of such folks aren’t at the extreme on this, they just believe this in a sort of passive way. When shown that dnd is harmless, they relent.

Others, it doesn’t matter. Playing a game that features devils but isn’t a game about being warriors for [their faith\god], is a sin. Full stop.

 

[Bohandas]

How original, an atheist calling religious calling religious folks delusional.

No single faith accounts for more than 50% of the world population, therefore even if one of them is right the majority of believers are wrong, and thus we would still expect rejecting your religion to be correlated with being able to accurately judge what is real as most people would be born into a religion a religion other than the correct one