A druids oath

[Ranger REG]

fides quaerens intellectum "Faith seeking understanding"; credo ut intelligam: "I believe in order that I may understand." Many philosophers and I would disagree with your statement Ranger REG. Faith does begin where logic must end. Some things can not be known, and for that, faith exists. We all have faith, wheather regarding religion or not. (Do you believe you have the ability to reason?- you must believe it, therefore you have faith) Logic will tell us if it can be true. A belief, faith, or system that does not follow reason/is self-contradictory can not be true (violation of the law of non-contradiction identifies any such "thing" or idea as not true), and belieif in such a thing is faith misplaced. There are many things that Can be true (logically), but can not be known in certainty to be true, and so we place faith in them. (I would recomend reading of Aquinas or Pascal, or more recently Kreeft or Tacelli for more on this.)
For a druids belief system, the weapon restrictions as presented do seem a bit inconsistant, but could be explained, with reason (as was done at the start of this thread [by the way, good job Ferret, but as we see, there are still a few things there that would need altered or better explained]) as to why they existed in such a manner.
And I must agree that we need to see some revision to the Druid weapon restiriction list and some more logically consistant explinations as to why those restrictions exist as they do.

fides quaerens intellectum; credo ut intelligam
-Daedrova

Without getting too philosophical or drawing on other religions' religious practices (like the oath of chastity and celibacy that Catholic priests and nuns take, even though we go to them for marriage counseling as one of two options, the other being professional and secular), it still goes to show that logic and belief are as different as night and day, they seem to follow one after the other.

It would be far more easier to bring the moon and the sun together than to have logic and faith intertwined.

 

[Daedrova]

Without getting too philosophical or drawing on other religions' religious practices (like the oath of chastity and celibacy that Catholic priests and nuns take, even though we go to them for marriage counseling as one of two options, the other being professional and secular), it still goes to show that logic and belief are as different as night and day, they seem to follow one after the other.

It would be far more easier to bring the moon and the sun together than to have logic and faith intertwined.

Perhaps you could clarify above... It seems that your are saying you do not want to draw on religions' practices, but it seems as though the parenthetical insert is making an example of one (a religion), though I do not see the relevance if it is doing so. I do not mean to be insulting in any way, but the statements above do not seem to support any argument, rather just reiterate the fact that you do not believe that logic and faith should be intertwined.

For more than just the sake of argument, I am unclear as to what you mean by that statement since I don’t actually see any argument to what was said in my post.
The fact that logic and faith are as different as "night and day" is true, in fact inherent in their very ideas. It is impossible to argue against the fact, and I indeed embrace the concepts as such. However, as pertaining to their roles IN a religious or belief structure...

Every belief system has structure and consistency, it must have these things to be believed. Both of these (structure and consistency) are fundamental in the workings of logic, and exist necessarily within that very system to be a system at all. Order and reason: both of these very ideas stem from the roots of what logic is. Perhaps not so ironically, on the other side of that proverbial coin, philosophy or religion attempt to explain WHY or HOW that order, or our reason, exists.
They not only DO intertwine in their very concepts, but MUST to even exist at all.

(premise) Logic is necessary for religion to have or to be a system.
( _{premise) since logic itself defines and gives structure to that idea of "system".
conclusion: Faith and logic do "intertwine" (and) or are each necessary for the other.}

 

[haiiro]

I swear to only use the club as a weapon as it is the root of the trees power, the dagger so I may skin my kill, and not waste it.

I shall not use the scythe, but instead the sickle, so my harvest shall not be too large, and wasted.

I know things have drifted away from the oath itself, but I just wanted to say that I think both of these bits are great. The whole oath is pretty good (though a little awkward towards the end), but these two lines really stand out. Neat.

 

[Mark Chance]

It would be far more easier to bring the moon and the sun together than to have logic and faith intertwined.

That should be the other way around. Anyone who has seriously studied systematic religion can easily recognize the widespread use of rhetorical and formal logic. Faith and reason, properly understood, are not contradictory.

First, let's clarify some definitions so that we will know what is meant by "faith" and by "reason." Faith is an act, and all acts have an object. The object of faith means all the things believed. These objects of faith are expressed in propositions, such as "XYZ is Lord." Propositions are not expressions of the act of believing, but are the content of what is believed. Even still, these propositions are not the ultimate object of faith, but only the proximate ones. The ultimate object of faith is not words. The propositions are the structure or map of faith.

The act of faith is more than mere belief. We believe many things, but are not willing to die for them. For example, I believe baseball is boring, but put a gun to my head and I'll change my mind. Religious faith, OTOH, is both something to live every moment for as well as to die for if that time comes. Full-blown faith includes, in increasing order of importance, hope, trust, belief in propositions as described above, and a commitment to act in accordance with faith's propositions.

Now to reason, which also is an act that has an object. The object is all that reason can know. It includes things that can be understood by reason alone, discovered by human reason to be true, and proved logically without reference to the propositions of faith. It may or may not work in conjunction with faith, just as faith may or may work in conjunction with reason. Consider the following examples:

By reason alone, man can understand what a star is made of, discover that Pluto exists, and prove the Pythagorean theorem.

By reason and faith, man can understand why the universe is so well-ordered, discover the historical existence of Jesus, and demonstrate that the soul does not die.

By faith alone, man can understand God's plan to save us, discover how much God loves us, and prove that God is a Trinity. (NB: I apologize for the specifically Christian examples. Specific doctrines from any religion would suffice, but I stick with what I know best.)

The act of reason includes all the subjective, personal acts of the mind by which we understand, discover, or prove any truth. The three acts of the minds are classically called simple apprehension, judgment, and reasoning. It is important to remember at all times that, just as acts of faith can be flawed or fail, so can acts of reason. I can fail to act has God wills, and I can fail to correctly judge the evidence of a reasoned argument.

Now, let's consider the relationship between faith and reason. There are five possibilities, in which faith is F and reason is R. These possibilities are:

1. All that is known by F is also known by R, but not all that is known by R is known by F. F is thus a subclass of R.

2. All that is known by R is also known by F, but not all that is known by F is known by R. R is thus a subclass of F.

3. All that is known by R is known by F and vice versa. F and R are interchangeable.

4. Nothing known by R is known by F and vice versa. F and R are mutually exclusive.

5. Some but not all things known by F are known by R, and some but not all things known by R are known by F. F and R partly overlap.

It is number 5 that is the accurate expression of the relationship between faith and reason. Number 5 distinguishes between three kinds of truth: truths of faith and not of reason, truths of both faith and reason (such as the existence of a god), and truths of reason and not of faith (such as mathematics).

Now, just so that all of this is game related, apply the principles to the druid's oath.

Some weapons are permitted because they simulate an animal's natural attacks: Reason and faith together.

Some weapons, even though they simulate an animal's natural attack, are prohibited. The question isn't why is this illogical, but instead is how does the prohibition relate to the internal consistency (reason and faith together) of the druid's oath? No one has addressed this question.

 

[kenjib]

Cool oath, but I too think the druid's weapon restrictions suck. They should be allowed to use a bow, no one hunts with a sling.

...anymore. Slings were very powerful and accurate in their day. They were often held in higher regard than bows were. They did require lots of training to learn to use effectively though.

Slings were a weapon of the lower class. As such, I think it fits (more than the bow) with the sickle and spear. The sling is humble but still to be feared, as such it is a source of empowerment for farmers and shepards - the kinds of people that a druid would serve spiritually.

 

[Ranger REG]

Some weapons, even though they simulate an animal's natural attack, are prohibited. The question isn't why is this illogical, but instead is how does the prohibition relate to the internal consistency (reason and faith together) of the druid's oath? No one has addressed this question.

Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Mark Chance]

Your guess is as good as mine.

Exactly. That's what needs to be done: Someone needs to make a guess. Well, not just someone, but, say, me as GM for my campaign. I'm a reasonably bright fellow. I could come up with an internally-consistent rationale for why druids can use some weapons but not others.

I often see people come up with the first half (why druids can use some weapons) but never really have seen anyone seriously address the second half (why druids can't use others).

 

[kenjib]

Perhaps it's not natural or non-metal weapons, but rather peasant weapons -- club, dagger, dart, halfspear, longspear, quarterstaff, scimitar, sickle, shortspear, sling, padded, leather, or hide armor.

Metal vs. non-metal is a pretty easy distinction for peasant armor too. It all seems to fit that pattern and, like I said in the last post, a druid's followers would likely be people that live a rural life -- foresters, hunters, trappers, farmers, shepards -- all peasants. The druid, thus, uses weapons that show humility and affinity for the people with which he relates. As the cleric is focused on the middle and upper class (requiring tithes to keep church structure running), the druid is for the lower classes.