Could you make a Christian-oriented RPG?

[heirodule]

Use Charles Williams

A really interesting d20 modern or other more contemporary rpg could be sone set in the "universe" of Charles William's novels. William's was a former occultist who converted and hung out in the "inklings" along with Tolkien, Lewis, Barfield, etc.

His novels could be made into sort of cthuluesque investigation adventures. Structurally they are about people confronting the divine, usualy opposed by some occultists who is also encountering the divine but negatively.

William's uses the term "a terrible good" to get at the "horrific" quality of sinful people interacting with that which is Pure and Holy (Jesus Christ, God, etc)

Novels:

Place of the Lion: Platonic forms come to life and wreak havoc in a small town in england

Descent Into Hell: folks putting on a local play confront their personal horrors, including a doppleganger

War in Heaven: a conflict over the Holy grail between a churchmen and associates and some occultists

Many Dimensions: Deals with the effects of the discovery of the mystical Stone of Solomon

PDuggie

 

[smetzger]

Should we use traditional classes for characters or should we adopt the "class" system from the Modern rules set?

How feasible is it that the Players portion of this could be released as a pdf under the OGL (not the d20 agreement) and billed as a Christian alternative to the PHB?

It all depends on how you want to treat arcane magic. If its inherently evil then you may need to make some changes; or it could be as easy as saying: "no good arcane casters, no evil divine casters, Bards cast as arcane or divine depending on their alignment".

If you make a concession to arcane magic and say that its ok, then I do not see a need for a whole new PHB. I do see a market for a setting AND adventures for the setting that has strong christian overtones.

 

[Tyrant]

It all depends on how you want to treat arcane magic.

Boy isnt that the crux of the issue! Its difficult to decide how God would feel about the use of magic as defined in D&D and other fantasy texts simply because there is no equivalent in the world in which the bible was written (ie ours).

One thing we can discuss is whether the ends justify the means. For example, if I have a talent for forgery and I use it to create a fake pass into an auction for slavery so that I can unmask the ringleaders, have I committed a sin by doing so? Are there any biblical passages to support this? I use forgery because its a skill in the original SRD and Modern SRD that has viable options in a Christian campaign but obviously comes at the price of appearing to CONDONE practicing forgery.

Furthermore, Im not sure that divine magic is limited to the Almighty God, though I would like to hear other (particularly Christian) opinions on the matter. It seems that Demons and Devils could cast Divine magic, though obviously for ill-effects. Perhaps the deliniation should be Divine and Profane, with new spell sets based on theology rather than source (though obviously there would be little if ANY overlap).
Arcane in and of itself means to be known by only a few (Obviously a misnomer in the FR! KIDDING!) so it doesnt really seem appropriate to the setting by virtue of name alone.

Thats enough rambling for now.

Eric

 

[WayneLigon]

I really don't understand this. This flies in the face of all the prophets who produced miracles .... Just because God is the ultimate source for all miracles doesn't mean that PCs in a Christian RPG have to sit around waiting for divine magic to come out of the blue. Isn't that what praying is for?

No, because the text is usually pretty careful about pointing out that God is working his will through Moses (to give a for instance). Moses, himself, does nothing. He's just a conduit.

The praying is just a request. It's the fundemental difference between the power of the Divine and the Profane: the Divine asks, the Profane tells. The Divine: Thy will be done. The Profane: My will be done.

Now, understand that the distinction I'm drawing is taken from talking with people that have a very narrow and extreme view of Christianity -- usually also a very black-white view. A thing is, or it isn't, and there is very very little wiggle-room in there; for them be able to play in an RPG, you'd have to cut out pretty much any mention of magic at all. Really, it's just not worth the trouble.

Though, it depends on the exact person you're dealing with and what bits and peices of doctrine they've chosen to incorporate into their worldview. I played for some time with a GM and players that had some pretty extreme religious views. No D&D, because all magic was evil. No super hero RPG's, because comics were evil.

We could play Traveller, though, because that was about the future, and technology, and stuff. They were fine with that. They were even cool about psionics.

He tried to add a couple more people, and they were adamant against it, since it depicted a world that existed after 2001 (this was in 1988 or so), and their pastor/preacher/whatever had taught them that there would be no world after then.

So it goes.

In other words, to answer the original Thread question: it depends on the brand and flavor of Christianity. Some will be OK with the game as written. Some will not. Some will view all RPG's, regardless of source material, as Bad.

 

[smetzger]

No, because the text is usually pretty careful about pointing out that God is working his will through Moses (to give a for instance). Moses, himself, does nothing. He's just a conduit.

There is one exception. The time Moses strikes the rock out of anger and water springs forth. God punishes him for this by not letting him enter the promised land. The only explanation I can come up with is that God still granted Moses' 'request' even though it was more of a demand, and then attached consequences to this.

 

[smetzger]

One thing we can discuss is whether the ends justify the means. For example, if I have a talent for forgery and I use it to create a fake pass into an auction for slavery so that I can unmask the ringleaders, have I committed a sin by doing so? Are there any biblical passages to support this? I use forgery because its a skill in the original SRD and Modern SRD that has viable options in a Christian campaign but obviously comes at the price of appearing to CONDONE practicing forgery.

How about Rachel hiding the Isrealite spies? She lies to the guards. I don't see any reason why this question would need to be adressed in the rules. The question would be: Does the world as presented in the Bible include a world that has the Forgery skill? Most definantly yes, therefore no need to have a rule change.

Furthermore, Im not sure that divine magic is limited to the Almighty God, though I would like to hear other (particularly Christian) opinions on the matter. It seems that Demons and Devils could cast Divine magic, though obviously for ill-effects. Perhaps the deliniation should be Divine and Profane, with new spell sets based on theology rather than source (though obviously there would be little if ANY overlap).
Arcane in and of itself means to be known by only a few (Obviously a misnomer in the FR! KIDDING!) so it doesnt really seem appropriate to the setting by virtue of name alone.

Well by the Bible the trinity is the only truely divine being. Everything else is a created being, even Satan. Calling it profane would be one way to get around this.

p.s. You will get a good discussion of all this stuff at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianrpgplayers/

 

[DM_Matt]

A note on magic:

The Bible doesn't say arcane magic doesnt work....It does...And people in the middle ages believed that it did, too. They just considered it evil.

An xtian campaign could very easily involve the good guys using divine magic and the bad guys using arcane magic.

Oh, and a note on the diatic relationship between G-D and the devil. This is a concept borrowed from Zoroastrianism (which believes in two gods, a good on and an evil one, constantly at war) that got integrated to varying degrees into Judeo-Christian thought. It is not a native tenet per se. Many sects of both put little emphasis on the devil.

Satan, as he orgionally appeared in the Bible, is the prosecuting angel. His name literally means "Accuser." For instance, the premise of the book of Job was that Satan claimed that Job was not in fact as faithful to G-d as he appeared, but rather would abandon Him as soon as the going got rough. Thus, G-D caused bad things to happen to Job to prove Satan wrong.

That is in fact how he is viewed in almost all forms of non-Kabbalistic Judaism and in a decent portion of Christianity. For instance, in the case of the "Devil's Advocate" in the Catholic Church, said individual is supposed to work on behalf of Satan to accuse potential saints of wrongdoing...this is again the prosecutorial role.

The role of tempter is an outgrowth of that. He can tempt mortals into sinning to prove that they really are not so good in the first place.

The whole root of all evil or even enemy of G-D thing was a combination of outside influences, the often diadic nature of human psychology and allegences, and various developments over time.


And about evildoers and divine magic...
In deuteronomy there was a mercenary sorceror names Balaam who derived his powers from G-D. Apparently, his powers did indeed work. However, G-D coerced him into disobeying his employer when he was hired to curse the Israelites. Thus, it seems that the standards for some of those already empowered are not THAT stringent. Then again, it could be argued that his powers and existance were due only to the fact taht his destiny was to be unable to curse the Iraelites, as a show of power by G-D to prove that sorcerors cannot harm his chosen people (altohugh they apparently can smack down everyone else).

EDIT: Acutally, I realized that the contents of the belssing that Balaam is compelled to give instead of a curse state (or perhaps establish though its divinely-derived power) that the Israelites do not (cannot?) practice sorcery, but are also immune to its effects.

 

[fusangite]

As far as I can see it, "Christian" RPGs fall into three categories:

1. Game worlds about fantasy worlds with Christian themes.
2. Game worlds set in syncretic medieval Christianity.
3. Game worlds consistent with modern Christian dogma.

Category #1, as many have noted, is amply available and easily doable, Narnia and Middle Earth being prime examples thereof.

Category #2 is also pretty doable; after all, this is the world in which the original fantasy stories like Beowulf, Sir Gawain, Parzifal, etc. were set. Medieval catholicism between the fall of Rome and the Council of Trent was much more adaptive and tolerant of sources of magic other than those emmanating from God. Even afterwards, look at the things witnesses before the Inquisition say: belief in witchcraft was a very tough thing for the church to sever from most Christians' worldviews. Alchemy, witchcraft, fantastic monsters were all part of the worldview of even the most educated medieval Christians. I don't think one could run standard 3E D&D in a medieval European world but I think a character could easily play and alchemist or an individual with an affinity with a particular saint on whom he could call. Some of the finest alchemists of medieval times were monks.

Category #3 is really the only problematic one. Why is this? Because modern Christian dogma agrees with modern scientific dogma that there is no such thing as magic. That said, I don't see mainstream church leaders out there condemning Harry Potter or LOTR anymore than mainstream scientists would.

So, essentially, I don't get what the big deal is here. Modern Christianity is as hostile to fantasy worlds as any other modern ideology is because of the modern malaise of the demystification of the world. The only difference is that because of the scriptural focus Christianity developed after the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, Christians leades, unlike other modern leaders, are left defending a set of isolated and individual miracles.

 

[Maerdwyn]

For a truly excellent game that is an example of fusangites Category 2, above, I recommend Pendragon.

It's not a specifically Christian game; it's an Arthurian game - medieval Christian virtues play a part, and someone wanting to play up those aspects of the game could easily do so. If you're just looking for a game that is not incompatible with Christianity, I would think that that's even easier to pull off with Pendragon. Beyond that, though, its just plain epic, glorious role playing.

It's been discussed more fully in, among other threads, this one:
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8208

 

[Olive]

Re: Re: Re: Re

Almost every other instance of 'magic' in LotR is really a divine being (like the Istari, who are closer to celestials than humans) exerting their will over the shaping of the world or diverting the natural flow of 'the Flame Imperishable'.

It's a subtle difference, but it IS different.

at the risk of hijacking this thread (too late!) this still IS magic... i mean if magic is the altering of reality through mystic forces, regardless of whether the practicioner is a celestial or not, and i'd argue that thats as good a definition as any, then what Celtavian said is still untrue. magic exists in ME. Right? fine...