[On topic - NO FLAMES!] God & Satan

[RangerWickett]

I try to describe my game as a different Earth, with real magic. Just like Earth, I don't try to say what is the real answer, who's right or wrong, etc. The Elves believe in a pantheon of deities, Gnomes have lots of ancestor spirits and spirits in the world, Orcs are kinda like Zoroastrians (sp?), and humans have all the same diversity we do in real life. Including Christianity. A few names have been changed, but there's still 'Judaism' and Christianity, with the same general beliefs. People can have their characters believe whatever they like, and say that only they know the truth.

When it comes to rules, though, I try not to be biased. I start off by making all the current spellcasting classes flavorful options. I have a core class called the magus, that can cast whatever spells he wants. It is practically devoid of world-specific rule information. Clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards are more quirky, but the magus is very generic.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that, if you're doing a setting with Christian beliefs, are you planning to say Christianity is the truth, or do you just want to have it be an option, modeled in game terms?

 

[MadTinkerer]

God isn't "fun"

Okay, it seems we have some differing opinions here. I am an Orthodox Presbyterian from New Jersey, so I'll give you my take on the subject:

The trouble with a Christian mythos in D&D is that it's nearly impossible to correctly "simulate" God's presence exactly according to the Bible. Since God is infinitely powerful, knows EVERY DETAIL of the past and the future, the DM would not only have to dictate the results of each die roll but be able to read player's minds! The DM would also have to be perfectly pious on top of that.

But let's assume we're not going for strict accuracy(especially where DM piety is concerned). Let's say that Clerics are like the Prophets of the Old Testament and the "Divine Spells" are the miracles. The "domains" able to be granted go as follows:

God: Air, Animal, Fire, Good, Healing, Knowledge, Law, Luck, Plant, Protection, Strength, Sun, Travel, War, Water.

Satan: None, strictly speaking. But if you want to give bad guys a little more "oomph" while not going too left feild: Trickery. Technically, Chaos and Evil cannot be granted because God is more powerful than Satan is and spells called "Magic Circle against Good" or "Dispel Good" are impossible. Note that while Satan is more powerful than all humans and all other angels and demons, God is INFINITELY powerful. While Satan technically never grants "spells" in the D&D sense, he does like people who pretend to have supernatural power for their own greedy ends.

Note that neither grants access to the Death or Magic domains. God has the power over life and death(and there is no such thing as "undeath") and the definition of Magic in D&D is completely different to magic in the Bible(see below). The Destruction domain is not directly granted, but God may use one of the "effects" to strike down evildoers at the right time.

Now according to the Bible, only those who had direct contact with God were granted the ability to perform miracles. They were usually Prophets who are granted their supernatural powers to prove that the messages they delivered were from God. Furthermore, it was rare to have more than one Prophet at a time. Priests were common, of course, but they weren't usually granted the ability to do miracles. (EDIT: Interestingly, although all Prophets were Lawful Good, alignment violation usually resulted in a deferred punishment rather than a loss of power. For example, Moses was commanded to speak to a stone instead of striking it(he was commaned earlier to strike a different stone) so that water would flow from it. Instead, Moses struck it. Water still flowed and God did not remove any of his power or approval from Moses, but instead Moses was severely rebuked and not allowed to enter the Promised Land, only to view it from a distance before he died. In another example, God promised a king(I forget who) that he would not die for twenty years, effectively making him invicible. This miracle was abused, so the king's life was ended soon after the twenty years ended.)

(EDIT: One more thing: Although God never had a Preistess serve him, there were some Prophetesses. They were extremely few in number, but they did exist. Also note that while it was extremely rare, sometimes there was more than one Prophet at the same time.)

Note that the biblical definition of magic is completely different to the D&D definition of magic. They are simply not the same thing. (The ignorant misconception that they are the same thing is what led to the trouble with B.A.D.D. (Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons) back in the 80s.) Necromancy and Sorcery in the Bible are always evil acts and never have a more powerful effect than the equivalent of a 1st level D&D spell. Divination is also usually an evil act except if God commands it(God used the casting of lots in a few miracles to show that he had power over "random" events and fate itself, but USUALLY it is inappropriate). These things are more evil than "ordinary" sin (lying, adultery, murder, idol worship) and it is very rare for those who perform such acts to repent. Contrary to common knowledge, the knowledge of how to perform such acts is not considered evil (Daniel was trained as an Astrologer), only actually performing them. (EDIT: the reason for this is that usually these actions involve calling or consulting with demons. I just thought I'd make this clear.)

(EDIT: Also note that there are no "magic" items. demons never created anything so they obviously could not imbue objects with supernatural power. God did make a lot of what in D&D terms could be considered "Artifacts": Aaron's staff that could change into a very strong and agressive snake, the Ark of the Covenant(yes, THAT Ark), Elijah(or was it Elishah?)'s robes that could part the rivers... Of course all these things could only be used to do God's will.)

Nearly all of the spellcasting classes (As defined by D&D) do not exist, though Clerics = Prophets isn't TOO big of a stretch. Wizards and Sorcerers are 1st level at best(and always evil, though they may be anything on the Ethical alignment axis) or are actually Experts(of various alignments but usually evil) who specialise in alchemy, astrology and magic tricks. Most D&D spells aren't available. On the other hand, most monsters don't exist either.

Most things outside of the animal appendix don't exist with the exception of some Beasts (some dinosaurs are in the Bible) and Vermin. Outsiders are EXTREMELY rare except in visions(angels) or posessions(demons). There are one or two instances of what could be called Elementals at a stretch, but Aberrations, Constructs, Dragons(A dragon image is used to represent Satan in some visions), Fey, Humanoids(except for humans, of course), Monstrous Humanoids, Undead, and so on do not exist. I think some Jews believe that there was something called a Golem(a Clay Golem to be precise), but I think including that would be a stretch because it doesn't appear in scripture.

Angels are always Lawful Good. Demons(Devils are the same thing) are always Chaotic Evil. Furthermore, the only real difference between them is who they work for: God or Satan. Fallen angels(demons) have similar power that those still loyal to God do, they just use their power for evil. Demons cannot harm those who have Faith in God. Demons cannot and will not repent. The Bible is vague on the limits of the power of angels and demons, but many demons have been restricted or imprisoned in some way. Beyond that, the Bible is mostly (deliberately) vague about what goes on in the supernatural realms.

That's pretty much it. See? The Biblical mythos is interesting but not nearly as much "fun" as D&D in a gaming sense.

 

[Celebrim]

Tyler: The main reason we've been able to keep this thread from devolving is that up until this point the vast majority of the posters have been those that have a great deal of respect for the Judeo-Christian narrative whether they believe in it or not. Please don't tempt some newish Christian in to preaching hell fire and brimstone to you by twisting the narrative to suit your own purpose antithetical to the tradiation. It can be assumed that anyone who wants to do that is perfectly capable of stating out 'god' however they like. If we can keep the discussion semi-orthodox and not too glib, it will help. Thanks.

Wycht: I don't want to get into a huge OT theological debate. Suffice to say that in a monotheistic religion which persumes a competant creator, you have a hard time dealing with the existance of evil - so much so that throughout history, Christians (some as respectable as St. Augustine) themselves have tried to explain it away by making Satan a god (without actually using those words). Dualism is always creeping into Christianity in one form or the other, and the Milton myth has largely replaced orthodox understanding of the problem. Certainly the Milton myth is more 'gameable', intuitive, and cinematic.

 

[Celebrim]

MT: Howdy, Bro. Yep, that's a pretty orthodox view. You don't get burned as a heretic by the Jesuits.

Ok, so maybe I'm being too glib myself, but I figure that its easier to make jokes when I know we have some common ground. If I'm offending someone, shout out and I'll apollogize. I got one (maybe two) little theological quibbles:

"These things are more evil than "ordinary" sin (lying, adultery, murder, idol worship) and it is very rare for those who perform such acts to repent."

The orthodox view is that all sins be it 'mere' indifference or be it murder are from the prespective of God equally heinous. White lies or no less sinful that any lie. One of the difference is in, as you say, the likelihood that the sinner will repent. This relates largely to the motivation for the sin (someone that thought they had a good motive is more likely to repent than someone who deliberately acted evilly), but all relates to the degree by which the particular sin damages the soul of the person performing it. I wouldn't want to claim that practicing magic in any form was necessarily worse than murder in terms of how much it damages your soul, any more than I would want to claim that murder in any form is more spiritually damaging than slander (since in fact, Jesus claimed they were spiritually the same thing). The other difference is of course the degree to which any given sin reaps a harvest of evil in this world. Repentance or not, sin carries consequences unrelated to its spirituality.

"Contrary to common knowledge, the knowledge of how to perform such acts is not considered evil (Daniel was trained as an Astrologer), only actually performing them."

I'm not actually even willing to go that far. I think that this is one of those questions that relates to the extent of your own understanding (see Romans chapter 2-6), in that if you know that God has forbid the practice of Sorcery (without getting into to specifically what was forbid which is a whole other question) then certainly practicing it is evil. But (based on the above scripture) I wouldn't want to go as far as (say) the Jesuits (again, I pick on the Catholics because I have something in common with them) and claim that all religious worship or practices of magic not ordained by 'the church' (whatever that means to you) is by necessity Satan worship and power granted through these means by necessity comes from Satan. So (getting back onto topic) it is not necessary I think in this (quite innaccurate and hopefully light hearted model) to insist that all non-Christian spell casters are Satan worshippers. Certainly some are (its kinda hard to argue otherwise for say Aztec priests and Baal and Asteroth worship), but by no means do I think that the Magi from the East who venerated the Christ were not followers of a non-Judeao-Christian tradiation and practicioners of (as they say it and for all I know) magic. Would they have been better off otherwise? Sure, but if you lack perfect knowledge (and we all do), God seems willing from what I've read to take that into account.

This is the spiritual rule I refer to as: "You are not saved by the correctness of your doctrine."

 

[Wicht]

Wycht: I don't want to get into a huge OT theological debate. Suffice to say that in a monotheistic religion which persumes a competant creator, you have a hard time dealing with the existance of evil - so much so that throughout history, Christians (some as respectable as St. Augustine) themselves have tried to explain it away by making Satan a god (without actually using those words). Dualism is always creeping into Christianity in one form or the other, and the Milton myth has largely replaced orthodox understanding of the problem. Certainly the Milton myth is more 'gameable', intuitive, and cinematic.

Thanks for the explanation, cuz as far as I knew, most of us were not at all embarassed about Monotheism.

While I agree that too many rely on Milton and try to reinterpret scriptures in light of both his work and Dante's work, as far as I know, the general consensus amongst us conservative christians is that
1) Satan is a created being
2) Satan was not created evil
3) Satan must therefore have at one point rebelled against his Creator and is therefore a freewill being.

Dualism has been suggested in one form or another for centuries I agree, but it has generally been rejected for the above explanation (at least by those of us who believe in freewill).

 

[RogueJK]

Re: God isn't "fun"

Most things outside of the animal appendix don't exist with the exception of some Beasts (some dinosaurs are in the Bible) and Vermin. Outsiders are EXTREMELY rare except in visions(angels) or posessions(demons). There are one or two instances of what could be called Elementals at a stretch, but Aberrations, Constructs, Dragons(A dragon image is used to represent Satan in some visions), Fey, Humanoids(except for humans, of course), Monstrous Humanoids, Undead, and so on do not exist. I think some Jews believe that there was something called a Golem(a Clay Golem to be precise), but I think including that would be a stretch because it doesn't appear in scripture.

What of the biblical giants? (They known by several names, such as Nephilim, Anakim, and Sons of Anak.) Would these be merely Large humans? Or would something like a Hill Giant represent them better...?

The Hebrew golem comes from the Kabbalistic book "Sefer HaYetzera", and is featured in many Jewish legends and folktales. So it probably wouldn't be included if you are striving for a strictly "Christian" campaign world.

 

[Wicht]

about those giants

What of the biblical giants? (They known by several names, such as Nephilim, Anakim, and Sons of Anak.) Would these be merely Large humans? Or would something like a Hill Giant represent them better...?

If I was doing it, I would use Hill Giant or Ogre to represent the philistine giants (all of whom seemed to have been related) and then change the physical description to human. Goliath was 9-10 feet tall and the description pictures him as all muscle. One of the giants is said to have had six fingers on each hand IIRC and thus there could be some leeway perhaps with the physical characteristics.

The Nephilim mentioned in Genesis are never fully explained and it is contested in certain circles as to what is actually meant by the verse in Genesis. One suggestion is that they were in fact giants. Another is that they were some sort of super man (half-celestial template might work) born of copulations between angels and human women. Still another theory disputes both of these previous theories and suggests the verse talks about godly men (sons of god) marrying ungodly women (daughters of men). I personally think the second theory makes for a more interesting story-line game wise.

I would suggest however if one is going to use a real world perspective from a biblical angle that one has already messed with the historical facts anyway and the use of DnD demons or even some of the monsters (gargoyles, were-wolves, etc.) could be rationalized under the heading of demon-born creatures or some such thing - in other words, make the activities of the demons a bit more blatant than mere possession.

 

[Avatar]

The Knowledge Domain

Alright a quick question, that for obvious reasons, will delve a little into the theological, although I do not wish to be the one who de-rails this thread.

But I do have this question: In all (or at least many) of the lists of God's domains, I've seen people include knowledge. So in theory, clerics would be able to cast spells from this domain.

Now I do not dispute that God has this domain. He's God, he has them all (yes even evil. He's all powerful, but he chooses not to use all of his power). But I don't think he would grant spells from this domain. After all, it was eating from the Tree of Knowledge that got Adam and Eve expelled from the Garden and endowed us all with original sin.

So if God sees eating from the Tree as a sin worthy of expulsion, wouldn't that indicate that he didn't want man to have knowledge, and thus not grant spells from this domain, just as he wouldn't grant spells from the Destruction or Evil domains, even though he clearly has access to them?

Again, not meant to start a huge debate...just a D&D question.

Alan

 

[Lothaire]

Hrm, a few things to point out.

The word "Satan" is of Persian derivation and it means prosecutor or advesary. It was the title of the prosecutor in Persian courts. In most Jewish traditions, "Satan" is not the adversary of God, but rather man. Hence "Satans" appearence in the court of God in the book of Job. God grants "Satan" permission to try Job as a proof of his loyalty. "Satan" is in all ways obediant to Gods will, never transcending the boundaries set on him. "Satan" does not appear in the Old Testament prior to the Book of Job.

However due to Milton, and other such Christian Theologians, "Satan" was assumed to be the malevolent force possesing the Serpent which caused the fall of man.

Furthermore the other gods, mentioned in the Old Testament, the Ashteroth, the Baalim, the gods of the Philistines, Hittities and other non-Hebrew peoples in the Middle East were viewed as actual gods. Early Judaisim was not Monotheistic, but rather Monotralistic. Many gods were thought to propogate the world, but there was one true god, that created everything and was all loving and all powerful. The other gods, were wicked and ill-intentioned to man. Again, that might be demons by your count, as the terminology and faith has evolved over several thousand years.

Later Christian theologians assigned various demons / fallen angels to these Old Testament false gods.

There is a precedent for allowing magic in a world grounded in Judeo-Christian doctrine. After all, the Pharohs court magicians were able to casts spells, however Moses, through the thaumaturgy gifted to him by god was able to best their magic. The Old Testament never refers to any of the rivals of God being able to grant miracles, although prayers were directed to them. However it never states that such never happened, so its a judgement call on your behalf. But in the New Testament the Pharisees declared that Jesus had the power to cast out demons through power granted to him by Baalzebub, a demon / fallen angel / malevolent god of the old testament. So there is justification for giving evil gods the power to grant spells.

Going back to the Nepilum, the sons of the gods, referenced as giants in Genesis. They are read by some bibilical scholars as the progeny of the rival gods to Jehovah. While other Scholars read this line to mean that members of the angelic host mingled with men and procreated.

This is getting kind of long so I'm going to post this and start another reply.

 

[Wicht]

Re: The Knowledge Domain

Now I do not dispute that God has this domain. He's God, he has them all (yes even evil. He's all powerful, but he chooses not to use all of his power). But I don't think he would grant spells from this domain. After all, it was eating from the Tree of Knowledge that got Adam and Eve expelled from the Garden and endowed us all with original sin.

Actually it was the possibility of eating from the tree of life after having eaten from the tree of knowledge that got them removed - read it again.

But to speak to your actual question, the knowledge they gained from the tree seems to have been of a specific type that God did not want them to have (my suggestion would be it was a first hand knowledge of sin). However, in all other regards the Scriptures speak very highly of the value of knowledge in general and in fact if one does a concordance search of the Bible using the words know/knowledge and compare this to a search for feel/feelings, one will find that the text of the Bible is very much in favor of people being informed and making rational decisions versus doing something just because it feels right.

Furthermore, the actual job of the prophet in the Old Testament was generally to impart knowledge gained by Revelation or Visions directly to the people, especially in regard to the future outcome of current choices (good and bad). This ties in well with the knowledge domain.

(Oh and while I am at it, I wanted to take issue with a previous statement about there generally being only 1 prophet at a time. This is not actually true. At certain times there were some prophets more prominant than others but there were generally more than 1 prophet active. Jonah and Amos for example were contemporaries as were Daniel and Ezekiel. Micah, Hosea and Isaiah all seemed to be at work more or less at the same time as was Jeremiah. Moses was a prophet, but his sister Miriam was also a prophetess. In fact, during the decline of the kingdom of Israel, the prophet Elijah is generally accredited with starting schools for prophets. The students of these schools were known collectively as the Sons of the Prophets and there are numerous references to these men throughout the books of 2 Kings. Amos even at one point explains to his listeners that he did not begin his career as a prophet or a Son of the prophets, but was called from a career as a shepherd to do something he was untrained for. Whether or not all of the Sons of the Prophets were considered inspired men is debatable but they did recieve training as preachers.)