Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Defiler wrote:

One of the regulars where I play/played was a Minister.

He played Necrons. With Church Lady Bonnets modeled on them.

I would love to see pictures of those!

Lots of reasonable discussion in this thread, actually. Nice surprise.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@generalgrog: Who's Duet? As a book from the bible I can't say I've ever heard of it.

EF, that’s a standard abbreviation for Deuteronomy. You’ll see them frequently when people are citing Biblical chapters.

Frazzled wrote:No he's directly on point. Its nonsensical to equate playing toy soldiers/D&D etc. or aspects of it with anything else in real life.

Exactly, which is why it's ridiculous to avoid playing with toy soldiers, because said toy soldiers are furnished with psychic powers as part of the rules/fluff. Space Marines shoot people - playing them is not tacit to condoning the shooting of other people (at least, not in EVERY case... ), just as playing Chaos Daemons is not tacit to condoning attempts to summon demons in the real world. So why be hung up on it? If the game was based on Christian mythology (like KULT for example (IIRC)), then I could understand it - that would be blasphemy, I guess. Not something I personally have a problem with, but I can understand why religious people might.

Frazzled wrote:Bercause dickheads who make fun of them abound on the internet?

So now your just flat-out insulting other posters? That's pretty tacky, man.

WvLopp wrote:Dronze, the point of the post was that christians do play various games.

Your not going to convince that guy, no matter what you say. So I recomend just not to try. He seems to be the type of person that is just as bad as the religious zealot that the OP was refering to. People tend to hate about others, what they hate about themselves. There are people out there that cannot see "grey areas" in any thing. Evrything is black and white to them. I have learned to avoid dealing with these types of people.


GG

Kilkrazy wrote:All I can say is Thank God there isn't any sex in 40K or we would be in a real mess.

maybe thats the REAL reason why Dark Eldar havent gotten a revamp...

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No he's directly on point. Its nonsensical to equate playing toy soldiers/D&D etc. or aspects of it with anything else in real life.

Exactly, which is why it's ridiculous to avoid playing with toy soldiers, because said toy soldiers are furnished with psychic powers as part of the rules/fluff. Space Marines shoot people - playing them is not tacit to condoning the shooting of other people (at least, not in EVERY case... ), just as playing Chaos Daemons is not tacit to condoning attempts to summon demons in the real world. So why be hung up on it? If the game was based on Christian mythology (like KULT for example (IIRC)), then I could understand it - that would be blasphemy, I guess. Not something I personally have a problem with, but I can understand why religious people might.

No the poster was denoting not playing with spellcasters as in some way condoning war crimes and a whole slew of other nonsense and rantus nuttus. Equating ANYTHING relaterd to toy soldiers does not equate to real life in this context. The whole relationship is stupid. If they don't want to play with magic users thats their call-who cares?

Frazzled wrote:Bercause dickheads who make fun of them abound on the internet?

So now your just flat-out insulting other posters? That's pretty tacky, man.

You americans are so funny, sometimes i really wonder if you all are bat gak crazy. (mostly when reading threads like this)

Bla_Ze wrote:

You americans are so funny, sometimes i really wonder if you all are bat gak crazy. (mostly when reading threads like this)

I could get offended at that, but I see your cute animal and raise you an Anger Wienie!

Yes, we are all crazy. Which is why you should never mess with america and also why no one has tried to invade america, except for the british they may be crazier just because of that.

This is an interesting discussion. The regulars of our gaming group is made up of church-goers. We have Baptists, Catholics, Assemblies of God and a Mormon. We all grew up watching Star Wars, playing D&D and reading The Lord of the Rings (as well as our Bibles). We're able to discuss life, love and service while my Sisters Repentia are carving up my buddy's Daemonettes and not feel tainted by it. Were I ever to be confronted by a well-meaning crusader claiming my hobby is evil, I'd ask them what they thought of Monopoly. After all, the Bible teaches that the love of money is the root of all evil... What's the goal in Monopoly again?

Which monopoly are you playing?

But yes, a lot of church people play warhammer. I was dropping off some donations of canned food to our church and our "priest-in-training" cam to help unload the car and saw my IG codex in the back seat. He then told me that Eldar were better.

halonachos wrote:Yes, we are all crazy. Which is why you should never mess with america and also why no one has tried to invade america, except for the british they may be crazier just because of that.

and Mexican bandits. Don't forget them.

halonachos wrote:Yes, we are all crazy. Which is why you should never mess with america and also why no one has tried to invade america, except for the british they may be crazier just because of that.

What do you expect? We have the Scottish, who are famous brawlers, the Irish, who are famous drinkers, and the English, who are famous for being complete and utter bastards. Oh and, the Welsh. Could any union with all of us in be anything other than bat gak crazy?

We sent a guy to the moon just to play golf. no you cant.

Ketara wrote:

halonachos wrote:Yes, we are all crazy. Which is why you should never mess with america and also why no one has tried to invade america, except for the british they may be crazier just because of that.

What do you expect? We have the Scottish, who are famous brawlers, the Irish, who are famous drinkers, and the English, who are famous for being complete and utter bastards. Oh and, the Welsh. Could any union with all of us in be anything other than bat gak crazy?

It's called immigration, we have a lots of Irish, Scots, English, and even breeds incorporating several of those all in one person.

I'm not too sure having a scottish great grandfather makes you scottish. I know a lot of scottish people get hacked off when americans come over and start wearing kilts and pretending to be scottish.

Sure. And I know Scottish people who get hacked off by the idea that a kilt is a symbol of Scotland, as opposed to a traditional highland garment, which lowlanders adopted only in the romantic revival of the 19th century. People get hacked off by all kinds of stuff. Resenting someone who loves and identifies with your country, despite only having an ancestral connection, seems a bit harsh and lacking in generosity.

Dronze wrote:
But it's NOT magic, is the whole point. It's merely a game mechanic, which brings us, once again, to the issue of being able to tell fiction and fantasy from reality.

What is magic, in a real-world setting? In order to be explicitly certain that what is being performed is not a thing, you must first know what the thing in question is, and how it behaves.

Dronze wrote:
If they want to avoid anything associated with magic, then why are they choosing to play the game to begin with?

Competing desires. There's no explicit requirement for desire to be governed by logic. Indeed, its almost antithetical for it to be so controlled.

Dronze wrote:
It is an integral part of the game., and even beyond that point, they would, by their own beliefs and moral standards, then have to avoid playing a game with anyone else who did use this particular mechanic, as it would be allowing themselves to be influenced by their opponent's witchcraft.

Not necessarily. There was no stipulation made with respect to the effects of proximity, or indirect contact. All we know is that the player is morally uncomfortable with the idea of simulating magic, there are any number of paths by which that position can be reached. You described one, I've described between 3 and 4; depending on how certain premises are applied.

Dronze wrote:
No matter how one slices it, there is still no reasonable justification for trying to bring one's morals into the logical aspects of a hobby game.

There doesn't have to be, and that hasn't been the purpose of this debate.

Wait, so Dogma, you're saying I can't really summon daemons with my mind?


But the book told me I could!

mattyboy22 wrote:You should have started chanting weird stuff, pointing at him, and rolling dice.

Or screamed "BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD"!!!

kronk wrote:

Defiler wrote:

One of the regulars where I play/played was a Minister.

He played Necrons. With Church Lady Bonnets modeled on them.

I would love to see pictures of those!

If I ever go back there for a game, and find him I'll snap some pictures with my phone.

As for the rest of this thread, ick. I'm not getting involved any further.

Mannahnin wrote: Resenting someone who loves and identifies with your country, despite only having an ancestral connection, seems a bit harsh and lacking in generosity.

That's pretty much the textbook definition of being Scottish as it happens.

I would like a kilt. I have looked into it fairly seriously.

They are pretty cool. They're an ancient Irish garment too, but given that I am only Irish via my maternal grandfather (who was actually born in Brooklyn), I will no doubt prompt resentment if I make too big a show of Irish pride and connexion.

Apparently kilts go down a storm in Japan and everyone won't keep asking if you really are Scottish.

("Is anything worn underneath?"

I can assure you madam, it is in perfect working order.)

Interesting thread. Kudos to dakkaites for keeping it so civil.

As a very orthodox christian (orthodox theology, not Orthodox Church specifically) myself I've heard all the arguments against role-playing, wargames, etc and I'm still into the hobby. From a Christian perspective, there is of a danger that someone might get so "into" their 40k hobby that it interferes with their spiritual life, but that same danger exists with anything from video games to sports, to motorcycles, to golf to any activity that someone idolizes to the detriment of their spiritual life.

Some christians are primed to find offense wherever they look. This is only exacerbated in those who already exist in a sub-culture that is as separate as possible from the world around them. There are many biblical arguments for why such separatism, and reactionism is theologically unsound, but that's a whole other can-o-worms.

I converted/painted figures and played a few games of 40k at Moody Bible Institute, and my friend ran long term D&D campaigns at Gordon Conwell Seminary. Suffice to say, even spiritually conservative folks like us know that they guy the OP is describing is way off base.

generalgrog wrote:

WvLopp wrote:Dronze, the point of the post was that christians do play various games.

Your not going to convince that guy, no matter what you say. So I recomend just not to try. He seems to be the type of person that is just as bad as the religious zealot that the OP was refering to. People tend to hate about others, what they hate about themselves. There are people out there that cannot see "grey areas" in any thing. Evrything is black and white to them. I have learned to avoid dealing these types of people.

GG

I argue a very specific point, with a very specific conditionals with a very specific outcome, and magically, I'm saying "NO! XTIANS SHOULDN'T PLAY 40K! HURR!".

My whole point, this entire time, has been quite simple: IF one cannot separate your sense of MORALITY from the GAME one are choosing to play, and the REALITY in which one lives, then one has no business playing the game to begin with. IF one feels the need to apply the scope of one's MORALITY to a GAME within SPECIFIC contexts, and not in others, that means one is, in this respect, a HYPOCRITE. IF one feels the need to apply the scope of one's MORALITY to a GAME within a GENERAL context, and only the witchraft thing is an issue to them, they are some kind of MONSTER or SOCIOPATH.

In all of these scenarios, the inability to differentiate what is real and what is fiction, or being unwilling to differentiate between the two, suggests that they REALLY NEED TO BE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT HOBBY, as they need some kind of professional help.

dogma wrote:

Dronze wrote:
It is an integral part of the game., and even beyond that point, they would, by their own beliefs and moral standards, then have to avoid playing a game with anyone else who did use this particular mechanic, as it would be allowing themselves to be influenced by their opponent's witchcraft.

Not necessarily. There was no stipulation made with respect to the effects of proximity, or indirect contact. All we know is that the player is morally uncomfortable with the idea of simulating magic, there are any number of paths by which that position can be reached. You described one, I've described between 3 and 4; depending on how certain premises are applied.

And ultimately, my agument doesn't depend on any of the paths described, but rather that the subject feels the need to apply their sense of morality to ANY part of the game to begin with, thus indicating an inability, at some level, to divorce reality from fantasy.

Dronze wrote:
And ultimately, my agument doesn't depend on any of the paths described, but rather that the subject feels the need to apply their sense of morality to ANY part of the game to begin with, thus indicating an inability, at some level, to divorce reality from fantasy.

You're argument, at least initially, was not intended to express an inability to divorce reality from fantasy. Your argument was intended, as I understood it, to support the notion that someone who was averse to the manipulation of simulations of witchcraft must be complacent with respect to concepts like genocide. My counter argument, presented through the existence of possible alternatives, was meant to address the fact that such a condition need not follow from the premises you outlined.

Similarly, a general aversion to a certain sort of thing need not indicate an inability to divorce fantasy from reality. Its perfectly feasible for someone to be uncomfortable with both the real manifestation of a thing, and the fictitious representation of that thing while still being able to differentiate between the two. My ex-girlfriend was terrified of blood, and while she knew that bloody scenes in movies were dramatized, she still had no desire to watch them, and became visibly uncomfortable when doing so. That isn't irrational, its simply an alternate valuation which she approached rationally by avoiding bloody movies due to the unpleasant sensation they caused her.

Dronze wrote:IF one feels the need to apply the scope of one's MORALITY to a GAME within SPECIFIC contexts, and not in others, that means one is, in this respect, a HYPOCRITE.

Again, this isn't a necessary antecedent to the premises you've outlined. Witchcraft being a thing without a tangibly evident example allows it to be regarded as distinct from genocide. There's also the fact about specific biblical prohibitions which serve to alter the landscape of reasonable consideration.

Dogma wrote:Witchcraft being a thing without a tangibly evident example allows it to be regarded as distinct from genocide.

Weeeeell... not strictly speaking. Witchcraft is something which is practiced by many people in different parts of the world - it also depends on your definition of the word. Various 'primitive' (I use the term advisedly...) religions/cults engage in practices which could be considered 'witchcraft' by some christians. Sorry to nit-pick.

But the ACTUAL summoning/existence of Demons? Yeah, fair enough - not demonstrable.

dogma wrote:

Dronze wrote:IF one feels the need to apply the scope of one's MORALITY to a GAME within SPECIFIC contexts, and not in others, that means one is, in this respect, a HYPOCRITE.

Again, this isn't a necessary antecedent to the premises you've outlined. Witchcraft being a thing without a tangibly evident example allows it to be regarded as distinct from genocide. There's also the fact about specific biblical prohibitions which serve to alter the landscape of reasonable consideration.

So, it's been a while since i last checked, but "Thou Shalt Not Kill" has been removed from the bible?

I'd say that's a pretty solid prohibition, clearly worded, no real exceptions given as such. If we're going by the issue of the simulation of whichcraft versus the simulation of racial cleansing, I'd say Genocide, defined as the "systematic killing of a racial or cultural group" certainly qualifies, wouldn't you?