D&D?

DV- Not the sorts people adhere to today, they're more about making a statement and reacting to empiricism then the search for truth and explanations that most scholars attribute to early religions. Paganism is a general term rather then a specific faith, and it's adherents have little in common with each other except that they adhere to some nonstandard (generally animistic) religious beliefs.

On D&D- Like any artistic construct (theater, books, video games, etc.) it is mostly subjective, and subjectivity is something some Christians have a lot of trouble with. I think that playing D&D is no different then writing a story or acting in improvisational theater. A person crafts a character and then uses it to explore a world. I understand that some people would be uncomfortable with the idea of playing an evil character, but it is no different then writing a story which includes an evil character. Acting isn't a sin, is it?

My favorite D&D supplement is called the "Book of Exalted Deeds", and it outlines particular special information regarding good characters. It provides the stats and information a player/DM would need to have a character take vows of poverty, purity, chastity, nonviolence, give tithes and offerings etc.

In the intro to this book it explains that "[this book is about] being an agent of good . . . following a higher call then the lure of gold and experience points, wrestling with tougher choices than which monster to kill first or what magic item to buy with newfound loot, and doing the kinds of heroic deeds that make a difference in the game world. . . This book carries a warning [that it is for mature audiences] because we're relying on you to deal with your own reactions to this material in a mature manner: use what you like, adapt what doesn't fit, and simply ignore what you don't like. We've tried to present the material with sensitivity and appropriate gravity, and we trust you to use it the same way."

A few more choice quotes from the "Book of Exalted Deeds":
"there is no sin so great that it cannot be forgiven. However . . . forgiveness is predicated upon repentance."
"[The idea that an evil deed is an acceptable means to achieve a good end is] ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character's soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. . . What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil's favor. . . Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a consession to evil, and thus unconscionable."
"Violence is a part of the D&D world, and not inherently evil in the context of that world. . . [but] there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe." (1. Must have a just cause. 2. Must be driven by good intentions. 3. Violence must discriminate, it "cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants" 4. No evil spells, ever. 5. No torture, ever.)

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in playing a good character in a D&D campaign, it's chock full of nice tips and suggestions regarding how to make it a fun experience for everyone involved. And fun is the ultimate purpose of any D&D experience, it's a social activity that friends engage in for their own enjoyment.
 
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in playing a good character in a D&D campaign, it's chock full of nice tips and suggestions regarding how to make it a fun experience for everyone involved. And fun is the ultimate purpose of any D&D experience, it's a social activity that friends engage in for their own enjoyment.

Great suggestion, I've never heard an endorsement of that book until now and I'll definitely have to look into it. Nice synopsis of D&D as well - I agree wholeheartedly that D&D is all about socializing and having fun. The game mechanics, setting, heck even the element of 'magic', are all just tools to be used by the players for their own enjoyment. They provide some basic parameters, but they're completely flexible too. For instance, I know people who play D&D without ever throwing a D20. Its all about the players, what they enjoy and what works for them.

Paul
 
Touche! But Christianity at least has a unified origin (Jesus) and sourcebook (the Bible). While you can argue that their views/interpretations of these things isn't standardized that isn't the same as not having them at all.
 
I struggled with this very question growing up. My parents forbid me from D&D roleplaying and even though I later tried it and enjoyed it, I still completely understand their reasoning. When you really get into the roleplaying of D&D you begin to open yourself up to spiritual activity. What I'm saying is, in a game that specifically asks you to immerse yourself in it, there is a ton of occultic and magical content that can serve as a gateway for demonic spirits.

Now, I never experienced this, but I also did not take the game too seriously. I played with friends while drinking beer, eating pizza and watching football so our roleplaying wasn't as in-depth as some do. There is a very real spiritual war going on and opening yourself up to it without being strong in your walk with the Lord could be very dangerous. Likewise, it could also detract from your walk, and if that happened it would be time to step away.

I hope this helps in some way. No one here can tell you to play or not to play, but rather can only offer our own experiences. Who you play with and how seriously you take the game are the two biggest factors (IMO) you should consider... of course, only after you've come to the conclusion that you will not allow your faith and convictions to be shaken.

Good luck!
 
Touche! But Christianity at least has a unified origin (Jesus) and sourcebook (the Bible). While you can argue that their views/interpretations of these things isn't standardized that isn't the same as not having them at all.

You're right...which is why it only makes it WORSE.

Pagans have a reason for not believing in same things, Christians, however, can not say the same. If Christians have a unified origin, ONE God, ONE Bible, how then, can there be so many wildly different views and interpretations?

Oh well. A discussion for another time and forum.
 
You're right...which is why it only makes it WORSE.

Pagans have a reason for not believing in same things, Christians, however, can not say the same. If Christians have a unified origin, ONE God, ONE Bible, how then, can there be so many wildly different views and interpretations?

Oh well. A discussion for another time and forum.

Yea, probably better suited for another time and forum, so I'm sure you won't be compelled to rebuff any of what I'm about to say.. :D

To put it briefly, Christianity simply doesn't dissolve when there are different views and interpretations, because it isn't a 'gnostic' religion. In other words, it doesn't require and isn't based on having the 'right' knowledge, but rather on doing the right thing with knowledge we're given. You may very well condemn it for having different views, as do some Christians. But lock-step unity on all matters would not, in my opinion, be a better alternative to this diversity. The fact is, a Coptic Christian from Egypt and a Southern Baptist from Georgia can both stand in front of the communion table together and acknowledge that the body of Christ was broken, and his blood spilled for the sins of the entire human race - which shows the unity of our brotherhood through our universal faith in Christ as Savior and Lord.

Paul
 
YOUR opinion...what about God's? The Bible is pretty clear that God DEMANDS lock-step unity.

Not true whatsoever. The apostle Paul is VERY clear that people are allowed to have different convictions in Romans 14:1-4 (bold emphasis mine)--

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

The Lord demands that we not judge others based on their convictions on "disputable matters", not that we agree on everything. It's OK to agree to disagree, but we must maintain fellowship in Christ. The Catholics and Protestants who fought (and in some cases, continue to fight) are ignoring this passage of Scripture.
 
Who determines what a "disputable matter" is? Some Christians believe in the Trinity and some don't.

Exactly why are there such things anyway? How can you get "disputable matter" from one God and one book?

Those verses you posted hold sound advice...if only everyone followed them. That still brings us back to the beginning. There ARE differences and they DO affect Christians. Christians judge others, have judged others, and will judge others.
 
Who determines what a "disputable matter" is? Some Christians believe in the Trinity and some don't.

Exactly why are there such things anyway? How can you get "disputable matter" from one God and one book?

Those verses you posted hold sound advice...if only everyone followed them. That still brings us back to the beginning. There ARE differences and they DO affect Christians. Christians judge others, have judged others, and will judge others.

First things first-- if it isn't specifically mentioned in Scripture, it is a disputable matter. The Trinity is not specifically mentioned in Scripture, so although IMO the weight of Scripture is in its favor, I would allow that one could be a Christian without believing in a Trinity.

The reason such matters exist is pretty easy, to me at least. If God were to dictate exactly what to do in every situation that could possibly arise, we would have to cut down every tree on earth to write a single copy of His instructions.

And please, feel free to lump all Christians together as long as I get to lump you in with strong atheists and agnostics. I agree that some Christians judge others-- no argument here. But, if I can find a serial killer who was either a strong atheist, weak atheist, or agnostic, would it be fair to characterize ALL atheists as serial killers? Your statement attempts to associate judging others with ALL Christians, which is anecdotal evidence based on a small sampling at best.

Why is it a big deal to you that there are different doctrines in different churches?

EDIT: Mods, can we please move this to RD?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top