Would a CCG with biblical characters be blasphemous?

[J1M]

Many games use Norse and Greek pantheons as a source of characters and other inspiration. I have also noticed a buzz here when games adjacent to Christianity are mentioned.

But how would people respond to Delilah being a card that reduces a target card's strength by 7? Or Jesus being a card that returns to play from the graveyard after 3 turns?

[Emphyrio]

this sounds like something that used to be already a real thing when i was a kid

[KnightoftheWind]

Many games use Norse and Greek pantheons as a source of characters and other inspiration. I have also noticed a buzz here when games adjacent to Christianity are mentioned.

But how would people respond to Delilah being a card that reduces a target card's strength by 7? Or Jesus being a card that returns to play from the graveyard after 3 turns?

Yes it is. There is a difference between depicting Norse and Greek pantheons, which are explicitly mythological, to Christian figures. The historicity of Old Testament events is more or less accurate. Aspects of it are mythological, some are Hebrew cultural works for instance. But there was a Moses, there was a David, there was a Solomon, there was an Exodus, etc. This is doubly so for the New Testament, and the historicity of Christ Himself. By lumping Christ in with explicitly mythological figures, you are assuming that Christ Himself is no different to them. Which is grossly incorrect.

TL;DR You're a redditor.

[Xenich]

I know I wouldn't be interested in such a thing. Just doesn't feel right. Even the early Nintendo style games seemed... off putting.

I don't see anything wrong with learning games for children (not playing the characters, but interactive features that teach scripture, explain history, etc...past that, I don't care for the idea.

[J1M]

Many games use Norse and Greek pantheons as a source of characters and other inspiration. I have also noticed a buzz here when games adjacent to Christianity are mentioned.

But how would people respond to Delilah being a card that reduces a target card's strength by 7? Or Jesus being a card that returns to play from the graveyard after 3 turns?

Yes it is. There is a difference between depicting Norse and Greek pantheons, which are explicitly mythological, to Christian figures. The historicity of Old Testament events is more or less accurate. Aspects of it are mythological, some are Hebrew cultural works for instance. But there was a Moses, there was a David, there was a Solomon, there was an Exodus, etc. This is doubly so for the New Testament, and the historicity of Christ Himself. By lumping Christ in with explicitly mythological figures, you are assuming that Christ Himself is no different to them. Which is grossly incorrect.

TL;DR You're a redditor.

I wasn't suggesting mixing bible figures with Odin btw.

If the stance is that these are historical figures, is it really that different than Civilization using Ghandi and Alexander the Great as faction leaders? (Ghandi providing +1 food/turn, etc)

[Vergil]

Many games use Norse and Greek pantheons as a source of characters and other inspiration. I have also noticed a buzz here when games adjacent to Christianity are mentioned.

But how would people respond to Delilah being a card that reduces a target card's strength by 7? Or Jesus being a card that returns to play from the graveyard after 3 turns?

Yes it is. There is a difference between depicting Norse and Greek pantheons, which are explicitly mythological, to Christian figures. The historicity of Old Testament events is more or less accurate. Aspects of it are mythological, some are Hebrew cultural works for instance. But there was a Moses, there was a David, there was a Solomon, there was an Exodus, etc. This is doubly so for the New Testament, and the historicity of Christ Himself. By lumping Christ in with explicitly mythological figures, you are assuming that Christ Himself is no different to them. Which is grossly incorrect.

TL;DR You're a redditor.

I wasn't suggesting mixing bible figures with Odin btw.

If the stance is that these are historical figures, is it really that different than Civilization using Ghandi and Alexander the Great as faction leaders? (Ghandi providing +1 food/turn, etc)

There's a big difference because Ghandi or Alexander the Great aren't God.

[J1M]

Yes it is. There is a difference between depicting Norse and Greek pantheons, which are explicitly mythological, to Christian figures. The historicity of Old Testament events is more or less accurate. Aspects of it are mythological, some are Hebrew cultural works for instance. But there was a Moses, there was a David, there was a Solomon, there was an Exodus, etc. This is doubly so for the New Testament, and the historicity of Christ Himself. By lumping Christ in with explicitly mythological figures, you are assuming that Christ Himself is no different to them. Which is grossly incorrect.

TL;DR You're a redditor.

I wasn't suggesting mixing bible figures with Odin btw.

If the stance is that these are historical figures, is it really that different than Civilization using Ghandi and Alexander the Great as faction leaders? (Ghandi providing +1 food/turn, etc)

There's a big difference because Ghandi or Alexander the Great aren't God.

So if the game stopped short of printing Jesus or the Holy Spirit as cards would your opinion change? Solomon et al are not divine.

[Vergil]

I wasn't suggesting mixing bible figures with Odin btw.

If the stance is that these are historical figures, is it really that different than Civilization using Ghandi and Alexander the Great as faction leaders? (Ghandi providing +1 food/turn, etc)

There's a big difference because Ghandi or Alexander the Great aren't God.

So if the game stopped short of printing Jesus or the Holy Spirit as cards would your opinion change? Solomon et al are not divine.

It would depend on the portrayal and what sort of game it is but there is a hypothetical situation where that could be ok. It should still be done respectfully if it's a righteous biblical figure or someone like a prophet etc. There's still an argument to be made though that something as serious as religious figures shouldnt be used flippantly.

[Norfleet]

I remember there was a fighting game that had various religious figures as the combatants.

Update: Found it


So you could totally make a hilarious card game version of this.

[Galdred]

Many games use Norse and Greek pantheons as a source of characters and other inspiration. I have also noticed a buzz here when games adjacent to Christianity are mentioned.

But how would people respond to Delilah being a card that reduces a target card's strength by 7? Or Jesus being a card that returns to play from the graveyard after 3 turns?

The main difference is that no one believes in Norse or Greek gods anymore, so that is a very different issue.
You'd risk alienating believers for either trying to cash on their beliefs, or outright blasphemy, without getting anything from Atheists, unless if you go full parody maybe (to score more atheist points, as in the faith fighter game above).
Also, the atheist market would be segmented between wokes, who would be ok with Christian parody, but not with giving the same treatment to other religions, and the non woke atheists who'd consider every religion fair game...

Implementing religion can be done (Darklands managed to do it well), but it is touchy, and a slight mistake can doom the project.

[orinEsque]

Sacred cowing while complaining about woke's trans black sacred cow? Pfft

If Christianity is the absolute truth then it will survive some guy making a game about it.

That being said blasphemy laws exist to prevent the erosion of religion. And eroding Christianity further is not a good idea considering its one of the only things that go against woke religion in anglosphere.

[A Chinese opium den]

Sacred cowing while complaining about woke's trans black sacred cow? Pfft

If Christianity is the absolute truth then it will survive some guy making a game about it.

That being said blasphemy laws exist to prevent the erosion of religion. And eroding Christianity further is not a good idea considering its one of the only things that go against woke religion in anglosphere.

A Pajeet posting about sacred cows, it's like poetry...

[Vergil]

Sacred cowing while complaining about woke's trans black sacred cow? Pfft

This may shock you but just because it's bad that shitlibs hold up gay interracial tranny sex as sacred doesn't mean the concept of holding things as sacred is bad.

If Christianity is the absolute truth then it will survive some guy making a game about it.

Same sort of retarded take that has been responsible for the slow erosion of religion and morality in the West. How fitting it's being repeated by a woman (alleged).

[orinEsque]

take that has been responsible for the slow erosion of religion and morality in the West.

Curious that you missed the paragraph after where i suggest exactly this.

Religion has its uses.

[Vergil]

Curious that you missed the paragraph after where i suggest exactly this.

Religion has its uses.

You cynically mentioning it as a purely political force against "woke" stuff is besides the point in an argument about sacredness and how it should be treated as such because it was a sacred topic and not just a tool to own the libs.
I understand as a hindu you view there as being loads and loads of deities that don't really matter but among White people God is taken very seriously.
Also two sentences isn't a paragraph lol

Oh also "erm curious that you ignored the rest of my post "

[Anon]

Games were best when developers didn't give a fuck about what people would think about them politically, it only mattered whether it would be fun or not.

[orinEsque]

Curious that you missed the paragraph after where i suggest exactly this.

Religion has its uses.

You cynically mentioning it as a purely political force against "woke" stuff is besides the point in an argument about sacredness and how it should be treated as such because it was a sacred topic and not just a tool to own the libs.
I understand as a hindu you view there as being loads and loads of deities that don't really matter but among White people God is taken very seriously.
Also two sentences isn't a paragraph lol

Oh also "erm curious that you ignored the rest of my post "

Oh please do continue with the ad homs. It's all very convincing. /bravo

[Dead]

Why does Arcane Lurker not defend his wife's honor but laugh alongside her humiliators?

[Vergil]

Why does Arcane Lurker not defend his wife's honor but laugh alongside her humiliators?

I imagine having to deal with her constantly wears a nigga down.

[Mondain]

Why does Arcane Lurker not defend his wife's honor but laugh alongside her humiliators?

Because the husband is @BobT

[ArcaneLurker]

Why does Arcane Lurker not defend his wife's honor but laugh alongside her humiliators?

It's entertaining.

[Nammu Archag]

Many games use Norse and Greek pantheons as a source of characters and other inspiration. I have also noticed a buzz here when games adjacent to Christianity are mentioned.

But how would people respond to Delilah being a card that reduces a target card's strength by 7? Or Jesus being a card that returns to play from the graveyard after 3 turns?

Yes it is. There is a difference between depicting Norse and Greek pantheons, which are explicitly mythological, to Christian figures. The historicity of Old Testament events is more or less accurate. Aspects of it are mythological, some are Hebrew cultural works for instance. But there was a Moses, there was a David, there was a Solomon, there was an Exodus, etc. This is doubly so for the New Testament, and the historicity of Christ Himself. By lumping Christ in with explicitly mythological figures, you are assuming that Christ Himself is no different to them. Which is grossly incorrect.

TL;DR You're a redditor.

Hengest and Horsa are direct descendants of Woden, who were the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon warpath into Roman Britain, as were many of its subsequent Kings and Earls.




Icel of Mercia is recorded in several genealogies as being a descendent of Woden for example. The historicity of Old English events is more or less accurate. Aspects of it are mythological, some are Germanic cultural works for instance. But there was an Ælle, there was a Cynewulf, there was a Penda, there was a Heptarchy, etc. By lumping Hengest and Icel in with explicitly mythological figures, you are assuming that Woden Himself is no different to them. Which is grossly incorrect.

TL;DR You're a redditor.

[Kalarion]

Religion has its uses.

This is missing the point. If anything, all available historical evidence shows that religion used in such a cynical fashion weakens and becomes toothless and pathetic, rather than acting as an effective bulwark. It is precisely because a given religion is taken seriously by both its adherents and a culture's elites that it can crush cancers such as woketardism etc.

The very short version of a very long essay on the topic: religion is only an effective ordering of civilization when its adherents are willing to die for it. Which means, it must be taken seriously, and what it points to as sacred must be treated as sacred (that is, set apart from the norms; of discourse, of behavior, and so forth).

[orinEsque]

Religion has its uses.

This is missing the point. If anything, all available historical evidence shows that religion used in such a cynical fashion weakens and becomes toothless and pathetic, rather than acting as an effective bulwark. It is precisely because a given religion is taken seriously by both its adherents and a culture's elites that it can crush cancers such as woketardism etc.

The very short version of a very long essay on the topic: religion is only an effective ordering of civilization when its adherents are willing to die for it. Which means, it must be taken seriously, and what it points to as sacred must be treated as sacred (that is, set apart from the norms; of discourse, of behavior, and so forth).

that's not a bad argument. I agree that a united front is very important when you are fighting degeneracy/evil/woke whatever you want to call it in whichever era.

[Anon]

Religion has its uses.

This is missing the point. If anything, all available historical evidence shows that religion used in such a cynical fashion weakens and becomes toothless and pathetic, rather than acting as an effective bulwark. It is precisely because a given religion is taken seriously by both its adherents and a culture's elites that it can crush cancers such as woketardism etc.

The very short version of a very long essay on the topic: religion is only an effective ordering of civilization when its adherents are willing to die for it. Which means, it must be taken seriously, and what it points to as sacred must be treated as sacred (that is, set apart from the norms; of discourse, of behavior, and so forth).

As long as it doesn't degrade into absolute fanaticism obviously, otherwise people become tribal-like the same way.

[Kalarion]

As long as it doesn't degrade into absolute fanaticism obviously, otherwise people become tribal-like the same way.

Provisionally agreed. But given humanity's penchant for hypertrophy over time, it leads to a very difficult question that I still wrestle with. If we're going to have either a fanatically comical, or a fanatically zealous, society, which is preferable? With the understanding that neither would last long before either being absorbed by a functioning society (in the case of comical), or burning itself to the ground (in the case of zealous). But in that period where one or the other would hold dominance... which would we prefer?

I think I'd prefer a country with a Torquemada to a country with a Levine, myself.

[orinEsque]

As long as it doesn't degrade into absolute fanaticism obviously, otherwise people become tribal-like the same way.

Provisionally agreed. But given humanity's penchant for hypertrophy over time, it leads to a very difficult question that I still wrestle with. If we're going to have either a fanatically comical, or a fanatically zealous, society, which is preferable? With the understanding that neither would last long before either being absorbed by a functioning society (in the case of comical), or burning itself to the ground (in the case of zealous). But in that period where one or the other would hold dominance... which would we prefer?

I think I'd prefer a country with a Torquemada to a country with a Levine, myself.

Checks and balances? Some form of council with fanatics, religious non-fanatics & less religious anti-degenerate/anti-anarchy crowd to not tip the balance into religious tyranny/woke encroachment.

[BobT]

Why does Arcane Lurker not defend his wife's honor but laugh alongside her humiliators?

Because the husband is @BobT

hahaha, and you'd know about that, would you?

Small amount of posts, default avatar (keeping a low profile?), joined Dec 10th, suspiciously around the time Orin's work was making waves. Suspiciously husband-like, Hmmm...

Religion has its uses.

This is missing the point. If anything, all available historical evidence shows that religion used in such a cynical fashion weakens and becomes toothless and pathetic, rather than acting as an effective bulwark. It is precisely because a given religion is taken seriously by both its adherents and a culture's elites that it can crush cancers such as woketardism etc.

The very short version of a very long essay on the topic: religion is only an effective ordering of civilization when its adherents are willing to die for it. Which means, it must be taken seriously, and what it points to as sacred must be treated as sacred (that is, set apart from the norms; of discourse, of behavior, and so forth).

Agreed to an extent. However the religious followers can stay strong by not AGREEING with it. (Doesn't mean they have to go as far as beheading the creators, just be loud in condemnation as usual).

That does mean the game then only appeals to a niche of atheists, though and doesn't really "go anywhere", as per faith fighter.
I disagree with toptoe'ing around blasphemy as we're restricted enough nowadays (as per the "new religions"), however what more can you do with it? Go soft and it's just a cheap gimmick? Or go hard and just annoy everyone? The best game would have to have some depth and a good blend of both being respectful to the religious lore (while somehow combining it with others) but being bold against blasphemy at the same time. I believe it CAN be done, but it will be particularly hard, especially where they conflict.

[Anon]

As long as it doesn't degrade into absolute fanaticism obviously, otherwise people become tribal-like the same way.

Provisionally agreed. But given humanity's penchant for hypertrophy over time, it leads to a very difficult question that I still wrestle with. If we're going to have either a fanatically comical, or a fanatically zealous, society, which is preferable? With the understanding that neither would last long before either being absorbed by a functioning society (in the case of comical), or burning itself to the ground (in the case of zealous). But in that period where one or the other would hold dominance... which would we prefer?

I think I'd prefer a country with a Torquemada to a country with a Levine, myself.

We've never seen a completely woke society yet (some are definitely nearer than others, but still far from being full woke), so I can't judge. I myself believe a full woke society can't prosper, the normal people will always become disgusted to the point they'll rebel and put the wokes back to their place. And normal people will always win as they are the absolute majority.

Meanwhile there were plenty fanatical theocracies throughout history, some still exist as a matter of fact.

So answering more objectively, a full woke state sounds worse, but a fanatically zealous one is a way more tangible threat.

[Kalarion]

We've never seen a completely woke society yet (some are definitely nearer than others, but still far from being full woke), so I can't judge. I myself believe a full woke society can't prosper, the normal people will always become disgusted to the point they'll rebel and put the wokes back to their place. And normal people will always win as they are the absolute majority.

Meanwhile there were plenty fanatical theocracies throughout history, some still exist as a matter of fact.

So answering more objectively, a full woke state sounds worse, but a fanatically zealous one is a way more tangible threat.

You place unfounded faith in normal people to order and run a functional society. Normal people are sheep. I agree we're the majority by a far margin, and we're absolutely necessary to "power" a society. But so long as very basic needs are met, normal people can be led around in the most comically outrageous conditions imaginable without significant change/revolution.

I can't think of a single historical example of the overthrow of an existing society/culture/what have you, that didn't involve the organization, leadership and resourcing of some kind of counter-elite.

Very few people in the West want to hear this. But we need a King. Or a Lord. The form of that king or aristocrat may differ from time to time or place to place, the selection criteria, the quirks and foibles, all of that may change, but a ruling elite is an absolute necessity. At least, it's required to keep a society from enthusiastically eating itself alive in the wake of any revolutionary movement (see France, Cambodia, Zimbabwe etc for excellent examples).