A Debate for the Templars

[Orin Askhammare]

Because they can't comprehend past the first 3 characters in MMORGP Gombur. I like to roleplay, but so far with any of my characters I haven't mostly, because most of the time the majority of the people around you just doesn't "get it".

So I sometimes stick (when I do) with what I would call semi-roleplaying. I will often try to start off conversation in more or less character way (Like any normal person in the real world would). Always make sure I type complete sentences and don't abreviate words or use smilies <grins> (Last habit I find hard to lose heh). Generally talk to people as if their characters are real people. Most of the time I get disgruntled after 5 minutes though and just forget about the whole thing.

I have many times contempleted taking my shaman and putting him in a beginner area like Galplen to give out some little low level quests fetching ingredients for him or other things. (in character). Have some low levels sets of armour crafted and give out (partial) sets as a reward for their work. But usually when I start getting enthusiastic I imagine the first player who is not called Jorarse Ismine or Crushing Boobies to go "WTF kind of crack are j00 on freak! Buff meh!" and forget about it :/

 

[old.Aethelstan]

Originally posted by old.ondor
role play is for nerds

Whereas throwing around puerile and offensive statements coupled with your character names, thereby instantly getting those characters on the /ignore, /don't group and /don't rez lists of a good 10% of your home realm is for really intelligent people. Like yourself, for instance.

 

[old.mattshanes]

If ppl wanna roleplay there aint nothing wrong with it,the game is more fun for them in that way i thinks it a nice idea even though my name a certainly aint suited for camelot times its not silly its based from an actual person irl.I think roleplay makes u feel like u r more into the game and makes u like the game more also away from the silly idiots that u sometimes see about like brannor said.

 

[Garris-]

I guess I've seen both sides of the roleplay spectrum.. I've played text MUDs with extreme roleplayers and enjoyed that, but I've also played some MMORPGs with no roleplaying at all and enjoyed that.

I see the problem not in what people prefer to do, but their attitude to it. There are snobby RPers who look down on you when you get exited and shout "DING!" .. but there are snobby none-RPers who look down on you when you say "I feel stronger, wiser - I am ready for a new challenge".

Its peoples attitudes that are the problem, not their personal preference.

I had a really good time both in the BG and in Keltoi yesterday hunting with Shaeffer and Ehlias... and when we were in Keltoi Shaeffer and Ehlias' roleplayed argument was genuinely entertaining, and it even brought a little roleplaying out of me.

It actually took me long enough to work out the real meaning of Shaeffer's surname, but whether that is just my slowness I don't know. To be honest, I think that if people push themselves a little you can roleplay with someone with a non-roleplaying name. Think about it - was there such a thing as safer sex in the times of Arthurian legend? Would your character refer to sex as sex?

Ironically, and I didn't know this until I read this topic, I have grouped with Shaeffer's other character, Jehovah, although I doubt he remembers me.. and to be honest, when I read it, I laughed.

I don't like grouping with people with stupid names - but being an infiltrator, I'm not much one to refuse a group. If, say, I grouped with someone called Venomaster Killuall it is possible for me to maintain some of the disbelief for myself by referring to him in chat as Ven, etc.

It takes a little imagination to roleplay, but alot more imagination to roleplay with difficult people.

Personally, I like RP-ish names. I have been using Garris for a name for a good few years now simply because it is largely neutral, and fits into a variety of settings - proof of this is the fact that I have found characters called Garris in both Baldur's Gate and a Star Wars novel - heh. I don't take a surname because I can't think up a good one, heh.

I am in a guild now that is neither roleplaying or strictly none-roleplaying, but we never roleplay because it is simply more convenient not to.

I would like to roleplay a little more - which is one of the reasons I am looking forward to this event - but the thought of roleplaying my character 24/7 is, to be honest, a little frightening. I'm always worried that, seeing my character is a little cheeky, the jokes that people laugh at in-character might offend them in real life.

If I had not have found myself in a guild as good as the one I am in now, I would have almost certainly have applied to join the Templars, as I think a Templar was the first guy who ever went out of their way to get me a rez, patted me on the back and handed me a pocket full of silver.

This post has been hideously long-winded, and so I'd really better be quiet now, I guess. Heh.

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by Brannor McThife


Don't worry. I'll be reporting it as religiously provocative and the name should be changed completed. I am not a Jehovah's Witness, and I understand you saying there was no intent, but in the end, it's mocking another religion, irrespective of intent.

I would like to put that off as a mockery... but then I remember you editing an excerpt of Life of Brian on the old boards.

It's tight arsed, Brannor... utterly lame.
The sermons were extremely harmless, no blasphemy, screaming for virgin blood/choice organs involved.

The civilized part of the world has overcome its desire to burn witches and blasphemists on the stake... lets enjoy the freedom of speech, shall we?

Get in touch with humor. It's fun.

 

[old.Tyraette]

Unfortunately sickofit, the Evil Munchkins have done their work.

Whilst on a pilgrimage to learn how to best defeat the Enemy, Jehovah's ship was attacked, and sunk by the GOA baddies.

Latest rumours are arising that a single survivor managed to escape, but with a bad bump on the noggin, he cannot remember who he is, or anything about his past.

From henceforth, he shall be known as:

Meamor Witless. Raaar!


By the same token, I fully expect the char name Jeesus to be removed for the same reasons, or I might get upset. And yes, Jeesus does exist, and no he's not one of mine. I hope people are happy now. (Although in a fit of irony, the name Brannor did like was also mine..smitetheungodly withcunningarguments..which ironically I ended up deleting cos I didnt like the name <giggles>)


Anyhoo, Shaeffer has survived, at least until someone complains that contraception is a taboo subject and should be removed as it goes against their religion also. So watch out, cos me, Ehlias, and Garris (you brought a tear to my eye with that post by the way) are after your ladies!

And for anyone who cares, me and Ehlias did NOT have an argument, merely an intense bitter rivalry for the affections of the Lady Pandora. Which Shall be resumed. Starting Now. <gives smouldering, manly look>

With reference to the original posting <finally gets back on track>, I've been thinking a lot about how I roleplay, and what I actually hope to gain from it. My present situation at the moment, is that Guild Chat is pretty quiet in general (sorry Wombles, but it is) and I have been roleplaying my way for the last few days with Ehlias. I havent really even given notice to the guild chat, as I have been concentrating on having a good time with my group. As Garris said above, we all had a fantastic time, not because of the exp, which to be honest was a little slow, but because of the sheer number of laughs that we had. It was the exact same the night before, with the Lady Augusta, whose near death experience had me in stitches, and Shaeffer in tear. The exp was amongst the worst and slowest we'd seen, yet we managed to keep 4 or 5 people (non-roleplayers i might add) completely entertained for 3 hours. Noone wanted to leave! Some, like Garris, even warmed to us and began to join in, which was utterly fantastic.

I've now started to realise that even were I to join the Templars, I would not be able to devote my full attention to both Guild Chat and Group Chat. Its just not something thats possible to the scale that me and Ehlias have been performing to. So basically, I have a choice. Do I condone my own name, saying it offends my beliefs inthe hope that it will be removed, and focus on developing my character in the Templars (should they accept me). Or do I stay the lovable scoundrel with an eye for a pretty face and continue to make the ladies eyes flutter even more? With the size of the templars, I'm sure one more face would not really make much of a difference. By concentrating on bringing joy to the group however, I feel I can bring more smiles to more people, and enjoy myself even more!

So I thank you all for your debate (although the bump on the noggin really hit a nerve, especially since the character hasnt been used in at least 2months) but I believe the question has changed...What do I want? Im really starting to think I know.

So if you see me wandering around, give me a wave, nothing like becoming notorious! It has been great having members of the Phoenix Legion and the Templars taking time to acknowledge my presence, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Turamber]

I have a sense of humour, a strong one even - but calling one's character "Jehovah" is in itself very provocative to both Jews and Christians. To add "Witless" on the end is crass ... it's simply not funny to poke at religions. Keep religion and politics out of gaming please, we come here to relax

 

[old.chesnor]

It is ironic you should say that Turamber. I have recently started a Cleric, and I am trying (albeit poorly) to roleplay. It just so happens that I am a Cleric, aligned to the Church of Albion. Kind of hard to roleplay a Cleric without reference to religion and/or god. Mythic have been suitably ambiguous in both imagery and in game text to avoid any reference to any active religions or God (note capital G)

Do I for example, while in RvR roleplaying say "I shall smite the Hibernian unbelievers down, for they are godless swine !!!" or should I not, for fear of upsetting confirmed Athiests I may be grouped with ? Can I mention God, the Church at all when roleplaying ? Can a roleplaying godless character state his views publicly without fear that he will be reported for blasphemy ?

We either accept that this is a game of pure fantasy or we don't. It can not be both.

I think its really sad that Jehovah was renamed. 1-0 to the carebears

 

[Garris-]

I agree - and personally I believe that light-hearted Religious jokes are taken FAR to seriously - surely a devout Jehova's Witness will be so sure in their convictions to not be convinced by someones name in a MMORPG that they are infact Witless - Heh.

Just my 2c.

 

[aethtemplar]

I'll be controversial here. I take the view that religion is something people choose to practice. Nothing compels anyone to continue to be christian, muslim or whatever when they reach maturity. All religions are about having faith (despite the evidence to the contrary, as we aetheists would say), and people should be faithful enough to know that they'll have the last laugh on these unbelievers in the end. I've always thought that it's somewhat bizarre that most religions, despite claiming to have God and "Right" backing them up, still feel the need to try and prevent any criticism or mockery. So I have no problem with people poking fun at religions, any more than I have a problem with people poking fun at others' politics, or the newspaper they read or the games they play (note there's a difference between poking fun, which is essentially an argument, good-natured or otherwise, and actually committing offensive acts based on your disagreement, which is harrassment). Someone chooses to hold a view, but they have no right to tell others that they can't hold a different view. The flip side of this is that I despise discrimination which is based on who people ARE, and what they have no choice about. Racism, mysogyny, homophobia are all examples of such bigotry, and should be stomped on hard. Essentially, I'm taking the Voltaire line here - I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it. I'll also fight for the right of others to disagree with you.

The valid argument for changing the name is not that it might offend any passing Witnesses, but that it contradicts GOA's naming policy (which it clearly does). However, GOA don't enforce this policy with other names. I don't, therefore, see why Jehovah's Witless should be banned unless GOA plan to enforce their naming policy absolutely, which would result in about 50% of Albion's population looking for new names overnight.

We live in a world where the reactionary forces of religious zealotry are constantly seeking to reduce the freedoms and benefits that our liberal secularism provide. We already cater too much to religious opinion with our blasphemy laws and our guaranteed place for unelected bishops in our legislature. Do we have to tread on eggshells around them in a computer game as well ?

 

[Brannor McThife]

Originally posted by sickofit...
It's tight arsed, Brannor... utterly lame.

Get in touch with humor. It's fun.

Dark Age of Camelot Europre Code of Conduct:

Names of characters and guilds:
-No religious, sexual or political references.

So bite me you insensitive git. If you actually read some posts you would have seen that I actually bought the Monty Python DVD of the grail and watched it so that I could see it for myself. Still have to find the Life of Brian one though.

Maybe you just don't get it. This has NOTHING to do with ME and or my views. This has EVERYTHING to do with legality and GOA's stance. Guess you're one of those that used to love flaming GOA on the old forums, then whined when they closed.

While you're at it, go learn some law, and see that GOA could be sued to pieces for possibly accomodating religious hatred. What may be a joke to some, may cause harm to others.

Good grief, your arguement just killed any form of respect I had for you. Gah...

You know, if I wanted to push that CoC line to the extreme, then Shaeffer would soon have a different surname and Hugh Erechion would also be changed. But those are seperate issues, and have/are/will be discussed elsewhere. It's late, I'm tired, and your post annoys me. Maybe I'll be in a better mood tomorrow.

-G

 

[old.mattshanes]

These names some of them are getting out of hand ppl should realise there could be kids playing this its pathetic lving a char all the way to 50 with names like that and not fair on kids.

 

[hrodelbert]

My name

I think my name is fairly sensible, i'm Hrodelbert Count of Monte Cristo and since i am in the LORDS of England my title seems fitting. Anyway this may seem to be me going off at a tangent but someone once didn't seem to think my name was sensibly and said this and i quote

"Hrodelbert, thats a pallindrome isn't it, you know one of those words which are impossible to pronounce"

I ignored them as of course both statements were gimped.
Just though that was funny and wanted to bring some comic relief to this thread which is becoming yet another long arguement.

Hrodelbert
-Germanic origin of the name Robert meaning Famous and Bright.
or something like that

 

[old.ondor]

wtf

i ask sorry from nerds

some people here are complete Retarded
i mean look at the replies some of them are complete brain dead

This name makes no sense. Healers can't use axes, unless of course the 'axe' is a witty replacement for 'arse', which ironically happens to be what you are.

And if you had any idea about Healers, you would realise that Healer buffs (unless you are a gimped Healer) are not very good [(except one) and I doubt you have the intelligence to realise which one it is

wtf WTF this is the stupidest reply i ever seen
uke:
and maybe he isnt totaly stupid he mite be like 10 years old ......


the other reply that is really funnyyyyyyy and im sure it comes from a complete stupid source...

Whereas throwing around puerile and offensive statements coupled with your character names, thereby instantly getting those characters on the /ignore, /don't group and /don't rez lists of a good 10% of your home realm is for really intelligent people. Like yourself, for instance.

we have a big man here he is gona show me what it means to say something about roleplayers



COZ UNBELIEVERS LIKE ME SHOULD NEVER LEVEL !!!!!!

any way u must complete stupid not to invite a friend in your guild coz of his nickname
i mean wtf u play for fun you have more fun with friends...
some rules are ok but not those who are killing the joy!

 

[Ozwaldo]

Ondor take 3 deep breaths, why be so aggressive.

All you are doing is denying yourself groups and the possibility of getting rezzed etc. Half the people in albion will want nothing to do with you now and I'm sure your guild wouldn't be happy bringing their good name down as well.

 

[ivan_russky]

<nods at Ozwaldo> Good graces are hard to earn.

Oh and by the way Ondor, if you cant understand the posts dont say they are stupid but at least try to understand them instead.

 

[Brannor McThife]

Aethelstan, Anti-Jewish slogans/semitish (if that's the correct term), is that racist? Or religious?

In the EU, you're a Union, meaning you're supposed to be sensitive to all the various races, religions, etc.

Also, if you see any name which you believe to be contrary to the CoC, the please, spend 2 minutes sending in a Rightnow report. Or, simply find your local E&E representative and give them the name. In the end, this is all about legallity, sensitivity and just plain sensibility.

I just find it interesting WHY you would question this Aethelstan, since you're an RPer.

As for me, I tend to collect some names and submit them in one batch. Also, there are other E&E people out there that are reporting names too. Also, some names are written in non-english and it takes someone from that language to understand what it means before it gets reported and then verified.

I also don't see this as a really big issue, how hard is it to stay within these bounds? Why push the boundaries? Because you can get a chuckle out of it? Pffft. And if you ever wanted proof that I don't work for GOA, it's that you don't see me changing names as I see them ingame.

Bah...I'm late for work now...



-G

 

[Brannor McThife]

Originally posted by aethtemplar
We live in a world where the reactionary forces of religious zealotry are constantly seeking to reduce the freedoms and benefits that our liberal secularism provide. We already cater too much to religious opinion with our blasphemy laws and our guaranteed place for unelected bishops in our legislature. Do we have to tread on eggshells around them in a computer game as well ?

You have a real issue with religion don't you? This statement does indeed trouble me. For in the same way they apparently seek to impose their views on you, you seem to take a rather aggressive stance against religion as a whole.

<shudders>

In this game, it's about accomodating everyone. You wanting religion-mocking names to be allowed shows an apparent deep-rooted hatred for religion. Would that mean, that if I made characters with names like...oh...

Budhas Llama
Ghandi daShooSalesman
Jesus Lovsu

... that you'd accept them into the Templars? Or would you discriminate against them? Do I understand correctly, that the Templars have a naming policy that is contradictory to the CoC?



-G

 

[old.linnet]

<sigh>

There is a difference between fanatical religious zealotry and fanatical secular zealotry ... but sometimes it is hard to see.

What's so difficult about making minor efforts NOT to offend other people's beliefs? Half a second of minor amusement (and I do mean minor because its not that funny) is really not worth it.

You do realise that religious Jews would never even write down the name Jehovah, or say it aloud?


(Also, Aethelstan doesn't speak for the templars. Just because he likes to make ex-cathedra comments from time to time doesn't mean all officers agree.)


Lin

 

[Gabrial]

I love these arguments - especially when people like Ondor try to post messages. You are obviously only writing such things to stir people up but I agree with Ozwaldo, it does not do you or your guild any favours to slag off an entire part of the camelot community. To be honest, I cant understand some of what your wrote because it seems a little disjointed but the bits I did understand just seem to be ranting at people.

As for the religious arguments (and please put me right if I'm wrong on this), have any of the people who have complained in this thread about Jehovahs name compained because it has offended them or because it may offend others?

As for banning someone with the name of Jesus, are we also going to ban people with the name David, Peter, Luke etc?

 

[Turamber]

Yes, I found the use of the name 'Jehovah' to be offensive. Jesus is a little different - it is a very common name in Spain, and merely a different form of the name Joshua. A very common name indeed.

But if the character was Jesus NeverExisted or Jesus Burnsinhell or something like that -- yes that would be offensive.

Would those who think its fine to mock religion like to see names like Atheists Suck out there?

Those of us that do believe, and I am not talking religious zealoutry here, just a belief - have the right not to feel insulted or disparraged 24/7. If you don't believe then fine, but don't extract the urine from me please !

To have a character that believes in God, or does not believe in God, is completely fine and acceptible. But if they were to go around roleplaying a rude and dismissive attitude to others who felt differently ... well, different kettle of fish.

Have come across a number of Pagans who felt aggrieved by some of the roleplaying of friars and Paladins in the Templars - and (religious) Jews & Christians are deserving of exactly the same amount of thought.

 

[Gabrial]

Originally posted by old.Turamber

Would those who think its fine to mock religion like to see names like Atheists Suck out there?

To be honest, I wouldnt mind. However, I see your point - nobody would like to have the urine removed from them all day - a little like picking on someone because they are small (as I dont believe, this is as close as I can come sorry!). For the record, I do not have a funny name (unless Merlyn is) nor do I take the micky out of those with beliefs. In fact, my Cleric is a religious type who will even party with the 'heathen' mages. However, any religious links are within the spirit of role-playing, not personal jibes aimed at the players in charge of the characters.

What we must be carefull about is turning this game into a battleground for religion. I remember playing Black and White and seeing the most futile thread I have ever seen about the name of the game, insinuating that the game promoted the idea that black people were evil and white people were good. You have got to keep it in context.

 

[Brannor McThife]

Before Aethelstan get's me wrong. I totally agree that religion and politics should never mix.

I myself may adhere to certain religious beliefs, but I cannot see how a religious leader can or should hold any political office.

Who does he answer to? His god or his party? Countries being led by religous people are a thing of the past. Politics is not pure. It's evil, plain a simple. Nobody changes politics, it changes you. Some may enter with "good" religious intentions, but at crunch time, well, they answer to the vote (if they were voted in).

In today's secular world, I agreee, religion should stay out of politics, but politics should not ignore religion.

Remember that to "remove" religion from the mainstream as you (Aethelstan) seem to imply, is nothing more than the reverse of "them" wishing to impose it on you.

Oh, and Linnet, I know. It's a Friday, and Aethelstan looked like a perfect flame target.



-G

 

[old.Revz]

I don't find anything wrong with naming a character Jehovah in the same way I don't find other computer games offensive if they use the word "Jehovah" in them (Final Fantasy 7 springs to mind here for instance). The word transcends the mere technical definition of it and is more emotive than anything which I guess is what was wanted when it was chosen.

Am I right in thinking that Jehovah is a word for God translated from Hebrew in the old testament? If so the reference is pretty tenuous and if I was GMing a server I would see no problem in letting someone use it. You have to draw a line at some point where you say "actually I am being a little to politically correct here and I need to engage my common sense".

I chose the name Gideon because I knew it had some religious connections and I was playing a cleric so it seemed appropriate. I have since found out a few things about it :

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=gideon

I particularly like this one :

gideon, he that bruises or breaks; a destroyer

That sounds quite fearsome It also happens to be a society to who places bibles in hotel bedrooms. Perhaps I should ask them for sponsorship.

 

[Hufner]

I'd just like to add a few cents here...
Religious beliefs - the old norse religion is still practiced in parts of the world. Actually, it has seen a revival the last few years.
Though it's not as bloody as it used to be
But of course, this game is made in the US - and the CoC made from a PC-point of view

Jehova is a rephrasing of the secret name of God in the old testament (JHV - wich with vowels added could be JaHVe, or JeHoVa...)
It's forbidden in the old testament to take the name of God in your mouth - so strictly speaking forbidden in judaism...


Ah well, not my problem - I have a rather relaxed view on my religion and others...
And I'm also rambling...

/wanders off to get more coffee

 

[Orin Askhammare]

Originally posted by old.Revz
I don't find anything wrong with naming a character Jehovah in the same way I don't find other computer games offensive if they use the word "Jehovah" in them (Final Fantasy 7 springs to mind here for instance).

I don't want to nitpick but the name Jenovah was used in Final Fantasy 7, not Jehova. But the name could well be inspired by Jehova.

 

[old.Aethelstan]

Cor, lots of different points, all grist to the mill of a tedious day at work, so this will be long. Just skip over it unless you're as bored as me...

I should add a disclaimer that I'm merely speaking in a personal capacity here. But let's clear some things up - I never said I "wanted" anti-religious names. I don't think that setting out to mock the religious views of others, even if you do find them objectionable or laughable, is a very mature thing to do. I agree with Linnet - taking an extra second to think about whether it's worth offending people would hopefully lead most people to the view that there's just no point. Setting out to mock others' religious views in this context says more about the mocker than the mocked, I think.

Having the name "Aetheists Suck" is indeed comparable to having the name "Jesus Burnsinhell" or equivalent. Both instantly give you an impression of the person behind them - rather young, a bit stupid and, err, probably not a roleplayer ! But I'd merely repeat what I said earlier. The only reason to ban either would be because they contradicted the GOA naming policy (which they would). Not because any Aetheist or Christian may or may not find them objectionable.

I fundamentally dislike the idea that we should try to censor some people's views on the offchance that another element of society will find them offensive. At which point do we stop ? You start off with the easy ones : racist views are offensive, so we should ban them, right ? Then you work into more difficult areas : should we ban Tibetan protesters from shouting through a loudhailer when the Chinese Government comes to town because it might offend the Chinese ? Do we ban the man in Speakers' Corner who raves about how communists are taking over the country because it would offend communists ? Do we ban comedians who take the mickey out of the Archbishop of Canterbury because a Christian might be offended ? Do we ban Rugby Union because Rugby League fans are offended by it ?

Being an adult involves having opinions and disagreeing with others. That's life. To me, if you're not able to rationalise and defend your view, then there's no point holding it. But maturity is all about being able to accept that other people disagree with you, without trying to harm them in any way. That's where the difference between disagreeing and discrimination comes in. It's the difference between a Lancastrian on a box in Manchester shouting about how Yorkshiremen all speak funny, and the same bloke then taking a flamethrower to all the black puddings in Leeds. The first may offend those from the wrong side of the Pennines, but he shouldn't be banned from doing so. The second actually causes harm, so he should. This is the principle our justice system is based on. You can call me a fat bastard and I can be offended and it's just a disagreement between two people. If you hit me because you hate fat bastards, or sack me because you don't want to work with fat bastards, then society steps in to protect me. But there's no protection from being offended.

It starts to get silly. The only safe principle as a society is to allow freedom of speech, with safeguards where that freedom is exercised in a way intended to incite violence. Now comes the important bit : Within that society, leisure groups can set their own rules and include or exclude people as they wish - so I have no problem at all with a computer game which says "no religious names" and then bans religious names. If there was a roleplay enforced server, I'd be on it, and trying to get rid of anyone who didn't roleplay. That's discrimination too, but entirely legitimate because the rules are set and people choose to sign up to them or not. GOA was entirely within its rights to change a religious-reference name. I just find it a tad hypocritical that the religious name is singled out whereas the other names which also breach the rules aren't.

In a free society with a variety of different views, people simply cannot have a "right" not to be insulted or offended. They can avoid such insults and offence by associating only with people who would not insult or offend them, but to try and remove another's right to express differing views is simply wrong.

On a roleplay front, if we were serious about roleplayig hen one very fertile area would be for good and evil, christian and pagan people to disagree in-game. My previous MUD had many people folowing 16 invented Gods ranging from good to evil. They had the most viciously offensive arguments and fights in-game, leading to player-killing. That's what made it interesting. More to the point, because it was a broadly American game, a very large number of the players were committed Christians, and they had no problem playing evil pagan characters. That's what roleplay is - separation of real life from game.

Finally (thank you those who got this far), Brannor said that I wanted to "remove religion from the mainstream" and that this was the reverse of religious types wishing to impose religion on me. Actually, I disagree with this on two points. Firstly, I don't know what the "mainstream" is. I don't have any problem with people in our society being religious at all. Just as I don't have any problem with people who aren't religious. I merely said I wanted religion removed from our legislature and I wanted its special protection removed. Secondly, as a liberal I have no desire to impose my views on anyone at all. What I do demand is the equal right to hold and express those views with those who hold alternate views. And if their views offend me, or my views offend them, then that's just tough. We're offended, so avoid each other in future ! This is the principle democracy is based on. Again, it comes back to maturity. I have close friends who are Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Christian (even my wife is a classic CofE type - going to church twice a year and sort of believing in God in a nice-chap-who-looks-after-the-weather-but-I-don't-understand-why-the-people-still-starve, sort of way). They know I think their religious views are bonkers. They undoubtedly think I shall roast my toes in the fiery pit at some point. I mock them, they mock me. But none of us are "offended" because we each have confidence that we're right in our - opposing - views, and are liberal enough not to wish to impose those views on each other.

Just to end on a smartarse comment, as I like to do, I'm going to bring the christian God in on my side of the argument here. Unless I'm mistaken, the Bible says that the good christian should turn the other cheek to those who offend him. I'm not aware of the passage that says the good christian should prevent the offender from speaking in the first place.

All of which has bugger all to do with DAoC, and GOA were right to change the name. I just wish they'd spend a lot of time changing all the other bloody stupid names to fit their naming policy ! I thank you all. Have a happy Friday.

 

[Brannor McThife]

Originally posted by old.Aethelstan
I just wish they'd spend a lot of time changing all the other bloody stupid names to fit their naming policy !

And yes, I read it all. And let us not get into misquoting religous documents.

As for the names, hey, I constantly pester the K with names I find. Don't see why the hell they don't just search through their database to find them, instead of having us report them...

At present, it requires someone to report it via rightnow, or an E&E person to report it. You may not see the changes, just like you don't see bans, etc. unless you see/hear it from the party involved.

Oh, and on the religous issue...one for you Brits, "God save the Queen", WTF for? Since when is she so special?

-G

 

[Hufner]

Originally posted by Brannor McThife



<SNIP<

Oh, and on the religous issue...one for you Brits, "God save the Queen", WTF for? Since when is she so special?

-G

I think this is something all monarchies include Bran
After all, historically - the ruling monarch came close to godliness...

 

[Gabrial]

Originally posted by Brannor McThife


Oh, and on the religous issue...one for you Brits, "God save the Queen", WTF for? Since when is she so special?

-G

Whats the point in this statement Brannor? A deliberate attempt to start flaming?

If you were really interested in knowing, I suspect it dates back to medieval times, although then it would have been God Save the King I should imagine. The monarch was (as far as I know) appointed by the church?

As for being special, she is our queen - thats what makes her special (i.e. there is only one of them!)