Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wharin 11-01-05, 11:24 PM	OK, this has absolutely nothing to do with Chaotic Evil, so everyone who was looking for a debate on that, nope. Sorry My question is probably the result of ignorance which i am trying to correct. In Dragon Magazine (and presumably Dungeon as well) whenever they make mention of real life events and give a date, they dont say AD (Anno Domino=> Year of our Lord). Now I think i grasp the reason they want to use AD, as it *is* sorta ethnocentric, i suppose. Whatever, I don't care. My question is what does CE mean. My guess is something like calender eccumenical or something. That said, I dont know, i could be off.
Wharin 11-01-05, 11:27 PM	Whoops... ok i followed the common advice and looked it up. For those not in the know is stands for Common Era. And apparantly what i expected to be the reason was exactly that. The new notation, they believe is less offending. Learn something new every day. :)
MerricB 11-01-05, 11:38 PM	Dating can be funny. It gets weirder in the various fantasy realms. Greyhawk itself came with about 6 or 7 dating schemes when it was first released, IIRC. Cheers!
caeruleus 11-02-05, 12:20 AM	Whoops... ok i followed the common advice and looked it up. For those not in the know is stands for Common Era. And apparantly what i expected to be the reason was exactly that. The new notation, they believe is less offending. Learn something new every day. :) Yup, that's exactly it. They didn't want to tie it to any specific religion, but still wanted to use the same dates, since that's what most of us in the West are using. And for those who are interested, BC is replaced by BCE (Before the Common Era). :)
caeruleus 11-02-05, 12:23 AM	OK, this has absolutely nothing to do with Chaotic Evil, so everyone who was looking for a debate on that, nope. Sorry At first glance, I thought this thread had something to do with the Chaotic Evil alignment in AD&D, until I noticed the lack of "&D". ;)
Escef 11-02-05, 12:46 AM	Dating can be funny. It gets weirder in the various fantasy realms. Oh, yes it can. Like the weird situation my younger bro is in. It would only get worse if elves and centaurs were involved... Oh, you mean the other kind of dating, my bad. :embarrass
Lord Gwydion 11-02-05, 12:52 AM	Assigning a date to a year can be pretty funny/confusing in the real world. Here in Japan, the year is both Heisei 17 and 2005 AD/CE (pick your poison). Japan still follows the old Chinese tradition of assigning a "reign period" with a specific name, and dating from the begining of an emperor's reign. So Heisei 17 means it's the 17th year since Akihito became the emperor of Japan. It makes it hard to study history in Japanese, because dates are listed as "Reign Period #" in primary texts.
The White Sorcerer 11-02-05, 07:40 AM	Here in Japan, the year is both Heisei 17 and 2005 AD/CE (pick your poison). Isn't the term seireki (western calendar) sometimes* used instead of AD/CE? Wouldn't that be abbreviated as WC? :D *Sometimes = when writing in japanese.
Lord Gwydion 11-02-05, 11:15 PM	Isn't the term seireki (western calendar) sometimes* used instead of AD/CE? Wouldn't that be abbreviated as WC? :D *Sometimes = when writing in japanese. Correct, in Japanese they say "Heisei Ju-Nana Nen" and "Seireki Ni-Sen-Go Nen." I've never seen WC used for the year, but I like it. I might have to use something like that in one of my campaigns......
MerricB 11-02-05, 11:43 PM	Oh, yes it can. Like the weird situation my younger bro is in. It would only get worse if elves and centaurs were involved... Oh, you mean the other kind of dating, my bad. :embarrass LOL! :) Cheers!
Thwyvylyn 11-03-05, 02:34 AM	Eberron uses 2 dating systems right off the bat and likely has at least 4 more main ones.
arbanafal 11-03-05, 04:10 AM	All you peeps are living in the past! At least my religion puts the current year at 5766 :P We're living in the land of robots, hoverboards and rampant space pollution! I'm still giggling that people consider the date suffix "AD" insulting.
Max the Immortal 11-03-05, 05:05 AM	I like the sytem in Faerun. Each year has a prophetic name, the numbering sytem (based on before or after the Dalereckoning) is just for people who haven't memorized the names of the years (and most humans learn the names of hundreds of years as children). I've never been a fan of the CE/BCE terms. If we're going to abandon the AD/BC system, IMO we should use a new historical point of reference. Perhaps the launch of Sputnik could be year 0 of the Space Age; that would mean that AD 2005 is 48 SA (give or take a year; I'm sleepy now). Nah, the change-over would be too much of a hassle. I'm sticking with AD/BC, though.
Vahenir 11-03-05, 07:25 AM	I'm still giggling that people consider the date suffix "AD" insulting. While avoiding the against-the-CoC topic of religion.... I don't think people find it insulting, per se. Rather, many people (Christians included) would prefer that the terms for our dating system not be tied to any religious beliefs. In a way it's extremely disrespectful for the Christian community to believe that more than half of the world should follow a dating system explicitly referencing the death of Jesus. And while not much has changed with C.E. - B.C.E., it has taken the explicit reference out, allowing people to feel less like Christianity is 'dominating' society. It was a political decision as much as a practical one. And a decision that I agree with. As a side note.. if we based our dating system on some mythical day that the Devil came to earth and fornicated with a black pig, then I imagine more than a few religious people would be extremely displeased. They'd have every right to be as well. No one should have religion shoved down their throat, especially someone else's religion. For the record, C.E. and B.C.E. are not new terms. But they're a lot more widely used today than 10 years ago. The modern versions of those terms are about 30 years old, I believe (and strangely, based on the term "Christian Era" which is a much older term).
Judging Eagle 11-03-05, 11:18 AM	I think you mean the birth of Jesus. Which, funny enough people don't realize that the real milenium came in 2001, not 2000. Seeing as AD 0 was the year of his birth. I'm not so sure that the Space age is important enough to mark a new Epoch as the birth of someone who proclaimed that each and every human life had worth in and of itself (yes, that's the real 'blasphemy' that Jesus spoke, it was so dangerous that the romans had to kill him; since they were a society that was run on slave-labour).
Vahenir 11-03-05, 11:42 AM	Yes, you're right. I got mixed up. But I was aware that 2001 was the actual Millenium, so I'm not mentally vacant, just frazzled and tired.
caeruleus 11-03-05, 01:42 PM	Seeing as AD 0 was the year of his birth. He was 7 years old that year.
Elbethamore 11-03-05, 01:45 PM	I think you mean the birth of Jesus. Which, funny enough people don't realize that the real milenium came in 2001, not 2000. Seeing as AD 0 was the year of his birth. There was no year 0; the year 1 BC is followed by 1 AD. If there had been a year 0, 2000 really would have been a new millenium since 0-999 = 1000 years and 1000-1999 = 1000 years. Instead, it's 1-1000 and 1001-2000. And modern scholarship puts the birth of Jesus closer to 5 or 6 BC anyway. He was born during the reign of King Herod, who died in 4 BC, so it could have been no later than that. P.S. Cearuleus posted while I was writing this... Serves me right for being wordy.
feartheinvinceblehamster 11-03-05, 01:46 PM	I think you mean the birth of Jesus. Which, funny enough people don't realize that the real milenium came in 2001, not 2000. Seeing as AD 0 was the year of his birth. 1: it did in fact, come in 2000, get your dating right 2: Jesus, Jesus-7 years old when he was born, not divine? I am familiar with his existence. 3: and BTW, that was dangerous blasphemy. Their entire economy would have been destroyed if they freed the slaves. 4: It's mythology. We could certainly base our dating on the day hercules supposedly killed the hydra, and it would be just as if we had based it off some kid getting born.
feartheinvinceblehamster 11-03-05, 01:49 PM	As a side note.. if we based our dating system on some mythical day that the Devil came to earth and fornicated with a black pig, then I imagine more than a few religious people would be extremely displeased. That would be awesome BSMDTTDCTE&FWABP and SMDTTDCTE&FWABP That may have been the coolest dating system ever!
DragonDeadite 11-03-05, 01:53 PM	::Sits back and looks for the moderator, curious as to how long before this one is killed:: I think it should be based on the death of Marylin Monroe. That's a VERY memorable day! :Has no idea when it was:
Vahenir 11-03-05, 01:56 PM	I think we should base our dating system on the birth of Britney Spears. Before her birth will be TGT, and after her birth will be BMS. TGT = The Good Times BMS = Beginning of Mass Suicides
DragonDeadite 11-03-05, 01:59 PM	I think we should base our dating system on the birth of Britney Spears. Before her birth will be TGT, and after her birth will be BMS. TGT = The Good Times BMS = Beginning of Mass Suicides :rofl: Okay!! That's it!! You win! :bow: :bow:
pres_man 11-03-05, 02:19 PM	Assigning a date to a year can be pretty funny/confusing in the real world. Here in Japan, the year is both Heisei 17 and 2005 AD/CE (pick your poison). Japan still follows the old Chinese tradition of assigning a "reign period" with a specific name, and dating from the begining of an emperor's reign. So Heisei 17 means it's the 17th year since Akihito became the emperor of Japan. It makes it hard to study history in Japanese, because dates are listed as "Reign Period #" in primary texts. This is pretty similiar to how I run my world. Everytime you travel to a new kingdom the year is something different, usually based on the establishment of the kingdom (or claim of) or some significant event (death of a great leader, great military victory, etc). As for the whole AD/CE issue. If you have a problem with it based on a religion then just changing the name isn't changing what it's based on. It's like saying Christmas instead of Mass for Christ, it's still based on the same thing. To really get the calendar off of the religious basis you would need to, as has already been mentioned, base it off of some other date/event that had a secular meaning. How about 1776 = 1 or 0? (yeah I'm ethnocentric, get over it)
Wharin 11-03-05, 03:31 PM	For the record, C.E. and B.C.E. are not new terms. But they're a lot more widely used today than 10 years ago. The modern versions of those terms are about 30 years old, I believe (and strangely, based on the term "Christian Era" which is a much older term). Yeah, that pretty much what I read, too. When I asked the question I wasnt sure if this was something used the world over and I missed it, or was simply policy at Paizo. When I asked my wife, the english teacher, the other day, she never heard of it either. Turns out its a mixture of both. I still dont see many other publications that use CE, but according to where i got my answer, its slowly coming in vogue.
Ibbins 11-03-05, 04:07 PM	1: it did in fact, come in 2000, get your dating right. When correcting someone, try being a bit more polite. And, more importantly, try not to assume that what you believe is automatically correct. It is more widely accepted that the new millenium began 2001, as based on evidence already provided by Elbethamore.
caeruleus 11-03-05, 04:10 PM	There was no year 0; the year 1 BC is followed by 1 AD. If there had been a year 0, 2000 really would have been a new millenium since 0-999 = 1000 years and 1000-1999 = 1000 years. Instead, it's 1-1000 and 1001-2000. And modern scholarship puts the birth of Jesus closer to 5 or 6 BC anyway. He was born during the reign of King Herod, who died in 4 BC, so it could have been no later than that. P.S. Cearuleus posted while I was writing this... Serves me right for being wordy. Yeah, but where all I did was make a statement, you gave some support to that statement. Good job. And as for when we should start a new calendar from... I'm surprised no one's suggested this yet, but 2005 CE should be year 31 ADD (Alt-D&D). ;)
feartheinvinceblehamster 11-03-05, 06:13 PM	When correcting someone, try being a bit more polite. And, more importantly, try not to assume that what you believe is automatically correct. It is more widely accepted that the new millenium began 2001, as based on evidence already provided by Elbethamore. That's about as polite as I can put it to people who are to stupid to realize that in did, in fact begin in 2000. WATWO: where are the wizOs?
Escef 11-03-05, 06:44 PM	That's about as polite as I can put it to people who are to stupid to realize that in did, in fact begin in 2000. It did begin in 2001, technically. Yes, in the minds of the common people it did begin in 2000, and was celebrated as such. But, I honestly do not believe it was any more for folk than any other New Year is: an excuse to get drunk. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, our dating system is nothing, you can start a new millenium any minute of any day.
WolfHati 11-03-05, 06:45 PM	You've forgotten that we're living in the digital age. The new millenium actually begins in 2048.
feartheinvinceblehamster 11-03-05, 06:46 PM	It's a new millenium. Wait! you missed it! it's another! Geez, It's been eons since you've been to one of our parties!
The White Sorcerer 11-03-05, 06:47 PM	That's about as polite as I can put it to people who are to stupid to realize that in did, in fact begin in 2000. The first millenium (a thousand years) was 1 AD to 1000 AD. The second millenium was 1001 AD to 2000. So, naturally, the first year of the current millenium is 2001 AD. 1001 AD to 1999 AD is only 999 years.
Ibbins 11-03-05, 08:10 PM	Sigh... he won't be convinced. Someone should just ban him and be done with it.
Edymnion 11-03-05, 08:18 PM	Sigh... he won't be convinced.Nope. And he doesn't want to be convinced. So let him run around saying the millenium started in 2000 and not 2001. It just means that everybody else is going to laughing at him behind his back. :)
feartheinvinceblehamster 11-03-05, 08:19 PM	*Delete*
feartheinvinceblehamster 11-03-05, 08:21 PM	Sigh... he won't be convinced. Someone should just ban him and be done with it. Don't care. Shut up and go get yourself banned.
Ibbins 11-03-05, 08:36 PM	Thank-you for proving my point. Yet again.
Wharin 11-03-05, 08:45 PM	:gah: I didn't think that my question was going to open a whole can of worms. Sorry. If anyone is keeping score, I, too, believed up till about 6/7 years ago that the new AD/CE millenium started on 2000, not 2001. But I think it was an episode of X-Files that told me otherwise. On that same tangent, I believe that officially that the start of each decade beings on the _1, and not the _0 for that very same reason. That said, I can't think of anyone who really things of 1980 as the 70's. So yeah 2001 might not have have had the (in)fame(y) of y2k, but it is the start of the 3rd AD/CE millenium. Not really an opinion. Just a fact. Maybe a fact thats open up to historian conjecture (maybe somehow we missed/skipped a year, did the event that marks the start of the new dating system really happen on year 1 and maybe not a year or seven before/after the calender started, or similiar problems). But provided that the paperwork is all up to snuff, yeah, the 3rd millenium began on 2001, not 2000.
Ibbins 11-03-05, 08:57 PM	I didn't think that my question was going to open a whole can of worms. Sorry. I apologize for my part in bringing that about. :surrender
Edymnion 11-03-05, 09:09 PM	I believe that officially that the start of each decade beings on the _1, and not the _0 for that very same reason. That said, I can't think of anyone who really things of 1980 as the 70's.Nope, decades start on the X0's, because there actually is a year 70, a year 80. Its only centuries and milleniums that start on XXX1. Its why you have to remember that the 19th Century actually refers to the 1800's, not the 1900's.
Wharin 11-03-05, 09:14 PM	Meh, I was told differently (in reference to the decades), but not in any offcial manner and its not something i feel strongly enough about to bring out the boxing gloves.
Edymnion 11-03-05, 09:16 PM	Well, its like the differance between saying the 19th century and the 1800's. If you want to refer to it as the 8th decade, then yes, you are talking about the years 1971-1980. But if you are referring to it as just the 80's, its 80-89.
Escef 11-03-05, 09:22 PM	Nope, decades start on the X0's, because there actually is a year 70, a year 80. Its only centuries and milleniums that start on XXX1. Its why you have to remember that the 19th Century actually refers to the 1800's, not the 1900's. Sorry, Edy, but you're wrong on this one. The first decade was the years 1-10, the second 11-20, etc. So technically they do start on the 'X1 year. Not that anyone actually does it that way. The difference between the technical definition and the common one isn't really significant.
The White Sorcerer 11-03-05, 09:40 PM	Nope, decades start on the X0's, because there actually is a year 70, a year 80. But did the first decade start on the year 00?
caeruleus 11-03-05, 09:47 PM	But, as I believe Edymnion was saing, when we refer to, say, the 19th century, we're technically referring to 1801-1900. But when we refer to the 1800s, we tend to mean 1800-1899. I think he may have been saying something similar about decades.
Piff 11-03-05, 11:27 PM	It did begin in 2001, technically. Yes, in the minds of the common people it did begin in 2000, and was celebrated as such. But, I honestly do not believe it was any more for folk than any other New Year is: an excuse to get drunk. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, our dating system is nothing, you can start a new millenium any minute of any day. So very true. Out dating system is so off. Do we really know when Jesus was born because time was not recorded very well. Scientist say the world is billions of years old but thats just thier estimation. In reality it could just be millions or thousands depending on how you view the creation of the world but lets not get into that. But the new millenium did start in 2001 not 2000. Most eveyone was off just by a year.
spectralphoenix 11-03-05, 11:47 PM	Ultimately, the dating system is what it is because no one wants to go through the trouble of changing the system, which would be just about impossible anyway. CE may be a bit more PC than AD, but I don't think it makes much of a difference.
Edymnion 11-04-05, 12:19 AM	But, as I believe Edymnion was saing, when we refer to, say, the 19th century, we're technically referring to 1801-1900. But when we refer to the 1800s, we tend to mean 1800-1899. I think he may have been saying something similar about decades.Yeah. If you say the 8th decade of the 20th century, you're talking about the 1970's. But if you say the 80's of the 1900's, then you're still talking about 1980-1989. Its just that saying "the 9th decade" never caught on.
residieu 11-04-05, 12:35 AM	Meh, I was told differently (in reference to the decades), but not in any offcial manner and its not something i feel strongly enough about to bring out the boxing gloves. The 70's are 1970-1979 because they are the 70's. If they were called the 8th decade of the 20th century, or the 198th decade that would be 1971-1980, because the origin of the number system is 1. Ultimately though, it doesn't really matter. Decades and centuries and milllenia are usually only referred to when describing trends in history or culture (music of the 80s, technological innovations in the 18th century) and these sorts of things never cooperate by happening only within our neatly defined divisions of time.
Quenditar 11-04-05, 02:51 AM	Thinking of highly obnoxious dating schemes, some real-world cultures used the Faerunian system of naming every year after significant events (or royal officials). Without a continuous count. At least lists of the names have been found. Incidentally, I haven't seen any sign of the politically correct 'CE' in Arabic. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.
arbanafal 11-04-05, 07:41 AM	Probably because the muslim-arabs, like jews have their own seperate calendar, dating from mohammed and beginning of the earth respectively. They view the BC/AD calendar as the christian calendar, so there is no general need to politically-correctify it. The chinese probably honor their own calender as well, while still using the christian BC/AD. I don't know that many chinese, so this is just conjecture.
Shatteredtower 11-04-05, 08:28 AM	The whole BCE/CE thing irritates me. Part of that irritation comes from the fact that I can still refer to Frey and Janus regularly and no one campaigns to fix the calendar so that September, October, November, and December are the seventh through tenth months, like they should be. I just can't get past those pieces of context. I mean, just because I use the Centigrade scale for temperatures doesn't mean I fail to recognize the existence of a Farenheit and Kelvin scale (as well as a few others I know I'm forgetting and probably at least a few more I've never heard of). If you're going to change the reference scale, shouldn't you at least make your own, rather than hijack an earlier one and slap a new label on it? Or are the dating reformers afraid they'll be taken about as seriously as Esperanto is in most parts (that is to say, a notch or two more impressive than being fluent in Klingon or High Elven)?
caeruleus 11-04-05, 11:17 AM	The whole BCE/CE thing irritates me. Part of that irritation comes from the fact that I can still refer to Frey and Janus regularly and no one campaigns to fix the calendar so that September, October, November, and December are the seventh through tenth months, like they should be. Neither of those examples involves a religion that has a history (that is relevant to today's peoples) of oppressing and imposing their ways upon others. Quite simply, they don't bother anyone. I just can't get past those pieces of context. I mean, just because I use the Centigrade scale for temperatures doesn't mean I fail to recognize the existence of a Farenheit and Kelvin scale (as well as a few others I know I'm forgetting and probably at least a few more I've never heard of). If you're going to change the reference scale, shouldn't you at least make your own, rather than hijack an earlier one and slap a new label on it? Or are the dating reformers afraid they'll be taken about as seriously as Esperanto is in most parts (that is to say, a notch or two more impressive than being fluent in Klingon or High Elven)? First, it would be impractical to change the dating system when it's so widespread. Second, there wouldn't be a universally agreed upon starting point of any relevance. Third, the problem is not with the particular numbers, it's with the labels. There's no problem with the labels "Centigrade", "Farenheit", or "Kelvin".
General_Ridley 11-04-05, 09:51 PM	can't we just base our dating system on the year Gygax first got some friends together and said 'hey, let's play a game with dragons and dungeons. I don't know what to call it, but it will be cool.'