1. A cleric
2. An archery ranger
3. A artful dodger rogue (Spike)
4. A wizard
So, already having 2 strikers and no defender, that role fell on me, as Spike gleefully informed me as I tossed my warlock aside and started from scratch. I muttered something like “You should have been an avenger, then rping would come naturally to you,” under my breath. I don’t think he heard me.
We had a food break, and somehow we got talking about conspiracy theories, then stupid conspiracy theories, which led on to 9/11. Someone said how sad it was that so many people had to die due to religious disagreements, and Spike piped up, reminding us that atheist are also capable of evil things, citing Hitler and Stalin as prime examples, to which I responded “Nice try, but Hitler was a Catholic and Stalin believed in Christ, better luck next time,” Spike seemed a bit taken aback and before he could reply the DM quickly changed the subject.
So anyway, some time during the evening I finished my character sheet, an Eladrin aegis of assault Swordmage. The DM okayed it, and then Spike says that an assault swordmage is best when there’s already another defender in the party and that for a sole defender aegis of shielding it better. I asked him with feigned politeness to leave my character concept alone and that I was perfectly able to make a character that could fulfill his role. Not much latter we parted curtly.
I went home, thought about it all, and realized that Spike was right and that he had just been trying to help. The next day I apologized for that and promised to consider retraining to aegis of shielding if my swordmage wasn’t able to do his job. He accepted my apology. I did not apologize for anything else I had said.
Then not so long latter, Spike makes the statement that the nature of religion ensures that its followers are, on average, more morally responsible than atheists. I challenge his argument, brought up a counter argument with a trap in it that he fell for, and then made some observations that caused the others in the group to s****, which made Spike very embarrassed. I felt no remorse; he brought it on himself by making a ridiculous statement he was unable to defend.
This happened a couple of weeks ago. At first it was fine. Me and Spike exchanged little words out of character but were friendly in character. I do not know exactly who started it, but then our characters started to become frosty towards each other, arguing in game. My Swordmage kept using aegis of assault to protect the ranger, even if it meant leaving Spike’s rogue stranded. Spike refused to attack a bloodied monster that was weakening me with will attack, saying I should have made sure my will defense wasn’t so weak and that the other un-bloodied creature who kept slowing us needed to be taken care of first.
Right now, it isn’t actually a big problem. It adds slight tension to the game that is good for RPing. However, if it continues to escalate it could get out of hand. I see three options to deal with this, placed in order of preference:
1. Do nothing. If things ever do get out of hand, let the DM try and solve things. As I said, its not a major problem yet.
2. Apologize to Spike for leaving his character stranded when it’s not strictly necessary, and hope he apologizes for not any wrong doing on his behalf IC and that everything can be forgotten. I have a feeling this might not work however.
3. Apologize to Spike for humiliating him when he made that claim. This would probably work, but I am a proud person, and whilst I can apologize when I feel I’ve done something wrong, when I feel it was the others persons fault I cannot apologize sincerely, and I hate to say something without meaning it, so really, I can’t see myself doing this.
Which option would you recommend, or is there one I did not think of? (Sorry for the long post.)
I muttered something like “You should have been an avenger, then rping would come naturally to you,” under my breath. I don’t think he heard me.
I responded “Nice try, but Hitler was a Catholic and Stalin believed in Christ, better luck next time,”
Then not so long latter, Spike makes the statement that the nature of religion ensures that its followers are, on average, more morally responsible than atheists. I challenge his argument, brought up a counter argument with a trap in it that he fell for, and then made some observations that caused the others in the group to s****, which made Spike very embarrassed. I felt no remorse; he brought it on himself by making a ridiculous statement he was unable to defend.
Apologize to Spike for humiliating him when he made that claim. This would probably work, but I am a proud person, and whilst I can apologize when I feel I’ve done something wrong, when I feel it was the others persons fault I cannot apologize sincerely, and I hate to say something without meaning it, so really, I can’t see myself doing this.
So you want him to appologize for you humiliating him?
Good luck with that.
You don't have to pretend you're something you're not, but you should at least formally discuss that you will agree to disagree on that subject and avoid bringing it up in the future, and just try to cooperate in unrelated areas to have fun.
Pride is one of the seven deadly sins ;)
Just because he had the bad taste to bring up religion is no justification for you to do what you did. Especially with your rude "enlightened athiest" tone. Act more maturely and simply say "Look, I'm here to play a game not debate the secrets of the universe. If you'd like to play a game with me I'd like to play the game with you."
The tone of your post clearly indicates a lot about your attitude and I'm not surprised problems immediately crept into the game.
How well do you know Spike? Are either of you new to the group? Are you guys even friends?
Someone said how sad it was that so many people had to die due to religious disagreements, and Spike piped up, reminding us that atheist are also capable of evil things, citing Hitler and Stalin as prime examples,
It's funny that religious people tend to feint that people do certain acts 'as an atheist' or 'in the name of atheism'. It simply shows they cannot comprehend that some people don't have their actions forced by a believe, but merely by their own choice. Atheism is the lack of a divine believe, not a replacement.
It's funny that religious people tend to feint that people do certain acts 'as an atheist' or 'in the name of atheism'. It simply shows they cannot comprehend that some people don't have their actions forced by a believe, but merely by their own choice. Atheism is the lack of a divine believe, not a replacement.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what he was talking about.. He was speaking to OOC Conflict becoming IC.. not the actual debate of 'belivers' versus 'unbelievers' nice try on trying to troll though!
Anyway, the actual subject. I'm not going to debate you on the subjects but I can tell you that I am a relgious person.. And we sometimes have ooc talks (even heated ones) and sometimes as a DM (or if someone else) we'll bring things that are similar to what's happened.. The one rule is - even if someone proves a point..doesn't make the other person wrong. I've pointed out a few errors in the Athiest mentality of my friend, and he's done the same to me.. and immediately after we each concede a point that we can't fight on..
Just do this and i've found it works,"Hey.. I believe this.. I can see where you believe that.. If we can't talk about it..let's go eat pizza and never think of it again.."
Why does one have to win over the other? Just say you're sorry your views got in the game and him do the same and be done with it..if you can't concede.
It's a game, not a debate.
In my experience, these kind of small problems are the kinds you want to nip in the bud. Leaving it up to the DM is a terrible risk, and will just exacerbate the problem by making the DM hate his players. If you don't believe me, check out the kinds of questions that get posted by disgruntled DMs on the "What's a DM to do?" forum.
I have a problem with your assumption that "it was bound to happen eventually." That is a bad mindset to have when reflecting on player conflict. I would assert, "There was no reason it should ever have had to happen."
The two of you have drastically different beliefs concerning religion. Wars have been started for less. But here is the deal, and I believe Euthyphro and some of the others are completely correct on this point:
You and your friends didn't get together to have a theological debate. You came together to have fun playing D&D.
Having pride in your beliefs is one thing, this is another. If you take exception to something, this is the time to be a bigger person and ask if you can settle your debate privately. Away from the game.
I felt no remorse; he brought it on himself by making a ridiculous statement he was unable to defend.
Just in regards to this statement, I have to make a judgement. These are the rules of life that people who wish to remain content and sane should understand:
1. Most people say stupid things, every now and then. Most people do stupid things, every now and then.
2. Unless you want to become a hermit in the wastelands, you will still have to live with these people.
3. Occasionally, you might just say something stupid yourself, or do something stupid yourself. It would be nice if you didn't set the precident for skewering stupid people.
Lastly, I would apologize at least for what you think you did wrong, even if you don't think it will help. It at least shows that you are attempting to make peace, and appearances go farther than you might think.
Good luck.
Edit:
Just do this and i've found it works,"Hey.. I believe this.. I can see where you believe that.. If we can't talk about it..let's go eat pizza and never think of it again.."
This just about encompasses all it was I said here.
Kouk: I know about the pride thing, that partially why I'm an atheist. I know I'm hellbound no matter what. As for the apologizing thing, I just feel the only thing I could say is, "I'm sorry I took advanatage of you saying something stupid," which would not help.
Euthyphro: I do have religious friends who don't hate my guts, and I have discussed religion with every single one of them. I just hate certain things stereotypical of Christains that are to lazy to think of a proper argument. I had to put of with it at my cousines wedding and I needed to be far more polite than logic would dictate they deserved.
Jim_Darkmagic_Fanboy: I've known of Spikes existence for quite some time, but we've only started talking ever since he joined the group just after Christmas. Our first encounter with religion was relativly painless, Spike inquired whether any of us go to chruch. Most said no, one person said occassionally, and I said when I see someone walk on water I'll consider going and he got the message. He sometimes brought it up, at which point I would quote some scientific or assumed fact and that would be that, such as "Don't you wonder how such complex life is. Wouldn't it be hard for that to evolve by random events?" At which point I handed him my biology text book and nothing else was said of the matter. He use to get annoyed by my habit of hyming song lyrics when I was thinking about something, but then most people are. We only had one serious argument until now, it was a month ago when he over heard me joking about how I was a watcher and praising the light bringer. An argument ensued, he said i was mocking his faith I said leave me alonr and in the end I told him to shut up and promised I would not talk about stuff like that when he was in ear shot as long as he didn't try to save my soul and he agreed.
losoyo: I guess it that I feel if one person feels something does exist and the other feels it doesn't they can't both be right. If this is settled though I'd be fine for just assuming I'm right and leaving Spike to assume he's right. But I will at least attempt to counter anything he says in support of religion.
He use to get annoyed by my habit of hyming song lyrics when I was thinking about something, but then most people are. We only had one serious argument until now, it was a month ago when he over heard me joking about how I was a watcher and praising the light bringer. An argument ensued, he said i was mocking his faith I said leave me alonr and in the end I told him to shut up and promised I would not talk about stuff like that when he was in ear shot as long as he didn't try to save my soul and he agreed.
Were you baiting him? Were you saying it to sincerely get on his nerves? If so, you're looking for a fight and I think you (or probably he) should look for another group.
I have friends who are athiests as well (It's funny how Christianity is always the assumed and most attacked religion). And some of them we agree not to talk about it.. If you're baiting him, i'm more on his side then yours. If not..
He seems like a sensitive religious person who is in the infancy of his walk who thinks that he has to convert everyone through overt means and if you disagree he gets extremely mad.. if that's the the case..again either you or him should leave the group if you can't let it be.
In my experience, these kind of small problems are the kinds you want to nip in the bud. Leaving it up to the DM is a terrible risk, and will just exacerbate the problem by making the DM hate his players. If you don't believe me, check out the kinds of questions that get posted by disgruntled DMs on the "What's a DM to do?" forum.
Okay. I won't leave it to that then.
Just in regards to this statement, I have to make a judgement. These are the rules of life that people who wish to remain content and sane should understand:
1. Most people say stupid things, every now and then. Most people do stupid things, every now and then.
2. Unless you want to become a hermit in the wastelands, you will still have to live with these people.
3. Occasionally, you might just say something stupid yourself, or do something stupid yourself. It would be nice if you didn't set the precident for skewering stupid people.
1. I know. I am no exception.
2. Life is so unfair...
3. Almost every time I have said something stupid, such as made a statement I was unable to defend, I have been made fun of by my friends.
Lastly, I would apologize at least for what you think you did wrong, even if you don't think it will help. It at least shows that you are attempting to make peace, and appearances go farther than you might think.
Okay. I guess its worth a try.
Were you baiting him? Were you saying it to sincerely get on his nerves? If so, you're looking for a fight and I think you (or probably he) should look for another group.
I have friends who are athiests as well (It's funny how Christianity is always the assumed and most attacked religion). And some of them we agree not to talk about it.. If you're baiting him, i'm more on his side then yours. If not..
No, I just do it naturally. I listen to cyber goth, dark electro and aggro pop, so many people ask me to refrain from this habit and I do try, but sometimes I slip up. My gaming group has gotten use to the occassional slip, but Spike wasn't.
I once sang the part of INRI that quoted the bible passage "And I stood on the sand..." just to see his reaction (I didn't quote the rest of the song). Apart from that I never hymed a song with him in mind.
As for the Lucifer stuff, I was talking to someone else at the time when we argued. I once discussed a possible reference to Lucifer in a war poem so most people know my interest in him.
He seems like a sensitive religious person who is in the infancy of his walk who thinks that he has to convert everyone through overt means and if you disagree he gets extremely mad.. if that's the the case..again either you or him should leave the group if you can't let it be.
Personally I'd shed no tears if Spike left, its not as if we're really good friends, but I want to try and get through this without someone leaving. So you don't think we can get over this?
1. I know. I am no exception.
2. Life is so unfair...
3. Almost every time I have said something stupid, such as made a statement I was unable to defend, I have been made fun of by my friends.
Granted, that usually is the case, isn't it?
Being the bigger person makes life easier in the long run, but it sure is a pain in the ass.Someone's religion is likely a major part of their upbringing... and it's something that some people hold very dear to them. Most religions don't make sense to me. I stopped trying to find logic in the Roman Catholic Church when I was 14.
It can get *very* obnoxious to me when someone keeps talking about their religion without me asking, as it seems your friend Spike is prone to do. However, as a self-described "atheist", you may have very well thrown the first punch at some point... and to me, no "faith" makes less sense than atheism - the belief that there's no greater power, and that we're all just a cosmic coincidence, created by random chance. You, sir, are taking a much further leap of faith than your Catholic friend.
Anyway, I don't necessarily feel you were completely out of line smacking down Spike like that if he was using the gaming table as his own pulpet, and donned the mantle Reverend Spike... but you should talk to your DM, see if he can't get "religious talk" outlawed at the table. Both Catholic... and Atheism.
Kouk: I know about the pride thing, that partially why I'm an atheist. I know I'm hellbound no matter what.
Lol. Sorry found that quite amuzing, you believe in hell and damnation but not anything else, oh well...
As for the issue at hand it seems like there was tension there from day one, as 4e is a game that focuses on team work I think both of you would have more fun if you could smooth the tension over. Perhaps you could both agree to ban the subject at the gaming table, perhaps ban politics too.
Euthyphro: I do have religious friends who don't hate my guts, and I have discussed religion with every single one of them. I just hate certain things stereotypical of Christains that are to lazy to think of a proper argument. I had to put of with it at my cousines wedding and I needed to be far more polite than logic would dictate they deserved.
This is the root of your entire problem. D&D isn't the time for "proper arguments". You don't prepare for a religious debate before you head to D&D. It isn't his place to provide you with a "proper" argument. He shouldn't have brought it up in the first place but you have essentially just cast your lot in with him by being Real-life-trolled and letting it eat into your enjoyment of your game time.
If someone did the equivalent of what he did on a message board they'd be called a troll. Don't feed the RL-trolls any more than the internet ones.
Play the game, leave the politics and theology at the door (unless its game politics and game theology)
Stop worrying about "being right" and "teaching people lessons" because they said something that offended you and start worrying about having some fun playing a game. You have a long, frustrating life ahead of you within which you have a chance to learn the ultimate truth of the matter which is that none of these people you're "teaching a lesson to" because of their "bad arguments" are ever going to change their mind on account of you anyhow. They will dismiss you and you will scoff at them from your vantage point of "logic" and you will just perpetuate the conflict.
There are no good arguments on the topic, every one of them has been picked over with a fine-tooth comb long before any of us were ever born. No one has solved them yet and you're not going to solve them over the D&D table, so you can either play some D&D and have some fun or infuriate yourself and play the "enlightened atheist" role.
Men and woman vastly more intelligent than you or I have raged the same debate since recorded history. Since you're not going to solve it you might want to exclude it from your game time.
I'm not pronouncing that judgment on you, but it seems very much like what occurred here. Either way, your beliefs and his are based on faith. He's counting on the "fact" that there is a higher power that will someday judge him, and you're counting on the "fact" that there's not.
If you can't be civil to one another, then this will be a constant source of tension. Go with what most of the other posters have said:
A) Apologize for the unnecessary aggression, and agree to disagree, and
B) Be the "bigger person" by defusing the arguments instead of feeding them.
Besides... If you're a true atheist, then why should you care if he DID spout his beliefs all over the place? Your key tenet is that it doesn't matter.
If he says anything like that again ignore it. Yes, it's wrong, but don't start arguments, as most people aren't likely to change their opinions based on what you say (something I learned the hard way...). Just try to be nice to Spike, apologize if things get too out of hand, and be nice to him IC, as well. (for some reason that seems to make people like you more.)
Also, as a historical note: Stalin was, in fact, an athiest.
Honestly, it sounds to me like you are being the typical "Offensive Atheist" as in guy who is an atheist who is on the "offense". IE the guy who wants you to know he is an atheist, wants you to know he thinks less of you for not being one, and is looking for as many ways to bring the point up as possible. "Spike" sounds like the typical "moderate/heavy christian" IE the guy who is a christian, likes to bring it up, is willing to accept that others are not but might pry more than is socially accepted, and isn't afraid to speak up if someone is bashing his beliefs.
You admit multiple times that you were provoking him, or just doing random things to see how he would react. I didn't see one instance of this guy starting things. Seriously, quit provoking people and there will stop being problems.
You could always ask him "Hey look, I don't bring up my beliefs to you, please don't do it to me". But first you have to stop A- Bringing up your beliefs, and B- Bringing up his.
The other alternative is to bring it right up at the table. Cite that both sides have been letting things affect IC, and state flat out that you don't want it to damage the game. Make an offer to try and keep personal problems out of IC. Peer pressure or not, you've previously seemed to have a good relationship with him, so it should still be salvagable.
Basically, something like this:
"I've noticed that our debates over religion have begun to affect our IC play- on both sides, and I'd like to apologize for that. I think it would be in both our best interests to lay our arguments to rest and focus on the game. I believe in my beliefs as much as you believe in yours, but I don't want that to damage our friendship. Truce?"
If that doesn't get him, nothing will.
"I've noticed that our debates over religion have begun to affect our IC play- on both sides, and I'd like to apologize for that. I think it would be in both our best interests to lay our arguments to rest and focus on the game. I believe in my beliefs as much as you believe in yours, but I don't want that to damage our friendship. Truce?"
If that doesn't get him, nothing will.
This. I would recommend a follow-up that you both agree that certain subjects should not be brought to the game table, religion and politics being the prime two.
Yruc: Right, and the fact that Spike was baiting me has no relevance?
Your appropriate response SHOULD have been, "Please let's leave those sorts of comments out of the room entirely while we meet to play D&D. I find it hard not to respond and since it is clear that you and I will strongly disagree I think our friendship will do better if we shut the hell up on such topics."
Kouk: I know about the pride thing, that partially why I'm an atheist. I know I'm hellbound no matter what. As for the apologizing thing, I just feel the only thing I could say is, "I'm sorry I took advanatage of you saying something stupid," which would not help.
Surely an atheist does NOT believe in hell - a DECIDEDLY religious concept. And you really don't understand the purpose of an apology do you? It is NOT to assign blame for misunderstandings, but to GET PAST misunderstandings. What you apologize for is YOUR part in exacerbating a needless conflict of opinions. You don't have to admit that what you said may have been stupid, nor get your friend to admit that what he said was stupid. You apologize for your complicit stupidity in allowing your disagreement on the topic to unnecessarily become an issue.
I do have religious friends who don't hate my guts, and I have discussed religion with every single one of them. I just hate certain things stereotypical of Christains that are to lazy to think of a proper argument. I had to put of with it at my cousines wedding and I needed to be far more polite than logic would dictate they deserved.
All this suggests is intolerance and intellectual bullying. Its better to change or avoid the subject out of simple politeness rather than end up insulting and berating people for their faith and beliefs. Just because you can talk trash about religion to some people doesn't mean you earn the right to be intolerant and abusive towards people who can't throw your rudeness back in your face. Inability to debate religion with you to your satisfaction doesn't make it right to lord your opinions over people who are otherwise SUPPOSED to be your friends. And yes, if you're playing D&D with someone they bloody well ought to be considered friends or one of you has no business being there.
We only had one serious argument until now, it was a month ago when he over heard me joking about how I was a watcher and praising the light bringer. An argument ensued, he said i was mocking his faith I said leave me alonr and in the end I told him to shut up and promised I would not talk about stuff like that when he was in ear shot as long as he didn't try to save my soul and he agreed.
Good solution. So what's the problem? Are you still mocking his belief or is he still trying to convert you? I'd suggest you POLITELY remind him of your MUTUAL commitment to avoid the subject. If that fails then one of you really needs to find another group.
I guess it that I feel if one person feels something does exist and the other feels it doesn't they can't both be right. If this is settled though I'd be fine for just assuming I'm right and leaving Spike to assume he's right. But I will at least attempt to counter anything he says in support of religion.
If Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and so forth can tolerate and get along with people of other beliefs regardless of vehemently disagreeing with them so can you. The vast majority of people in the world are NOT atheists but followers and believers of one religion or another. There's no reason you need to draw your line in the sand in front of Spike.
Seriously, both of you are at fault. If Spike wants to bring claims of his 'moral superiority' to the table, the DM needs to reprimand him. As for you defending yourself, that's OK, but you went too far in humiliating him.
If Spike says something meant to bait you into an argument, ignore him. He'll look like a fool to the rest of the group, and he'll eventually grow tired of it.
It seems like your one of those 'militant atheists'. Here's a bit of advice - just let religion be. All your doing is giving others a bad view of irreligious people in general. Let Spike believe what Spike wants to believe, and you continue disbelieving in God(s). If he wants to have an open theological debate, that's fine, but don't bring it to the game-table.
I understand the desire to respond when he lobs one of those types of comments into the air. But responding is going to exacerbate the situation.
For the IC stuff, I'd talk to him about it. Both of you discuss how you'd like you characters to get along, where you see them going. Don't think of them as avatars for yourselves think of them as characters in a collaborative story.
What age group would you say the group falls into? High School? College-age? 20's? Older?
The bugger's just trying to press his beliefs on you, and what you did was understandable. Just don't fall for his baiting again.
I guess it was bound to happen eventually. Our group consists of me, “Zoltan”, a devoted atheist, three others whose beliefs are of no problem, and a moderately religious Christian (Lets call him Spike). We recently started a 4E game. The night before the game we were talking. I was already in a slightly bad temper because I had missed one session in which everyone had okayed their characters, so dark pact warlock was rejected because the group because they consisted of:
1. A cleric
2. An archery ranger
3. A artful dodger rogue (Spike)
4. A wizard
So, already having 2 strikers and no defender, that role fell on me, as Spike gleefully informed me as I tossed my warlock aside and started from scratch. I muttered something like “You should have been an avenger, then rping would come naturally to you,” under my breath. I don’t think he heard me.
We had a food break, and somehow we got talking about conspiracy theories, then stupid conspiracy theories, which led on to 9/11. Someone said how sad it was that so many people had to die due to religious disagreements, and Spike piped up, reminding us that atheist are also capable of evil things, citing Hitler and Stalin as prime examples, to which I responded “Nice try, but Hitler was a Catholic and Stalin believed in Christ, better luck next time,” Spike seemed a bit taken aback and before he could reply the DM quickly changed the subject.
So anyway, some time during the evening I finished my character sheet, an Eladrin aegis of assault Swordmage. The DM okayed it, and then Spike says that an assault swordmage is best when there’s already another defender in the party and that for a sole defender aegis of shielding it better. I asked him with feigned politeness to leave my character concept alone and that I was perfectly able to make a character that could fulfill his role. Not much latter we parted curtly.
I went home, thought about it all, and realized that Spike was right and that he had just been trying to help. The next day I apologized for that and promised to consider retraining to aegis of shielding if my swordmage wasn’t able to do his job. He accepted my apology. I did not apologize for anything else I had said.
Then not so long latter, Spike makes the statement that the nature of religion ensures that its followers are, on average, more morally responsible than atheists. I challenge his argument, brought up a counter argument with a trap in it that he fell for, and then made some observations that caused the others in the group to s****, which made Spike very embarrassed. I felt no remorse; he brought it on himself by making a ridiculous statement he was unable to defend.
This happened a couple of weeks ago. At first it was fine. Me and Spike exchanged little words out of character but were friendly in character. I do not know exactly who started it, but then our characters started to become frosty towards each other, arguing in game. My Swordmage kept using aegis of assault to protect the ranger, even if it meant leaving Spike’s rogue stranded. Spike refused to attack a bloodied monster that was weakening me with will attack, saying I should have made sure my will defense wasn’t so weak and that the other un-bloodied creature who kept slowing us needed to be taken care of first.
Right now, it isn’t actually a big problem. It adds slight tension to the game that is good for RPing. However, if it continues to escalate it could get out of hand. I see three options to deal with this, placed in order of preference:
1. Do nothing. If things ever do get out of hand, let the DM try and solve things. As I said, its not a major problem yet.
2. Apologize to Spike for leaving his character stranded when it’s not strictly necessary, and hope he apologizes for not any wrong doing on his behalf IC and that everything can be forgotten. I have a feeling this might not work however.
3. Apologize to Spike for humiliating him when he made that claim. This would probably work, but I am a proud person, and whilst I can apologize when I feel I’ve done something wrong, when I feel it was the others persons fault I cannot apologize sincerely, and I hate to say something without meaning it, so really, I can’t see myself doing this.
Which option would you recommend, or is there one I did not think of? (Sorry for the long post.)
I would make an agreement that no more political/religious/ethical/etc(debatable) things be mentioned during game time, and that your characters kiss and make up(not literally).
It is, in any event, a good idea if everyone agrees not to bring up RL religion or politics. I know in my group we have different political views - - I'm probably the most liberal one in the group, though I have a few conservative views - - so we just don't talk about it. I think it's a good policy for any group, especially if you know someone will take it personally.
...and they started to play DnD.
Trufax for my group (well, we didn't play in a bar, but the rest is true). We didn't have any religious arguments because we have mutual respect for each other and each others' beliefs. We don't toss snarky-religious comments with each other. When we debate (outside the game, mind you), we do it in a polite, civilized manner, and what we've talked about during that debate would be forgotten afterward when we much some pizza.
It takes two to fight.
You can't say you're innocent. you were both at fault. You were also tossing offhanded, offensive comments. It doesn't make you more superior to him in anyway.
I'm an atheist myself, but within the game world, my characters believe in the Gods. (It tends to hurt when your character pronounces that the Gods don't exist and then gets hit with a bolt of lightning with attached note, 'Yes, we do!') That's the only religion I ever discuss during or around the time of a gaming session.
Politics and religion don't mix with gaming, IMO. Time and place.
I would make an agreement that no more political/religious/ethical/etc(debatable) things be mentioned during game time, and that your characters kiss and make up(not literally).
It seems the civilized solution.
I'm an atheist, and find more and more difficult to bear religious people. I'm far less tolerant than years ago.
But it has nothing to do with the game. This kind of conflict is better delayed for a resolution out of game.
And if Spike and you are friends, then both of you have to accept putting religious question aside when together.
Just because I'm a pessimist, I've been thinking for reasons that Spike might not like this arrangement. So far I've only found one: we talk about evolution occasionally. Mainly because its part of our biology lessons, and consequently we get homework on it. Being the best at biology in the class (just so I don't appear to be big headed, I hate math and am the second worst in the class) we sometimes discuss the homework during food breaks. Spike might have a problem with this, but then again he might not, so I should probably cross this bridge if and when we get there.
the belief that there's no greater power, and that we're all just a cosmic coincidence, created by random chance. You, sir, are taking a much further leap of faith than your Catholic friend.
I personally find the idea of unconscious trial and error over the course of billions of years is far more believable than that some higher power made the earth for humans and animals, and then decided that 70.8% of the Earth’s surface was going to be uninhabitable to his most important creation. And decided to make a load of other lifeless planets while he was at it. (Surely the bible would mention it if he made other worlds with life on them?). But then didn't someone say that the big bang theory was like assuming a tornado in a work shop could assemble an airplane? Well, maybe over the course of 10 billion years...
You have a long, frustrating life ahead of you within which you have a chance to learn the ultimate truth of the matter which is that none of these people you're "teaching a lesson to" because of their "bad arguments" are ever going to change their mind on account of you anyhow. They will dismiss you and you will scoff at them from your vantage point of "logic" and you will just perpetuate the conflict.
I have already accepted that I will have a long frustrating life. It’s just me, so either I change or the world does. I do not want the former to happen and the chances are against the latter so…
On a side note, Spike is also going to find life frustrating if he continues to make statements he can't defend.
He's counting on the "fact" that there is a higher power that will someday judge him, and you're counting on the "fact" that there's not.
Not quite. He’s counting on the fact that there is a specific higher power that will someday judge him. If the higher power is Allah, he’s just as screwed as I am.
Also, as a historical note: Stalin was, in fact, an athiest.
Who believed in Christ’s existence.
You admit multiple times that you were provoking him,
Such as?
or just doing random things to see how he would react.
On one occasion I quoted a line from a bible that I knew from a song. If my memory serves me correctly it goes “And I stood on the sand, and I saw a great beast rising out of the sea. Having seven heads and 10 horns and on its horn 10 crows, and on its head, the name of blasphemy”. We were by a lakeside as that happened and I wanted to see what Spike would think if I quoted the bible. He didn’t recognize the quote, was surprised I knew it, and that was that. I didn’t quote a barbaric passage and demand an explanation and on no other occasion did I ever quote anything solely because of Spike.
Surely an atheist does NOT believe in hell - a DECIDEDLY religious concept.
If it does exist, I’m going there no matter what. No higher power would let me into their paradise, whether I believed in them or not.
One atheist to another, this isn't the time and/or place.
It takes two to tango.
I'm an atheist myself, but within the game world, my characters believe in the Gods. (It tends to hurt when your character pronounces that the Gods don't exist and then gets hit with a bolt of lightning with attached note, 'Yes, we do!') That's the only religion I ever discuss during or around the time of a gaming session.
And this is why I'm glad gods don't do stupid stuff like that in 4e. I admit, even in game worlds where the gods do intefere, my characters don't worship them even if they acknowledge their existence (I think the term is 'apostate', rather than atheist).
And this is why I'm glad gods don't do stupid stuff like that in 4e. I admit, even in game worlds where the gods do intefere, my characters don't worship them even if they acknowledge their existence (I think the term is 'apostate', rather than atheist).
*sigh* The lightning bolt reference was a joke, blatantly stolen from Terry Pratchett's works.
But that aside, an atheist *within* a D&D game would be in denial of reality. In D&D, in the Gods not only exist, but do interfere in worldly matters (indirectly by means of divine powers - but its still divine power). There is as much proof of their existence within the D&D realm as there is not in the realm of reality.
*sigh* The lightning bolt reference was a joke, blatantly stolen from Terry Pratchett's works.
Never heard of him.
But that aside, an atheist *within* a D&D game would be in denial of reality. In D&D, in the Gods not only exist, but do interfere in worldly matters (indirectly by means of divine powers - but its still divine power). There is as much proof of their existence within the D&D realm as there is not in the realm of reality.
Indirect evidence is circumstantial, not hard fact. Gods don't interfere in worldly matters, clerics/invokers/paladins/avengers do.
Never heard of him.
English author, writes Fantasy Fiction in a comedic style akin to Douglas Adams. Very, VERY funny stuff. His main line of books is based on a flat world (the Discworld).
Indirect evidence is circumstantial, not hard fact. Gods don't interfere in worldly matters, clerics/invokers/paladins/avengers do.
Correlation is not proof of causality, I agree, but causality does create correlation, and so correlation can *support* and help to confirm causality - or disprove it in many cases.
Beside the point, however - the Gods in D&D are a metaphysical given. They're like Gravity - they exist - IN game, that is.
My advice would be to ask spike to step outside, or catch him pre game and pitch the idea of a agree to dissagree treaty and both try and not bring religion into the game.
Prince, you're getting sucked into a religious debate in a game environment.
Oneatheistplayer to another, this isn't the time and/or place.
I agree, and yet I feel compelled to make a comment on this statment.
Surely the bible would mention it if he made other worlds with life on them?
I always find it ammusing when atheist, or Non-Bible believing person atempts to quote the it as a source to prove or disprove their points. That being said, yes the Bible does not mention life on other planets it also fails to mention personal computers, cell phones, cars, or space shuttles. All of which we know exist, and some we use every day. For those who belive in the Bible’s divine origin accept it as a insturction manual to a strong spiritual understanding and connection to God. It is not an exhaustive concordance of all things.
I always find it ammusing when atheist, or Non-Bible believing person atempts to quote the it as a source to prove or disprove their points. That being said, yes the Bible does not mention life on other planets it also fails to mention personal computers, cell phones, cars, or space shuttles. All of which we know exist, and some we use every day. For those who belive in the Bible’s divine origin accept it as a insturction manual to a strong spiritual understanding and connection to God. It is not an exhaustive concordance of all things.
Yes. I do not expect the bible to predict the future. That was a tool of the light bringer, and thus would never have been in the holy book. So I would never claim that the bible's inability to account for technological developments disproves is validity. But if God made others worlds, he would have persumably done so at the same time, and if the bible records the work of God it should mention all the worlds he made. Unless of course each world gets there own bible. Still, if God made the universe, I don't see the need for so many lumps of rock and ice, aswell as gas giants. No need to respond to this, I'm just justifying my beliefs.
I reiterate, please don't respond to this. I offer that all opinions have already been stated. This conversation is only going to go downhill from here, believe me.I have already accepted that I will have a long frustrating life. It’s just me, so either I change or the world does. I do not want the former to happen and the chances are against the latter so…
On a side note, Spike is also going to find life frustrating if he continues to make statements he can't defend.
My suggestion is do yourself a favor and move on from it and worry about yourself and not others. Spike is not the one here asking advice on how to deal with the situation, you are. If he were I'd tell him the same thing. Get over it and play a game and have some fun.
There are plenty of "believers" out there, Christian, Muslim, whatever that would stomp your "proper arguments" into the ground. The battlefield wouldn't be equal nor fair for you vs. them as it is apparently not equal for you vs. Spike. You'd do yourself a world of good to get a little perspective and a little humility. I've known Christians in my life who would trounce just about any "argument" you would propose. Doesn't mean they're ultimately right just means they're better at arguing.
And as for Stalin, yes, I'm sure he believed Jesus Christ existed, because he did. The issue of Jesus's divinity is the question that is debated, not his actual existence.
And as I already said, far mightier minds with far better educations than you or I will ever possess have debated these topics ceaselessly and not ever reached a definitive conclusion, you're not going to either.
And as for Stalin, yes, I'm sure he believed Jesus Christ existed, because he did. The issue of Jesus's divinity is the question that is debated, not his actual existence.
NOT to stretch this argument, but I have heard claims that there is no actual record of the existence of any such person...
NOT to stretch this argument, but I have heard claims that there is no actual record of the existence of any such person...
I've heard reports that there are records.
Which still has no bearing on whether you believe the man was divine, regardless of his existence.
I believe Shakespeare existed despite some modern theories that he did not and was just a pseudonym, doesn't mean I believe he is also divine.
The issue with Jesus Christ is always the status of his divinity. One can believe Jesus existed, as a man, on this earth, as a political figure or as nothing more than a carpenter, and not believe in his divinity and therefore not be a Christian.
NOT to stretch this argument, but I have heard claims that there is no actual record of the existence of any such person...
.....and the point of this statement was what if not to stretch the argument?
Such as?
You asked.
I muttered something like “You should have been an avenger, then rping would come naturally to you,” under my breath. I don’t think he heard me.
Calling names. Really is a grade school problem. Most people grow out of it. The fact that you did it under you breath, and hoped he did not hear you is worse.
Spike piped up, reminding us that atheist are also capable of evil things, citing Hitler and Stalin as prime examples, to which I responded “Nice try, but Hitler was a Catholic and Stalin believed in Christ, better luck next time,” Spike seemed a bit taken aback
Spike is attempting to defend his religion, as he sees it as being attacked. Regardless of if this is true or not. Your underlined responses turn your response from a counterpoint into sarcastic mocking.
I finished my character sheet, an Eladrin aegis of assault Swordmage. The DM okayed it, and then Spike says that an assault swordmage is best when there’s already another defender in the party and that for a sole defender aegis of shielding it better. I asked him with feigned politeness to leave my character concept alone and that I was perfectly able to make a character that could fulfill his role.
He is trying to help, You feign politeness and tell him off.
I went home, thought about it all, and realized that Spike was right and that he had just been trying to help. The next day I apologized for that and promised to consider retraining to aegis of shielding if my swordmage wasn’t able to do his job. He accepted my apology. I did not apologize for anything else I had said.
Good job. The fact that you made a note here about what you didnt apologize for makes it sound as though you made a point to let him know you weren't apologizing for the other stuff. If this is true, it is a pretty jerk-ie thing to do.
Then not so long latter, Spike makes the statement that the nature of religion ensures that its followers are, on average, more morally responsible than atheists. I challenge his argument, brought up a counter argument
Bad move on spikes part, and you handled it well.
with a trap in it that he fell for,
Until this part. Don't lay out a trap for your "friend" instead be straight forward, and explain your point of view. Friends don't enjoy being tricked, even if you are right.
and then made some observations that caused the others in the group to s****, which made Spike very embarrassed.
AKA you made fun of him.
Seriously, just adopt the posters I see in elementary class rooms all across the nation/world "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" and sometimes it has a sad puppy dog on it, or a cat making a funny face.
.....and the point of this statement was what if not to stretch the argument?
Simply to point out that there's a wild assortment of claims out there. If I wanted to stretch the argument, I'd attack or defend it's validity.
Personally I'd shed no tears if Spike left, its not as if we're really good friends, but I want to try and get through this without someone leaving. So you don't think we can get over this?
Sure you can.
1) Out of Game:
If you know you've got habits, views, etc that bother him (and you admit that you do) and your not intending to irritate him, just reign it in. You don't have to change, just not fire that first shot.
Apologize as needed if you error.
2) Out of Game:
If he starts it? Just ignore it. Don't rise to the bait. If pressed, simply tell him you don't want to have this discussion.
3) In Game:
Don't play your character any differently than you intend to just because you & Spike disagree in real life. Defend or don't defend his character - but base it upon in-game reasons & your in-game personas. If spike wants to claim this has something to do with your real life differences of opinion? So what, let that stay his opinion & problem.
Also don't assume that there's OOC stuff bleeding into the game on Spikes part. And if there is? Shrug & ignore it. Then go pat yourself on the back for being a better D&D player than he is.....
I'm surprised he still plays with you.
Okay. So I've decided I'll take option 2 and apologize to Spike for leaving his rogue stranded, hope he apologizes as well and that things can return to what they were. We'll be meeting on Wednesday so I'll apologize tomorrow, then ask the DM if he could sometime doing the next session tactfully raise the point that religious beliefs and opinions are no longer up for discussion and should not be mentioned. Thanks for the suggestions and I'll get back to you to tell you how it turns out.
As you will no doubt find out eventually, there is a middle ground between willfully ignoring the situation and apologizing to someone who bears at least some of the blame.
If I were to look back on what exactly resolved similar situations best in the past, I'd have to land on a private, honest dialogue between you and Spike about how to peacefully co-exist. Don't bother debating religious beliefs and don't start throwing blame around. State your perception of the situation, ask him to state his and come to a truce that both of you can agree upon.
I'm betting that a successful truce would involve both of you stopping the snark and idiot comments about roleplaying Avengers and religiously inspired virtue.
Just because I'm a pessimist, I've been thinking for reasons that Spike might not like this arrangement. So far I've only found one: we talk about evolution occasionally. Mainly because its part of our biology lessons, and consequently we get homework on it. Being the best at biology in the class (just so I don't appear to be big headed, I hate math and am the second worst in the class) we sometimes discuss the homework during food breaks. Spike might have a problem with this, but then again he might not, so I should probably cross this bridge if and when we get there.
Another thing to talk about in a dialogue. The key point is to address him directly, rather than making passive aggressive comments about fact-free religions or implying that others are morally inferior because they do not subscribe to a certain religion. Both are attacks on a person's belief system in the guise of general conversation.
As a couple of asides,
(1) Both Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Stalin did indeed attend a seminary, but all evidence points to him becoming an atheist before even leaving the seminary. Hitler talks about his atheism in Mein Kampf, I believe.
(2) There is indeed no factual evidence of the existence of Christ. The earliest assumed account independent of the Gospels, that of Josephus, is widely considered to be counterfeit. Of course, If you try to hold other historical figures to that standard you'll quickly have to raise red flags about Socrates and plenty of others. The vast majority of historians, regardless of religious belief, accept the historical existence of a religious leader named Jesus. His divine nature is a completely different matter.
I personally find the idea of unconscious trial and error over the course of billions of years is far more believable than that some higher power made the earth for humans and animals, and then decided that 70.8% of the Earth’s surface was going to be uninhabitable to his most important creation. And decided to make a load of other lifeless planets while he was at it. (Surely the bible would mention it if he made other worlds with life on them?). But then didn't someone say that the big bang theory was like assuming a tornado in a work shop could assemble an airplane? Well, maybe over the course of 10 billion years...
As a quick side point, the reason why almost 3/4ths of this world is uninhabited is because without the oceans, the planet would be too hot to support life - what you point out as a flaw is actually a necessary development for life on Earth, all things considered.
I don't dispute the Big Bang, while I find Creationism to be totally ridiculous. No, the Bible in my opinion, is a work of fiction - and most organized religion was just a means to control people and force them to live in a way that was appealing to those who wrote it - which is why they really bolded Eternal Damnation for those who did outlandish things like eat meat on Sundays, or who worshiped any other Gods but X, where X is whatever religion's deity you happen to believe in.
But, you can keep going further and further back... until, at some point, you have to say: "Because a Greater Power willed it." The Earth was created out of space matter - okay great, what created the space matter? The Big Bang did? Okay great, what created the Big Bang. Energy created the Big Bang, maybe? All right, what created energy?
At some point, an Atheist is forced to say: "No one knows." They can dress it up with all sorts of qualifications, but the truth is, they are just as clueless as the rest of us... and saying: "I don't know" is just as arbitrary as: "God Willed It" or "Because There's Something Greater Than Us." But to be absolutely closed-minded to the possibility that there's some greater power... is every bit as naive as believing Noah really did get 2 of every animal on a big boat, or that God created the world in 7 days.
ANYWAY, totally off track... but this is a much better place to discuss this crap than your gaming table. lol
such as the Wikipedia page
For the love of God or lack of one if you so believe.
Wikipedia is written by the masses and is not a good reference source. Just a pet peeve of mine :P
Calling names. Really is a grade school problem. Most people grow out of it. The fact that you did it under you breath, and hoped he did not hear you is worse.
Yes, after he had gleefully informed me that I was unable to play with the warlock I had already made a background story and personality for. Whilst the appropriateness of my response it debatable, I think I was justifiable ****** off at him that time.
Spike is attempting to defend his religion, as he sees it as being attacked. Regardless of if this is true or not. Your underlined responses turn your response from a counterpoint into sarcastic mocking.
Yes, because that argument annoys me. Just as the argument made by an atheist "The world is not perfect therefore God cannot exist, I win" argument annoys, Christians who mention Hitler being monstrous as an argument. I treat both with sarcastic mocking.
He is trying to help, You feign politeness and tell him off.
Good job. The fact that you made a note here about what you didnt apologize for makes it sound as though you made a point to let him know you weren't apologizing for the other stuff. If this is true, it is a pretty jerk-ie thing to do.
No, I just wanted to clarify that I hadn't apologized for the religious thing to you people on the board, I did not highlight that when I apologized to him.
Bad move on spikes part, and you handled it well.
Until this part. Don't lay out a trap for your "friend" instead be straight forward, and explain your point of view. Friends don't enjoy being tricked, even if you are right.
AKA you made fun of him.
Yes. There was a noble side to my intentions: I didn't want to waste precious game time debating, as fun as it is, so I figured if I could just effectively call him an idiot and then he wouldn't counter my counter argument. Then of course there's the fact that I felt such an arrogant statement needed to be crushed as brutally as possible. I mean sure I’m an atheist, but I never claim simply moral, or intellectual, superiority over religious people, because I’m better than you is never an argument. At the time it seemed like a good idea.
Ultimately this was just a terminology disagreement. I don't consider what you just quoted examples of me provoking Spike. I'm not saying I acted well, just that I wasn't provoking him.
Oh and
As a quick side point, the reason why almost 3/4ths of this world is uninhabited is because without the oceans, the planet would be too hot to support life - what you point out as a flaw is actually a necessary development for life on Earth, all things considered.
Not relevant to the all mighty God, only to scientific reasoning.
Yes, after he had gleefully informed me that I was unable to play with the warlock I had already made a background story and personality for. Whilst the appropriateness of my response it debatable, I think I was justifiable ****** off at him that time.
Yes, and this makes it less immature how?
Yes, because that argument annoys me. Just as the argument made by an atheist "The world is not perfect therefore God cannot exist, I win" argument annoys, Christians who mention Hitler being monstrous as an argument. I treat both with sarcastic mocking.
Again, same question as the one posted above.
Yes. There was a noble side to my intentions: I didn't want to waste precious game time debating, as fun as it is, so I figured if I could just effectively call him an idiot and then he wouldn't counter my counter argument. Then of course there's the fact that I felt such an arrogant statement needed to be crushed as brutally as possible. I mean sure I’m an atheist, but I never claim simply moral, or intellectual, superiority over religious people, because I’m better than you is never an argument. At the time it seemed like a good idea.
It's not noble to make someone look like an idiot. Really, it's not.
Trying to make someone look like an idiot is never appropriate. Appropriate response would be "Hey, we're playing. Can we please just drop it?"
Ultimately this was just a terminology disagreement. I don't consider what you just quoted examples of me provoking Spike. I'm not saying I acted well, just that I wasn't provoking him.
If it was not your intention (which I'm sorry to say I really doubt, since in this thread you showed the intention of wanting to bite him back), you DID provoke him. You need not to have the intention of provoking someone to actually provoke someone. justifying your actions doesn't make it more right (or wrong) since the effect has already been done. Blaming Spike for the actions you have done (even if he is also at fault) isn't really helping. I don't mean to sound rude, but it's childish.
Be the bigger man. Apologize to him. If he provokes you in the future, ignore it. That's the reasonable, mature course of action.
Ahem.
Google any of those quotes and you'll find several more sources regarding Hitler's religious beliefs...such as the Wikipedia page on Hitler's religious beliefs.
That's a pretty good wiki page you linked to, Eldritch Lord. Please read the entirety of it before claiming that I was wrong.
I'm not trying to take a side in the atheism vs. religion debate here, it's just that false claims of "[Historical figure] was a Christian/Atheist/Jew/Muslim/etc.!" are a particular pet peeve of mine.
I wouldn't exactly call it a pet peeve, but I agree with you- it's annoying when someone makes a general "X was a Y!" statement. I can tell you, though, that Hitler was a cradle catholic whose personal belief system came nowhere near mirroring Catholic or Christian doctrine. Any halfway reasonable, well-cited biography of Hitler's life will agree that Hitler used religion as a tool to manipulate the masses, and that he had no personal belief in any sort of higher power.
he had no personal belief in any sort of higher power.
I don't believe that claiming what Hitler really did or did not believe is a valid point. We know he used religion and political situations to manipulate the citizenry. We cannot know exactly what he believed or didn't.
Why does there have to be a higher power? What makes this so called power higher. More powerful does not equal higher/better assuming it does exist, and where did the higher power come from? Someone or something would have to create it by the logic that Earth is a logical creation, and then something would have to create the higher higher power(not a typo) and so on.
PS: I don't expect a real answer to this, just some of my thoughts as to why nobody can say with 100% certainty why there has to be a higher anything.
I just feel it's a much bigger leap of faith to say that there is absolutely nothing out there. No meaning, no greater powers, no order... and that, by random chance, everything came to be the way it was with absolutely nothing pulling the strings, so to speak.
I'm not a religious zealot - but I'm very comfortably agnostic. I don't believe any man-made religion, including atheism, has gotten it right. I believe there's *something* out there... whether it be God, Allah... or be it some cosmic force... or the freakin Xel'Naga. I just don't have a clue as to what it is, and to believe in absolutes - regardless of it's specifically Jesus Christ's father, or absolutely nothing at all - is a huge leap of faith.
For the love of God or lack of one if you so believe.
Just a pet peeve of mine :P
It's a perfectly good reference most of the time; it's only when things are currently high-profile or controversial that people get into "I'm right" edit wars. And you'll note that I didn't quote Wikipedia, I linked to it in addition to the quote.
That's a pretty good wiki page you linked to, Eldritch Lord. Please read the entirety of it before claiming that I was wrong.
I did, and once again, it was a secondary source. You'll note that I quoted a different page, and that I said a thorough Googling would find you more information.
I wouldn't exactly call it a pet peeve, but I agree with you- it's annoying when someone makes a general "X was a Y!" statement. I can tell you, though, that Hitler was a cradle catholic whose personal belief system came nowhere near mirroring Catholic or Christian doctrine. Any halfway reasonable, well-cited biography of Hitler's life will agree that Hitler used religion as a tool to manipulate the masses, and that he had no personal belief in any sort of higher power.
Ah, but the problem is that saying "Hitler was an atheist" is really meant to mean "Hitler did [insert horrible thing up to and including the Holocaust] because he was an atheist," when it is manifestly clear that, whether he personally believed anything or not, he certainly justified it with religion and convinced many contemporaries that he was in fact a man of faith. His particular brand of Positive Christianity may not have been Catholicism or one of the branches of Protestantism we know, but he and his certainly believed it to be Christianity.
I don't believe any man-made religion, including atheism, has gotten it right.
One more nitpick: "atheism" is a religion only if you consider complete darkness to be a particular wavelength of light. Atheism is the absence of religion, not a religion itself.