From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: D&D, religion, politics, etc (was Re: D&D and Christianity)
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:30:14 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd3.cis.pitt.edu

In article <C0ECB2.5tB@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Dakin Burdick) writes:
>In article <C0D70p.JB@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> kinsler@physics.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler) writes:
>>>>    >came true. A world where there is no God, where people aim to kill
>>>>    >and get treasure, a world where death is commonplace and powerful
>>>>    >sorcerers intimidate weak peasants.

>>>>    Welcome to the real world.  Just replace sorcerors with scientists,
>>>>    and you've got the idea.

	Not really. Try replacing sorcerers with media manipulators, perhaps.
Scientists, as such, have little or no influence on our society's "peasantry".

>As for this one, here's my evidence:
>1.  The gap between the rich and poor is widening in America (this
>    gives you your peasants; the scientists and doctors seem to be
>    doing ok).

	Yes, but the true wealth and power is, with VERY few exceptions,
not held by scientists or doctors or even engineers (the practical 
scientists, so to speak); instead it's held by lawyers, media celebrities,
performers, and jumped up accountants-cum-gamblers (i.e., stock market
players).

	The gap is widening, but the doctors of my acquaintance (and I
know a helluva lot of them) are not doing any better now than they
were twenty years ago. While some small groups of specialists are 
doing somewhat better, political and social pressures and changes have
made it increasingly difficult for a doctor to make a living which is
properly in proportion to the time and effort invested in his becoming
what he is, and the responsibility involved (so, you WANT to get cheap
doctors? Lemme tell you, a doctor who feels that the time and effort
he'll invest in SAVING or PRESERVING *my life* isn't worth all that much
is NOT the kind of doctor I want.)

>2.  Some of the biggest fears in the world right now are nuclear &
>    biological weapons.  Scientists are responsible for developing
>    these things.  Why?  Well it certainly wasn't because saving 
>    humanity was uppermost in their engorged gourds.

	Scientists, however, don't control such things, nor do they
use them as terror, except in a sort of bizarre, self-destructive way --
i.e., "look at the horrors that science has visited upon us, join us
scientists in a fight against Evil Science"... ?

	The nuclear bomb was developed by the US as a sort of self-defense
measure; we had reason to believe Germany was developing the thing itself,
and later we used it in an attempt (right or wrong is irrelevant in this
case) to reduce the amount of bloodshed and destruction which the 
continuation of the Pacific campaign was sure to bring. 

	The subsequent proliferation of nuclear weapons and the use and
stockpiling of chemical ones is almost entirely INDEPENDENT of the 
scientific community; it's damn sure that scientists had little or no
control over their spread or stockpiling. Science did, indeed, contribute
to this in the sense of CREATING such things, but the basic science involved
also gave huge benefits in one way or another. Scientists don't, in general,
have anything to do with the destructive applications of their discoveries
by third rate politicians.

>3.  The education intimidate the poor all the time; otherwise they'd
>    figure out how useless we really are and get rid of us.

	What a bit of poppycock. While a goodly number of "the poor" (hardly
a homogeneous group) have potential, that potential isn't restricted by 
any form of deliberate intimidation, and to call the educated and scientific
"useless" is a ridiculous attitude. Without the "educated", this civilization
will collapse. Read _Atlas Shrugged_ by Ayn Rand; while she simplifies things
to a great extent (partly due to the milieu in which she grew up) and 
goes to greater extremes than the "real world" would require, she demonstrates
with inarguable logic why the attitude you express in #3 is, at best, flawed
and at worst is evil.

>4.  Even those scientists devoted to healing are, as a whole, opposed
>    to socialized medicine.  The AMA makes big bucks, and they are

	If you've seen how much work goes into making a qualified American
MD, you'd realize that they deserve to charge every penny they want. 
Especially since the patient is ENTRUSTING THE DOCTOR WITH THEIR LIFE AND
HEALTH. How much SHOULD you charge?

	And fees go up for many reasons; malpractice, CYA tests (Cover
Your A** tests) which are made to keep the doctor from being sued,
frivolous lawsuits, insulation of the patient from the fees through 
comprehensive insurance and other sources, and so on.

>PS:  I myself am a member of the educated bourgeousie, intent on
>making a living off the ignorance of others,

	Poor attitude to have. I am educated and intend to make a living
giving people something they value in exchange for the money they give
me.

	As to the subject of AD&D and Christianity...

	It's obvious to me that the person who wrote the FAQ about 
D&D and Christianity 

	1) Was awfully confused in his own life to begin with (I mean,
"involved in black magic" -- really.)

	2) Was converted to fanaticism. Such people have to go and proclaim
how much things change, to reinforce their own beliefs (which are in
such people defined by whatever authority they have accepted, rather than
by their own thoughts) and thus must take extreme viewpoints on all
things.

	3) Had a rotten gaming group, if all his group ever did were
such reprehensible acts. Any party in MY world that was so amoral would
soon be reaping what they'd sown (to use a Biblical quote), and
would end up paying for every nasty thing they'd done.

	4) Got a major uptight attitude (the succubi, pornographic? She
was awfully cute in the original Eldritch Wizardry, yeah, but they 
even toned THAT down later... and even in EW that was a B&W line drawing
which was pretty tame by any reasonable standard).

	5) Believes that other people can't tell the difference between
games and reality (REAL demons, REAL spells, etc...)

	So, what can we say? NOTHING to this guy; he can't be convinced
otherwise. 

	In other cases, one could try the lines of argument suggested in
OUR FAQ.

	I've had one GM who was a Christian Minister, and a more TRULY
"Christian", in the sense of the ideals that the religion is supposed
to promote, person I have NEVER met. I've run games with many Christian
participants, ranging from "lapsed Catholics" to born-again types,
and never encountered real religious conflict except for one person who
played themselves in my world, who held to the Christian religion even
in a world where that religion had no followers. But that conflict, even
then, was part of a GAME and no one ever suggested otherwise...


					Sea Wasp