[crossfire] blasphemy, vulgarities etc.

[Yann CHachkoff]

> As long as there is no request for maps rated other than (at most) PG13,
> I think this is not worth the efford. And I doubt this demand will ever
> arise (unless CF becomes much more graphical)
>
I agree with this - and given the tone Crossfire has kept until now, I
doubt the problem is worth a code patch now.

> My main concern was however the language use of NPC's. I don't remember
> which NPC's this concerns, but some use expressions that are forbidden
> on Metalforge.
>
I disagree. If the NPC represents somebody that uses rude language, so be
it. As long as the usage doesn't become excessive, I see no reason to
change that *if that fits the character depicted*. I'd easily understand
that an "upset" NPC or a gruesome pirate to use rude words; OTOH, for most
NPCs, that would be inappropriate.

> Another issue is the naming of certain maps monsters. I guess angels -
> and especially arch angels - might upset some people, not to mention the
> appearance of 'holy ghosts' in Valriel's church.
>
Huh, what ? I strongly disagree with this. Angels are a concept found in
just about all mythologies (including the judeo-christian one); they are
present in the "collective cultural background" of many players. Why the
heck representing angels should ever be a concern ? Who exactly would be
offended, outside of a couple of fundamentalists ?

Let's make my point clear on this: just because some symbols are used in
real-world mythos and religions doesn't mean it is forbidden or offending
to use them in another context. Religions depicted in Crossfire are
fictional ones, and claim no relationship with real-world ones.

Making that position clear in the user's guide (maybe it is already ?)
seems good; OTOH, I'm opposed to start removing/changing creatures on the
sole pretext a couple of fundamentalists could consider their religion has
a monopoly on them.

About holy ghosts - if anybody creates problems with that name (hey !
that's  something that belongs to christians, remove that, it is insulting
!), I suggest reading them the following explanation from the notorious
Compendium  Khelentika, written by nobody else than the famous wizard
Dhelyy Olyy himself:

"Shadow-like creatures, born from the spirit of deceased priests of
Valriel,  that defended the Temple of Valriel of Kaïrudan when it was
attacked by the Arch-Demon Zurnad, during the Dark War impressed Valriel
so much by their bravery and their devotion that the god blessed them and
their descendants, protecting them by a part of its holy aura. Since that
time, they are called  'holy ghosts' for obvious reasons. It is considered
an honor by monks of Valriel to be reincarnated in a holy ghost."

> Also fighting devils or demons could be too much for some, especially
> when it comes to Demon Lords ;-)
>
Again, I think it is excessive. Just about every mythos has demons and
devils, which are basically nothing more than the embodiement of "bad
principles". In most mythos, there's a "hierarchy of evil", just as
there's one on the "good side", hence the idea of Demon lords - those are
leaders in the ranks of the demons.

If we start that way, then why not banning dwarves (they're an insulting
joke to players affected by nanism) or elves (they are an insulting
caricature of ecologists, and, besides that, we may displease fans of
Tolkien) ? I agree that we shouldn't offend existing religious groups, but
this seems to go way too far IMHO.

> And the entry to '/euthville/devil.church1' - a building filled with
> devils - is for some reason not manifest to me called 'jesus weeping'
> (see as well the name of /eutville/devil.church3). Does this game bring
> the gospel? ;-)
>
Well, the game initially used "God" and "Satan" for the two Gods named now
Valriel and Gorokh. The "Jesus Weeping" map dates back in the early days
of Crossfire, when that still was true, and the CF mythos wasn't really
defined. I think it would be a good idea to rename it to something like
"Valriel Weeping" or anything else more in sync with the current CF
mythos.

> Further, IMO things that are usually regarded as 'morally bad' (such as
> slavery) could be no problem as long as this is not propagated. A
> society with much less woman rights as is common to us might be proper
> content as long as 1) it does make sense and 2) there is no attempt to
> justify this.
>
I agree. As long as we don't promote such concepts (like by winning a girl
slave for example), I think it is perfectly acceptable to depict them, as
they were rather common in a lot of past civilizations.