[crossfire] blasphemy, vulgarities etc.

[Yann CHachkoff]

> As Mark already wrote, it's about consistency. Why prohibit players the
> use of certain words if NPC's can use it?
>
I'd like to point out that prohibiting the use of some words by players is
a decision made by the administrator of each server, not a general rule.
Although I definitely don't think that rude language used without any
reason in the NPC dialogs are a bad thing, I'm not opposed to that when it
is really in-sync with the character depicted.

> What exactly do you disagree with? Disagreeing that someone might
> possibly be upset by the use of angels (and holy ghosts)? It's the only
> thing I said, without suggesting that they should be removed.
>
I disagree that this should even be an issue to consider, at least for
something as basical as names like "angels", "demons" and such.

> And that's exactly why there is no single reason to these symbols and
> names, for there is no relationship with real-world religions ;-)
>
Of course there is - angels and demons do not only belong to religions,
but also to a cultural background of supranatural creatures, like djinns,
ghosts, dragons and faeries. Their concept existed long before the
religions using them nowadays appeared. Crossfire - and just about every
other fictional fantasy universe invented - uses various symbols well
known by most humans because of the inconscious association behind them.
Say "angel", and most people will immediately think "winged people, holy
messenger, defender of the good"; say "dragon", and they'll say "huge
intelligent reptile with powerful magical abilities". There is nothing
religious in that - those symbols all exist outside a single religious
context and are part of our very own civilization background.

Now, my position on *explicit* religious symbols is very different: name
of religious leaders or divinities, for example, should never appear in
the game. That's exactly why I said earlier that changing "Jesus Weeping"
was a good idea, as Jesus is the symbol of a religion, and not a "shared
concept".

> This becomes even a stronger argument when we're talking about symbols
> and names that are highly important for a religion.
>
Then, why speak about angels and demons, which not only don't "belong" to
a religion in particular, but are also not the strongest symbols of those
using them by far ? Why not a single word about the "holy symbol" that is
represented in the game by a cross, for example ?

> Do you remember the fuss about those few Danish cartoons?
>
What is the relationship between a cartoon that was making a direct (and
offensive) reference to a specific religious group and the use of cultural
elements that are parts of the mankind fantastic world for thousands of
years ?

> It's also one (out of many) of the reasons why it's a good thing that
> crossfire religions do not match with real-world religions,
>
They don't, IMHO. Does Valriel profess that other gods are fake, and that
it is the only true one ? No - by its eternal fight against Gorokh, it is
inherently a very different religion than the Christian one. Are there
similarities ? Of course there are - but there are as much similarities
between Valrialism and Christianism than there is between Valrialism and
Mazdeism, for example.

> and that's why it's a good thing to minimalize the
> use of (important) names and symbols (is there any difference?)
>
The question is when a name or a symbol is considered sufficiently
significant to be 'forbidden'.
Suppose for example that the critera is: as long as it is an important
religious symbol for an important community, then we should change it.

Sounds fine ?

Well, then we should remove humans from the game - representing humans as
we do now could offend Muslims. We should also remove dragons - they play
a very important role in oriental beliefs. And zombies, too - those are
part of the voodoo web of beliefs. See my point ?

I agree that we shouldn't offend existing religions on purpose, and try to
avoid making direct references to them - for example, don't use names of
religious leaders, founders, or divinities like "Jesus" or "Vishnu".

Do angels, demon lords and others belong to that category ? I don't think so.

> So we ban excessive use of rude words and don't want to create maps
> containing mature content for those little children. We also don't want
> to include political statements for the few players from China, nor do
> we allow anti-woman rights rants because that's offending, but we don't
> care for religious players that find it a bit offending that the name of
> their god is used in the game?
>
Where is the name of their god used in the game ? I already expressed that
I was *for* the removal of "Jesus Weeping" (and, of course, of any similar
name clearly making a reference to our own world). Angels and demons are
not a symbol specific to a religion, even nowadays.

> Eh, that's what I would call 'post hoc justification', making some lore
> with the sole purpose to 'allow' the existence of something odd :)
>
I see nothing "odd" (well, not odder than most of Crossfire :) ) and,
besides that, I see nothing wrong in creating some lore to justify a game
element "a posteriori" if no further explanation existed.

> You could name them "blessed souls", that fits the story as well.
>
Their 'physical' manifestation in-game is one of a ghost - calling them
"souls" would thus be illogical. And they are more than just 'blessed' -
they are  amongst the most faithful guardians of Valriel, recognized by
the god itself.

> Yes, I agree that it would be excessive to remove them, though that is
> not what's under discussion.
>
Yes, but if removing or changing them is not the discussion, I wonder why
you mentioned those in the first place.

> Dwarves insulting? heh, they're pretty strong folk. I would rather
> consider hobbits as offending ;-)
>
Is see only one possible answer here: :D.

> Demons and angels are, as you say, followers of evil c.q.
> good - which suggests that there are only two ways. In crossfire there
> are many ways, and - as far as I'm aware of - in no polytheistic
> religion, there are demons or angels. And that makes sense when good nor
> bad are 'copyrighted' by a single cult.
>
This is an interesting point.

However, in a polytheistic system as the one depicted in Crossfire, it is
still very consistent, IMHO.
Valriel is the personification of "Good". Gorokh is the one representing
"Bad". And of course, Valriel and Gorokh fight each other.

But they are just personifications of those two concepts, without even
suggesting that the whole world can be explained by them alone. What about
Mostrai, Lythander and the others ? Well, sometimes, they are in the same
camp as Valriel, like when dwarven priests helped cure the Great Plague of
3456EK. Sometimes, they are on Gorokh's side, as when the Mostraïan
Archbishop of Navar ordered the slaughter of the Elvish community that
lived there in 4322EK.

The polytheism of Crossfire is a very dualistic one: Mostraï vs Lythander;
Gaia vs Devourers; Valriel vs Gorokh... I suppose that in such a system,
people would see two 'camps', with temporary alliances, wars, and
exchanges between gods, depending on their moods and interests. Or maybe
priests of Lythander or Gaia believe Valriel and Gorokh are fake gods ?
Who knows ? Maybe we should ask the priests in the game about this :).

One may then wonder why angels only serve Valriel and demons, Gorokh. The
answer is simple - they are the incarnation of the concepts of Good and
Evil, just like a Fire Elemental couldn't follow any other god than
Ruggili precisely because it is made of fire.

Regarding real polytheistic religions, there are always "good" and "evil"
monsters, some helping humanity, others trying to corrupt it. Those
concepts are of course stronger in a dualistic vision of the world - but a
lot of polytheistic religions followed such a dualistic vision (the most
well known example of a polytheistic religion that makes use of "angels"
is probably Zoroastrism and its descendants, which influenced
christianism).

> Yep, and couldn't it be that the name 'holy ghost' is another remainder
> of these old days? ;-)
>
Maybe, but given that a logical explanation for that name (which, besides
that, doesn't capitalize the two words using "Holy Ghost" as a name
labelling a single entity, but "holy ghosts", thus a specific subclass of
ghosts), I think it shouldn't be considered bothersome.

****

So, to summarize my thoughts about all this:
--------------------------------------------
- Yes to limit the use of rude language (I liked a lot the idea of
replacing insults by stuff like "*#@ !") only when necessary;
- Yes to not make references to specific real-world religions (names like
"Jesus", "Vishnu", etc. should be replaced if present);
- No to extend that to more common names (angels, demons, holy ghosts,
etc),  as they belong to "common background mythos" more than to a given
religion.