The ban on religion prevents us from comparing the ToB Valkyrie with its Norse Mythology counterpart, but we can compare the MM2 Banshee with its RL version because that's folklore.
Or perhaps we could try to understand the idea and spirit of the rule, even though it might not be perfectly worded, and look at previous locked threads and draw some conclusions?
And if you're unsure whether a specific subject is inappropriate, PM a mod.
__________________ IMPORTANT: Back, after a long absence. Apologies to everyone I left wondering where I was.
Quote:
Dumbledore is dead but had a horcrux so might still be alive to it being fake and him dead but not stopping her from using the having a horcrux on you letting you live from a killing curse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Glyphstone
Epileptic monkeys. Boxing gloves. Typewriters. That is all.
In conjunction with this interpretation of the religion rule, I would ask that all threads containing references to things like minotaurs, satyrs, angels, devils, the Order of the Stick comic, and all other mythological creatures and deities be locked henceforth.
I reailze you're trying to be snarky, but...
If those things are being discussed in their fictional form - for example, discussing whether demons and devils have appropriate CRs - then there's no need to lock the threads. The ban line is pretty clear - real world. Representations of the things you list within the context of D&D (or whatever game) is clearly on the fictional side. Just like I can go ahead and talk about the Deities and Demigods version of Thor and everything will be OK (at least, until somebody else brings in Norse Mythology).
I'm not sure what your bone of contention with the "line in the sand" is. Regardless, the rules are very unlikely to change, I would imagine. But providing a solid argument is surely a better way to make your point, no?
The idea is to prevent religious debates. All we want it to use the mythology as it's written.
Aforementioned Shinto thread was asking about the mythos, not who practices it or why.
As an example, the Christian mythology has several different religions, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism. Banning the discussion of those religions, I understand. But we can't even allude to the Christan mythology.
Want to make a class based off Nordic warriors? Sorry, that encroaches on Norse mythology.
Want to make a spell that parts seas? Moses did that first, sorry mate.
Want to ask about the Crusades, for inspiration for your Crusader? Nope. Can't.
I think that is what people are a bit miffed with. We can't even use the mythology of anything real world as a basis for a story, class, spell, whatever.
As an analogy: Mythology/Religion is the same as "How-does-this-work/Which-is-better-X-or-Y?". All we want to ask is "How does this work", which the rules currently prevent.
In conjunction with this interpretation of the religion rule, I would ask that all threads containing references to things like minotaurs, satyrs, angels, devils, the Order of the Stick comic, and all other mythological creatures and deities be locked henceforth.
I would propose the recent RPG thread about Shinto Mythology to act as precedent. In the interest of fairness, the censorship of all religions and not just Japanese ones ought to be implemented. I know that the conscience of the authorities will not permit such discrimination to stand.
May Rich have mercy on your souls.
I think there needs to be some distinguishing between letter and intent of the rules.
The intent of the rule is to keep this board from turning into a never-ending flamewar over religious issues, generating hurt feelings and taking up server space better devoted to pony threads.
Consequently, the rule is enforced with a bit of common sense. Not everyone who mentions angels or devils or what not in a fantasy or game context gets a warning or infraction, because those things exist both in fantasy and in real-world mythologies. Mythology is a bit of a gray area, because it talks about things like Thor which both appear in marvel comics as fantasy characters and are seriously worshipped by real people.
"Gray area" means the mods have to make a judgement call. Rich trusts them to do so, which is why they've got the job. They err on the side of caution and expect other people to do so as well, but that doesn't mean they blindly enforce rules to the point of stupidity. I strongly doubt they'll lock a thread devoted to what an Oni is or how it could reasonably be implemented in a game setting, even if it impinges somewhat on real world beliefs.
The fact that gray areas exist is why we have human moderators and not bots like the word filter. Because the point of the rules is not simple, legalistic issuing of infractions based on arbitrary rules. The point of the rules is to keep this forum focused on its intended purpose -- gaming and promotion of Rich's work -- not allow it to turn into a flamewar sink which requires constant mod attention.
It is not possible to write a rule which can account for all the nuances of human conversation on a board in less than a phone book. Which is why human mods have the job of interpreting and enforcing the rules, and cutting slack when appropriate. This is not simply a blind, rigid word search as one would use in the word filter. It's a constant series of judgement calls and custom based on the written rules. It's a growing experience for me as I watch to see what is and is not locked and what is and is not permissible. When I misinterpret these lessons, I get a warning or an infraction. But I think you'll find the mods are willing to give slack when it's appropriate if you demonstrate that you're willing to work with them and are trying to abide by the rules of the forum.
So, rather than complaining that the rules are what they are or how they are enforced -- and the mods have no leeway to change that because this is laid down by Rich himself, who pays for this site -- it's probably best to participate in the community and learn by experience what the mods are on hair-triggers about and what they'll cut slack for. But speaking as a fellow participant, I would prefer it if people would NOT encourage the mods to be even more rigorous in their enforcement than they already are. :)
Respectfully,
Brian P.
__________________
"Opportunities to do good are everywhere but the darkness is where the light needs to be".
-- Eliezer Yudkowski, author of "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"
I think the only slight problem is that it makes it almost impossible to discuss the nature and attributes of the OotS gods in any way, without accidentally straying into forbidden territory.
However, this isn't much of a problem because the gods don't come in very much anyway. And when they do, are mostly used for comedic effect.
__________________
Great avatar courtesy of Xander Morhaime. Thank you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintRidley
Stats of the Snarl:
HP: Lots.
Armor Class: Can't touch this.
Saving Throws: Yes.
Attack: Successful - undoes target.
Challenge Rating: Too high.
Want to make a class based off Nordic warriors? Sorry, that encroaches on Norse mythology.
Want to make a spell that parts seas? Moses did that first, sorry mate.
Want to ask about the Crusades, for inspiration for your Crusader? Nope. Can't.
The first two look OK to me. A class and a spell for use within a roleplaying game are fictional. That's allowed. The third one seems to be on the "outside" - something that's not allowed here. It's the cost of "doing business" on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldog Psion
I think the only slight problem is that it makes it almost impossible to discuss the nature and attributes of the OotS gods in any way, without accidentally straying into forbidden territory.
However, this isn't much of a problem because the gods don't come in very much anyway. And when they do, are mostly used for comedic effect.
Again, that's fictional. There have been plenty of disussions in the OotS forum about the Stickverse version of Thor and Odin and Tiamat, and about Rich's custom gods such as the Dark One. There's only ever a problem when somebody says something like, "In real life, Thor..."
The crusades are at least partly historical in basis, but you're probably better off going to a forum with a heavier emphasis on history for information like that, anyway. You'll get more information, and you won't run into the code of conduct here.
Again, the real problem here is where to draw the line. The rule doesn't forbid stuff just because it appears (or originates) in mythology, just discussing the source material.
So, here's what an example of my interpretation of the ruling;
Discussing how to use the Norse deities as portrayed in Deities and Demigods: Acceptable.
Creating your own homebrew version Norse pantheon from scratch to get one that's more historically accurate: Not acceptable.
Sheriff: Neither restarting a locked thread nor snarking at us is likely to achieve anything productive.
Several posters, including Zherog and Pendell, have aptly explained that the line is not as problematic or limiting as the OP and other posters suggest, though it may be undesirable to some.
But the line is where it is, it's been there since the first rule set, and posting a thread like this isn't going to change it, or even provoke further official commentary.
__________________
Fedoruman Roland Avatar by Chris the Pontifex
Now recruiting a replacement player for our long-time Rules Cyclopedia/BECMI game Old Ways.
RSS Feeds: 
Mythology Ban
