@BESW Yeah. Admitting I know virtually nothing about comparative religion, is that sort of notion of godhood original to the Hebrews? (At least, among surviving religions?)
@nitsua60 There are a lot of debatably monotheistic ideas rattling around the ancient world, like Egyptian Atenism, the Great Spirit/Mystery in some Native American faiths, and a number of Central and East Asian faiths which mostly got rolled into Buddhism and Shintoism later on. See also maybe Quetzalcoatl? And Christianity in early Rome had monotheistic competitors.
Many of those belief systems endure in small pockets, or as parts of other faiths. But for ancient religions with popularly recognised contemporary devotees, well, Zoroastrianism isn't monotheistic but looks a heckuvalot like the typical Christian "God vs Devil" dualism except the Devil is a god in his own right (ish; it's more complicated than that).
And it's worth noting that there's a lot of disagreement on just what kind of monotheism "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" was enforcing.
(Hinduism is monotheistic, but not exclusively so; many forms of its teachings consider its expansive pantheon to be metaphorical rather than literal, each god representing a quality or attribute or truth of a single all-encompassing being who is easier to understand via allegories about how its various facets interact.)
Being one of the oldest surviving religions in the world, it's almost impossible to define Hinduism rigorously without excluding some portion of itself.
But it does include distinctly monotheistic qualities for values of monotheism that are more akin to modern Christian and Muslim sensibilities than, say, Zoroastrianism or Atenism.
...Comparative religion is hard.
We often don't even have words in English which mean the right things for talking about other religions--"god" being a prime example.
@BESW We often don't even have words in English which mean the right things for talking about our own religions =)
(I'm looking at you: "sacred mysteries.")
@BESW Do you have a sense of whether the distinction between "there is only one/my god" vs. "there is only one/my god, and that god is all-powerful" is terribly meaningful? I mean, did other debatably-monotheistic religions of antiquity assert omnipotence/omniscience the way the ancient Hebrews did?
I am pretty sure when people make particular distinctions like that, between two words no one will be able to tell the difference between, they are literally just making ***** up
@trogdor It seems a lot more likely that this is an issue where terms with a meaningful distinction in the original language have been translated into their closest equivalents in a language which doesn't have a meaningful distinction between them.
also, I am biased because I sort of believe there is a God, but I don't particularly believe that said God would ever support the silliness that many organized religions allow to be done in their name
like, I don't hate Catholosism, or Catholics, but we have some local problems here that crop up, and seem to be similar to less "local" problems within the Catholic Church, it isn't a problem with their Ideology it's a problem with people
@nitsua60 I think it's trying to get at the same idea Christian apologetics struggle with when reconciling God's benevolent omnipotence with the Devil's continued hassling of humanity.
part of me wants to run a "Speak Up and Take Back Islam" PSA on Al-Jazeera because that's what I see needs to happen -- the normal and sane folks in the Muslim world need to tell their loonies quite firmly to go fly a kite, so to speak
"Major Bugbear, reporting for duty, sir!" [salutes] "At ease, Major. I'm General Mayhem, I've got a crucial mission, and I think you're just the one who can pull it off. I need you to hijack an ideology from those who are holding it hostage."
@BESW yeah, which Nazis are actually crazy people, and which ones are just trying to hide in a messed up society because other options are "be branded a traitor and sent to a camp and or executed"
branding all Nazis as literally evil incarnate, especially literally in Nazi Germany,..... means ignoring the fact that at least some of them probably are only putting on an act to avoid a horrible fate
or even just straight up assuming all Germans are evil, or even ignoring that you could possibly change the minds of at least some actual Nazis
and while that idea isn't entirely wrong, thinking about it in that shallow of a term,... in many ways actually enables the evil of Nazism
if you keep labeling someone as evil, cut off any conversation with them, and in no way actually treat them as a person or try to change their minds, you are fully allowing, in some sense, for them to continue being "evil"
I won't say it would actually be easy for me to implement in this way, but if I met a modern Nazi, I would think the best response I could have would be "you really shouldn't believe this stuff" in some form or other, rather than "oh you are a Nazi huh? guess you must just be an irrideemably evil person who can't ever be helped" in some form or other
not that I think I need it to fix any bias against mixed ancestry myself, but just the mix I think I have is already blood from a lot of different places, not counting any other parts of my ancestry that I just don't know about XD
@Miniman yeah, again, not going to fix all problems, likely
Mmm, by using DNA to show that one's ancestry isn't what one thought it was, we'd be tacitly validating the idea that one's ancestry is significant to one's value in the first place.
@BESW well, that is a fair enough point, but I feel like there are a lot of people who hate any kind of mix of ancestry at all, and might need to see that it is actually unavoidable
It might blow up a person's flawed sense of where they fit in the ancestry hierarchy, but it wouldn't explode the notion that an ancestry hierarchy is a valid conceit.
This is actually exactly what Colonypunk is about: in order to engage with a paradigm in ways its adherents understand, you usually have to reinforce some part of that paradigm just to get your point across.
I certainly wish myself that no one actually cared about anyone else's ancestry (in specifically negative ways I mean), IE you can still be proud of yours but you don't hate other people for theirs, and can still even maybe think at least aspects of other people's ancestry are cool
but we are certainly not there yet
@BESW well, you could validate something only as a problem that needs to be in some way adressed
I don't validate a phyiscal injury by having it be treated to be healed
@Shalvenay sort of, I think it might be better to think of it as it all being "good" just with no measurement of value over anyone else's "where I come from"
it's all different, but not technically neutral
it just shouldn't be labeled as "bad" or "better" either
like, the game doesn't necessarily properly explain what you are generally supposed to be doing at certain points, but that never made me just outright hate the game
and the story was cool, they had an overall cool concept and didn't forget to add the little details, and I liked the combat system, even thought it, itself, was sometimes also frustrating XD
@trogdor It's a lot closer to what I think open-world games should be like - you can go almost anywhere, and everywhere you go you find part of the story, rather than being forced to go everywhere even though it's completely pointless.
like, a lot of modern "open world" games are certainly doing it more wrong than Wiz 8 did
@Miniman exactly
and I really like the idea of trying out different party builds, but I have the same issue as @BESW on that point, IE I tried several different builds and never got past certain points of the game, half because I wanted to try out other builds even still, and half because the dang overall game takes too dang long dang it! XD
heck, even by the time I beat the game I had restarted a whole run once, and then rebooted the one I won with a couple minor times
I have had some end before I even got out of the Monastery XD
but I had one where I got,... maybe a third of the way through the game? and I was not liking my position or my party composition anymore after that point
@Miniman oh yeah the extra work is definitely a thing, I almost tanked my "only Bishop as primary caster" run, but eventually it was the run I actually beat the game with
because he could literally do any one thing I needed him to do at some point
he couldn't win any fights by himself of course, but for AOEing down large groups of annoying (but weak) enemies, and ALL of the support magic? he could do whatever I needed
Gadgeteer is kinda similar, really. Early on he's basically a slinger, but by the end of the game his weapon can shoot any ammo and cause any status effect, as well as getting a bunch of free spells with gadgets.
Samurai I used almost every time, they were great for some early game tanky type stuff and then still powerful in the late game due to good melee and casting ability
and valks were pretty much the same as Samurai except that they worked differently obviously, I had one at least almost every run
@Miniman samurai is only missing healing and extra tanky-ness they have some of the best armor, but they don't auto-rez themselves like valks, or have just a wall of health like fighters
@Miniman well fair enough
I think what I mean is, I wasn't personally telling my sams to instagib and multiattack people
they were being cool without my input
same with a valks auto rez
wheras the cool thing about Sleepy the Bishop was, he could do anything I wanted, and I told him every time what that thing was going to be
that was admittedly also annoying on some level, but it was also cool
I did rejoice every time Ryu murdered something in one hit in melee though
and yeah, he was always a Dracon Sam named Ryu XD
oh, and I forgot until just now, I think it was the team that beat the game but I also had that first sam and then also a halfling one in the same party
RPG.SE chat has been able to talk about some grisly, controversial topics because of our devotion to the idea that we can strongly disagree with the things people say or do without being nasty to the people who say or do those things.