Quote from: pawsplay;352854The people who own the rulebooks didn't feel like weighing in. Instead, people started talking about stuff they actually didn't know about. Owning a rulebook is not a substitute for reading it.

Well, you can screw right off then, sir.  If you want to disagree with my conclusions or playstyle, that's fine, but don't pretend that nobody checked a rulebook.

Quote from: VectorSigma;352912Well, you can screw right off then, sir.  If you want to disagree with my conclusions or playstyle, that's fine, but don't pretend that nobody checked a rulebook.

Then why did I have to point out something, from memory, what other people who owned the rulebooks were saying wasn't there until, well, someone looked, and it was?

Quote from: StormBringer;352870Kyle says it is not in current Christian doctrine, which is not the same as current Christian belief.

And Kyle is wrong, as has already been pointed out. While not all beliefs all doctrines, a doctrine is a kind of belief. Are you trying to say that very few Christians have beliefs in accordance with the doctrine of their sect? The only way what you are saying would have any relevance would be if it were doctrine, but essentially no one actually believed in it. Given that demonic possession is described in the Bible, at the very least I can count virtually all fundamentalist Christians (that is, Christians who believe in the Bible as the word of God and the primary spiritual authority for human beings) as believers in demonic possession.

Obviously, many Christian sects do not treat demonic possession as doctrinal, but the point was addressing those that do.

Again, I am really confused as to what you are trying to say. What is it you think I do not understand, other than your obstinance and need to throw around meaningless insults?

Stormbringer must miss Abyssal Maw and constant pointless arguments with his obtuseness, since AM wussed out and ran away.

I guess pawsplay gets to be the new Abyssal Maw, except Skarka's Law Representative instead of "OMGWotC teh 4w3s0m3!"

Quote from: StormBringer;352868And there is your problem.  You are in way over your head, and don't realize it.

You are quite correct about that. I have no sense that I am in over my head.

QuoteYou have done neither, hence, your standing in this discussion is approximately zero.

Therefore I must have used psychic powers or wild guessing to know of the existence of those rules.

QuoteYou failed on both counts.  No one is saying it shouldn't exist, although some may wish it didn't.  What you see are people condemning this specific expression in a jeepform, as well as the stated purpose of the jeepform to raise awareness.  As well, people here are making the strongest statement possible that this particular jeepform, and other activities or games like it, are absolutely not representative of RPGs as a whole.

Hypocrisy. You may *wish* they weren't, but the difference is only of emphasis and degree.

QuoteOn the second count, you utterly failed to demonstrate that RPGs of any kind are full of vile situations.  At best, by whining incessantly for others to do your research for you, it could be demonstrated that in exceptionally rare instances, there are some moderate to highly questionable actions in a quite specific mechanic in Werewolf.  However, you didn't demonstrate that.  You also failed utterly to demonstrate the particular rule in question is absolutely iron-clad and must be played out during the session.

What do you mean by "utterly?" What is this iron-clad criterion you are talking about? I feel like I must have missed a large part of the conversation because you are claiming things that are just not true, and arguing against things I never said. I suppose it could be some kind of strawman argument against me, but since you have complained so bitterly about them, I am going to assume good faith and allow that you must have failed to understand what I was saying.

To summarize: I said those mechanics existed, they do, I was right, people who said otherwise were wrong. Is there some other aspect that needs to be addressed?

QuoteFinally, then, you have completely failed to demonstrate any of your assertions.  You simply kept repeating the same untruths often and loudly enough in the hopes they would gain some traction, much like the individual you mentioned earlier, Jack Chick.  You now have first hand experience as to why no one takes him seriously either.

I feel like I have been pretty patient in the face of illogic, stubbornness, and filthy insults. Unfortunately, there is plenty enough of that in the world.

Clearly, my assertions, modest as they are, have been strongly supported. Werewolf does contain rape, murder, and cannabilism by PCs. Nothing more than that did I say, apart from stating that the PCs are werewolves. I made no claim as to the emphasis, frequency, goodness, badness, or commonness of such things.

If the best argument you have is that I have over-emphasized those elements, you have to concede that in the main, I was correct. Those things are there. However, I did not claim Werewolf was a game "about" rape, that was other people putting words into my mouth. I merely said that it was a game which featured rapists as PCs, which is verifiably true.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;352939Stormbringer must miss Abyssal Maw and constant pointless arguments with his obtuseness, since AM wussed out and ran away.

I guess pawsplay gets to be the new Abyssal Maw, except Skarka's Law Representative instead of "OMGWotC teh 4w3s0m3!"

I remember AM.

Quote from: pawsplay;352940I merely said that it was a game which featured rapists as PCs, which is verifiably true.

As this is the form of all your arguments, I will refute them all thusly:  

No, that is a lie.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;352939Stormbringer must miss Abyssal Maw and constant pointless arguments with his obtuseness, since AM wussed out and ran away.

I guess pawsplay gets to be the new Abyssal Maw, except Skarka's Law Representative instead of "OMGWotC teh 4w3s0m3!"

We all have hobbies.  

Quote from: pawsplay;352784I'm still scratching my head at people claiming demonic possession isn't a Christian belief.

Prove it.  Quote the post where someone in this thread has said that demonic possession isn't a Christian belief.

I double-dog dare you.

Quote from: Drohem;352960Prove it.  Quote the post where someone in this thread has said that demonic possession isn't a Christian belief.

I double-dog dare you.

Quote from: Kyle AaronDemonic possession is not part of modern Catholic or Baptist doctrine. Thus, modern Catholics or Baptists are not offended by stories of demonic possession.

There you go. Kyle Aaron said it, and further that Catholics and Baptists are not offended by stories of demonic possession. He also compared belief in demonic possession to the belief of a schizophrenic that the CIA controls brains through computer chips and claimed anyone who believed in demonic possession is a "real nutter."

Quote from: pawsplay;354210There you go. Kyle Aaron said it, and further that Catholics and Baptists are not offended by stories of demonic possession. He also compared belief in demonic possession to the belief of a schizophrenic that the CIA controls brains through computer chips and claimed anyone who believed in demonic possession is a "real nutter."

Again, certain Christians believing demonic possession does not mean the Christian faith as a whole believes in demonic possession, nor does that have anything to do with Kyle's correct statement that it is not part of Chrisitan doctrine.

Quote from: StormBringer;354220Again, certain Christians believing demonic possession does not mean the Christian faith as a whole believes in demonic possession,

True.

Quotenor does that have anything to do with Kyle's correct statement that it is not part of Chrisitan doctrine.

As noted above, it is depicted in the Bible and is part of Catholic belief, so for some Christians (at a minimum, Biblical literalists and Catholics) it is doctrinal. It is true that a belief in demonic possession is optional for liberal Christians. I mean liberal Christians in the sense of not being Biblical literalists, not in some general or political sense.

So Kyle's statement is correct in the same sense that the Holy Trinity is not part of Christian doctrine. I.e. not very.

Quote from: StormBringer;354220Again, certain Christians believing demonic possession does not mean the Christian faith as a whole believes in demonic possession, nor does that have anything to do with Kyle's correct statement that it is not part of Chrisitan doctrine.

Come on now, since it's not possible to prove that every single Christian in the world believes any given thing, by your logic the "Christian faith as a whole" has no beliefs whatsoever.

I think it's likely that the majority of Christians probably do beleive in demonic posession. Jesus healed somebody of it after all, and I think it's fair to say most Christians believe that the gospels are accurate depictions of Jesus' life.

Quote from: noisms;354244Come on now, since it's not possible to prove that every single Christian in the world believes any given thing, by your logic the "Christian faith as a whole" has no beliefs whatsoever.

I think it's likely that the majority of Christians probably do beleive in demonic posession. Jesus healed somebody of it after all, and I think it's fair to say most Christians believe that the gospels are accurate depictions of Jesus' life.

Oh, certainly, I didn't mean to imply this should be applied to every single belief.  In broad terms, one can speak of Christians' belief in Jesus as the Son of God, or the principles underlying the Ten Commandments.

Conversely, as I am sure you understand, one also cannot point to a single Christian holding a belief and extrapolate that into an article of faith or doctrine.

And Kyle was pretty specific about referring to demonic possession as a matter of doctrine, not individual belief.  I haven't had a chance to verify that claim, honestly, but Kyle is not one to exaggerate or use terms inappropriately.

Quote from: StormBringer;354255Oh, certainly, I didn't mean to imply this should be applied to every single belief.  In broad terms, one can speak of Christians' belief in Jesus as the Son of God, or the principles underlying the Ten Commandments.

Conversely, as I am sure you understand, one also cannot point to a single Christian holding a belief and extrapolate that into an article of faith or doctrine.

And Kyle was pretty specific about referring to demonic possession as a matter of doctrine, not individual belief.  I haven't had a chance to verify that claim, honestly, but Kyle is not one to exaggerate or use terms inappropriately.

I haven't been keeping up with the thread, but isn't the point of the argument that some parts of Werewolf are likely offensive to a majority of Christians? (It seemed to arise there, anyway, I haven't kept up.) In that case I think what's more relevant is what Christians actually believe rather than the official doctrine of whatever denomination they belong to.

If I can put words into pawsplay's mouth, I think the point is that lots of things in lots of games are offensive to lots of people, and that doesn't earn them the kind of approbrium being heaped on the creators of Gang Rape here. There are plenty of game designers who can be tarred with the same brush, if tarring is what you're into. (I'm not; I think Gang Rape is utterly ludicrous and can't imagine anybody ever playing it, but I can't really summon up much outrage about it. So jeepform players and writers are caricatures of uber-leftist avant garde drama school students; what else is new?)