Ah. That explains what you were doing elsewhere. --Vitenka
Oh, and no - because it blatantly is demonic and AntiChristian. And a good thing too.
Bit of a problem that so many Christians on the ToothyWiki like or appreciate it, then, isn't it? ;) --AlexChurchill
Well, you're thinking Christians. A completely different species. --Angoel
The game features magic and demons and angels that can be killed by the players. It portrays other religions as not only being valid - but as actually granting their practitioners special powers. It, reasonably actively, denigrates Christianity. On the other communion wafer - it is also just a game and not to be taken seriously in any way. Plus you get to kill the demons too. Not rabidly, but I would say positively, anti catholic at least. --Vitenka
But it's fictional, and very clearly so. Anyone objecting to the game would have to object to HarryPotter and MagicTheGathering as well. And to them, this quote communicates my POV quite clearly:
"Playing MagicTheGathering leads you into the occult and satanism in precisely the same way that playing chess gets you fascinated with royalty, or playing SnakesAndLadders? gives you a lifelong obsession with playground equipment."
Since when were being fictional and being anti-Christian exclusive? To take a recent and unsubtle example, Mr Pullman's celebrated trilogy for children is explicitly anti-Christian in intent.
Should probably cross-link to The Amber Spyglass, The Subtle Knife and HisDarkMaterials here. Where we can dispute that the author did not write it to be explicitly anti-christian, it just happens to be set in an anti-christian worldview. --Vitenka
Oh sure, it's not AntiChristian enough for any except the rabid to object to, but it's still there. We live in an age where people have campaigned against the MichelinMan? for being denigrating to fatties after all... --Vitenka
Well I do think people who play snakes and ladders get obsessed with playground equipment and I do object to HarryPotter and Magic (Unless Jesus was a magician and then I'm probably in favour). So my internal logic is flawless as always. What about horoscopes?? Think about the children... --Troll
OK, I think the Book of Genesis should be banned because it contains incest. (Not!) -- Senji
Heh - I can't help but think of the people who come up with this "that might be offensive" nonsense as being hunchbacked in dingy basements, bending over their perfectly innocent material and cackling "Nyeh heh heh - it's got brothers in it.. a - dirty - mind could think there's incest! Yes! Incest! Hahaha! And then.. on page four, what do we have but... A CHICKEN! Yes!" And so on. --Vitenka
Cartoon (not Anime, really) from the '80s in which a bunch of dozy kids become D&D stereotypes. Despite this it's really great fun.
What's the name of the Acrobat, and for that matter, what Class is she? -- Senji
(Delurks) Diana, and IIRC, Acrobat was a separate class definition in early D&D, later subsumed into rogue.
As an aside, those who have a copy of baldur's gate 2 can find a nice little easter egg concerning the cartoon at the back of the adventurer's mart.
Just been reminded of the charas and thought I should list them here... Hank, Bobby, Sheila, Eric, Presto and Diana - Ranger, Barbarian, Thief, Cavalier, Wizard and Acrobat respectively... Not forgetting DungeonMaster? of course.
Bobby? How can any self-respecting barbarian even consider the name Bobby?
In simplest terms, anime comes from Japan, cartoons from other parts of the world. It can also be taken to mean a certain style of animation/story though, which I guess is the definition being used here. Little change in storyline between episodes and little or no linking between episodes is probably one of the key differences. - Kazuhiko
'Not Anime' refered to the simple definition. 'really' was added when I realised that one could argue that non-Japanese cartoons were Anime' -- Senji
There are some Japanese animated productions that are pretty much like Western stuff but are called Anime by virtue of their origin - is it not the case that the definition varies by user anyway?
Couldn't one argue that rather than non-Japanese cartoons being 'Anime' it might be more pertient to ask why a special word was needed for Japanese cartoons in the first place? It is, I suppose, useless to wonder once again why the terms 'Japanese cartoons' or 'Japanese animations' couldn't be used instead of a Japanese corruption of an English word which lumps together things which really are not necessarily any more similar than 'Frankenstein', 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Ulysses' are, despite all being 'English novels' (or, for a closer analogy, 'Sandman', 'Gen13', 'Strangers in Paradise', 'Cerebus' and 'Watchmen' are as 'comic books' -- all probably have closer links to things which are labelled 'Manga' than to each other). Why does the language matter at all in grouping things, beyond grouping them by language: for example, the French as opposed to the Russian realist novel?