Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on March 28, 2011, 05:56:46 PM

Can we consider this offical now since two elders have commented?

Yes, Bryon and Prof Underwood have also agreed on the other side of the board. Unless other objections come up from Rob or other Elders, which seems unlikely given the wealth of sources we found supporting the claim, I would rule that Herods are considered Romans.

I have huge problems with this.  First of all Romans should be reserved for those who were firmly in the roman civilization and citizenship is not a part of it. 

My problem comes with playing Romans destroy Jerusalem on a herod.  Herods did not want Jerusalem destroyed and so this card combo would be a huge anachronism.  Herods were not romans, they were Idumeans and wanted more than anything to be Jews and tried to put up the facade of being a good jew.  Being a roman citizen had its perks but it did not change their nationality/civilization.

I think being roman should be reserved to people within the Military/government of Rome.  This would solve problems of these historical anacroniztic cards

Quote from: crustpope on May 18, 2011, 02:01:15 PM

My problem comes with playing Romans destroy Jerusalem on a herod.  Herods did not want Jerusalem destroyed and so this card combo would be a huge anachronism.

I doubt Judas wanted to kill any of the other Disciples, but hey, that happens in Redemption. I could give example after example, but that would get redundant quickly. While I understand where you're coming from with all your points, this one is really flimsy at best.

Also, Falling Away says hi.

You can complain about it all you want, but the fact is that the Herods were roman citizens who governed Judea in the name of Rome.

Haman is considered Persian even though he was Amalekite.

I would personally prefer to go with a more open view.  People can belong to multiple groups at the same time or throughout their lives.  Since Redemption doesn't really make a distinction for different periods in a person's life but just looks at whether they were at some point (David, King David) then it doesn't matter if they belonged for all of their life but just if they legitimately did at some point. 

I would argue that at one point in his life, Moses would have definitely been considered Egyptian.  Just because he didn't stay that way shouldn't matter because of previous point.  Ruth doesn't start out as a Isrealite but she becomes one.  I've been reading through Samuel and several of David's warriors were from different ethnic backgrounds.  I think Ittai is foreign but he becomes a general of David's army and would sacrifice everything including his life to defend David and Isreal.  I bet the enemies of Isreal would consider him an Isrealite.  At different points the Herod's allegiance and actions might have been primarily Roman and others Jewish. 
You can look at numerous immigrants to our country.  At one point Mel Gibson was Australian but he is definitely American now.  He could be both at the same time but the background of a person could fade to the point they no longer consider themselves Australian or whatever.  Looking at his life as a whole, you would definitely have to say both. 

My problem comes with playing Romans destroy Jerusalem on a herod.  Herods did not want Jerusalem destroyed and so this card combo would be a huge anachronism.

I RA with David and have nothing to play on him, opponent blocks with Goliath and has his armor or spear. Goliath wins.

This completely goes against the Biblical story as well, we should do something about this.

I learned something about this in Jewish History class this semester, and my Jewish professor would condone that Herods were Roman. Back then, when considering what made someone Jewish, the Jewish line came through the mother's side i.e. if your mom was a jew than you are. Herod the Great's mother was not a Jew, and his father was only a Jewish convert, so to their standards Herod was not a Jew, he was Roman.

True which is why I clearly said he was Idumean and not jewish, I said he had to keep a jewish facade because he governed the Jews and the fact that he was a roman citizen HURT his ability to govern the jews.


I still think there should be a difference between someone who was italian (IE roman) and someone who was a roman CITIZEN and of a different civilization.  Rome is a unique example where one civilization conquered many others yet those people did not become romans even if they became roman citizens.

I see a difference between the political aspects of being a roman citizen and the cultural aspects of being a roman.

The cultural aspects of rome can easily be corrupted and are evil, (polytheism, value of human life, the focus on dominating others, hedonism, gluttony, worship of the emperor etc.) but political aspects of being roman can be used for good and evil.  Pauls appeal to caesar, etc.)

I just think there is room to have both and have different enhancements respond to roman citizenship or civilization or both.

I would personally prefer to go with a more open view.  People can belong to a distinction for different periods in a person's life but just looks at whether they were at some point (David, King David) then it doesn't matter if they belonged for all of their life but just if they legitimately did at some point. 

I would argue that at one point in his life, Moses would have definitely been considered Egyptian.  Just because he didn't stay that way shouldn't matter because of previous point.  Ruth doesn't start out as a Isrealite but she becomes one.   

I agree with that sentiment. I have always campaigned Moses as an Egpytian.

Which is why I also argue that Herod the Great was a Roman Govenor.

While I understand where you're coming from with all your points, this one is really flimsy at best.

Im sure theres a better way of saying this...

Also, I can currently play Romans Destroy Jerusalem on Saul... I don't think he was involved in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Actually, none of the Romans currently in the game were involved in the destruction of Jerusalem. Not until we get an Emperor Titus.

I don't really think desire alone has anything to do with civilization or governmental affiliation. If I didn't want to be an American citizen, that wouldn't change the fact that I am one. The Herods may not have wanted to be Romans, but they still were.

The Herods absolutely wanted to be Roman. Given the choice of Roman or Jew, thye would choose Roman everytime becuase the Romans gave them power. The Jews never accepted them regardless of how Jewish they are. Being Roman was far more important than being Jewish. However, that does not change the fact that Herods were Roman and Jewish and Idumean.

Quote from: crustpope on May 19, 2011, 02:50:26 PM

Quote from: browarod on May 19, 2011, 02:18:44 PM

I don't really think desire alone has anything to do with civilization or governmental affiliation. If I didn't want to be an American citizen, that wouldn't change the fact that I am one. The Herods may not have wanted to be Romans, but they still were.

Yes you can.  You can easily renounce your political citizenship.

Please re-read what I said. I specifically said "desire alone." Yes, taking action on a desire can change my citizenship, but just wanting to be, say, a Canadian citizen won't, in and of itself, change anything. Just as wanting to be Jewish doesn't make the Herods not Romans.

I think a better question is why anyone would want to be Canadian.

Anywho, I've seen this argument go on for pages, and I think I have a good idea of the main bullet points that both sides are presenting, and I have to side with the original ruling that Herods can be considered Roman. I believe that, for Redemption purposes, Roman citizenship should meet the qualifications for "Roman". crustpope, I do completely understand why you don't like that ruling, but but I disagree with your opinion. Regardless of what Herods might or might not have considered themselves (and frankly, it's completely foolish to speculate on what they'd have chosen to be. It's very well possible that they'd have renounced all ties to Rome if it meant they could keep their power; it's equally possible that they would have considered themselves Roman if they were publicly able to, simply because Rome gave them their authority), the fact of the matter is that they were Roman citizens.

Good point, and for game play I am sure it will make it alot easier.  I was just hoping my argument could gain some traction so that someday someone doesn't use Saul (of saul/paul) to play RdJ on me.  I think I might just cry at the absolute historical incompatibility of that very action.

If it makes you feel better, I've lately had an issue with the possibility that Redemption treats very serious matters rather frivolously. Not necessarily the historical accuracy of it (though the idea of Uzzah using Haman's Plot to kill Peter, Eve, and Moses is a bit absurd), but I feel like we treat very serious issues trivially sometimes. Haman's Plot is actually a great example of that. We're talking about the possibility of the complete genocide of the Jews, a very serious matter, and our interest in it extends only as far as ripping a $5 card. Likewise, Crown of Thorns, something that caused unspeakable suffering to our Lord and Savior, is only significant as far as it's compatibility with Thad goes, along with possibility sniping Gomer, Emperors, and Uzzah. It's not some big issue that I feel really convicted over, and I love the game and what it's done, but it's something that's been on my mind lately.

and I think I have a good idea of the main bullet points that both sides are presenting

So how do you feel about Herod the Great considered a Roman governor Chronic?