Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: browarod on May 27, 2015, 08:47:37 PM
-
The list of Royalty in the Wiki has Abednego and Meshach but is missing Shadrach and Daniel. Is this just an error in the list (the REG entry doesn't list any of them) or are Shadrach and Daniel not included for some reason?
If Abed and Mesh are royalty Shad definitely should be, and I believe Daniel should count as well.
Excerpt from Daniel 2:
48 Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. 49 Moreover, at Daniel’s request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court.
-
Royalty requires someone to be part of a royal family. I don't see Abednego or Meshach on the official list in the REG, they are not royals to my knowledge, I believe those are errors.
The verse you gave showed that they were given power, not that they were part of a royal family. None of them meet the qualifications.
To be from a ‘Royal Family’, a character must be from a ‘Family’ and that the family must be ‘Royal’, related to a King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Emperor, or Pharaoh. Only human characters can be part of a ‘Royal Family’.
-
I guess I just wonder what the definition of "royal family" is for Redemption? Would they have needed to have children that succeeded them in their given roles for them to be considered a "royal family"? Every "royal family" has a starting point, an initial person that began the line of royalty (or was singularly royal in the case of some kings/queens in history that didn't continue their line). Is that first person not considered royalty for Redemption purposes?
Not trying to nitpick, I'm really just trying to understand the specific distinction Redemption uses.
-
I guess I just wonder what the definition of "royal family" is for Redemption? Would they have needed to have children that succeeded them in their given roles for them to be considered a "royal family"? Every "royal family" has a starting point, an initial person that began the line of royalty (or was singularly royal in the case of some kings/queens in history that didn't continue their line). Is that first person not considered royalty for Redemption purposes?
What I quoted above is the definition used (from the REG). If someone is a King (and a human ;)), then they are part of a Royal Family, as are any of their family members. Someone made King when there was no one before them (like Saul) is a royal, as are his family (like Jonathan).
-
So because they weren't specifically called by the title of "kings" is why they don't qualify? I mean, Daniel was "ruler over the entire province of Babylon", that certainly seems like a "king" to me, lol. Is it because Nebuchadnezzar was still above them?
-
So because they weren't specifically called by the title of "kings" is why they don't qualify? I mean, Daniel was "ruler over the entire province of Babylon", that certainly seems like a "king" to me, lol. Is it because Nebuchadnezzar was still above them?
Joseph's not a King nor a Royal. Neither are any of the Governors under Caesar. "Like a king" is really a Governor, and that did not make them kings (or royals), nor does it qualify them for the terms in Redemption for identifier purposes.
-
Would Moses be considered royalty since he was the adopted grandson of a Pharaoh, or is the fact that he wasn't biologically his grandson make him not fit the definition?
EDIT: He was actually Pharaoh's grandson, son of Pharaoh's daughter.
-
Would Moses be considered royalty since he was the adopted grandson of a Pharaoh, or is the fact that he wasn't biologically his grandson make him not fit the definition?
EDIT: He was actually Pharaoh's grandson, son of Pharaoh's daughter.
There have been debates about that in the past. The current ruling is that he is not a royal, though we can have that discussion of course. I'll sit here as the guardian of the status quo (I can see both sides, but we should have someone on both sides ;)), so let's hear your scriptural backing and how that lines up with the current definitions found in the REG :)
-
Hypothetical--would Jesse (father of David) be considered part of a royal family? If so, can you extend that all the way back to Ruth? :o
-
Exodus 2:10 - 10 When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying, “I drew him out of the water.”
--This passage indicates that pharaoh's daughter took Moses as her own, effectively adding him to the royal line of the Pharaoh both signifying him as royalty and Egyptian.
Exodus 2:19 - 19 They answered, “An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds. He even drew water for us and watered the flock.”
--The Midianites considered him Egyptian as well even though he had fled Egypt.
I read all the way through Exodus 12 and didn't see any mention of Moses' familial relations to Egypt being revoked or considered broken. Therefore I posit that Moses became and remained the adopted grandson of Pharaoh who fits the definition of being of a "royal family" and therefore Moses should be considered both royalty and Egyptian. Technically you could also then make an argument for Miriam being royalty given she's Moses' (biological) sister (but not Egyptian as she had no relation to Pharaoh or his daughter).
There isn't actually a definition for what qualifies as an Egyptian in the REG (at least not in the glossary where it lists the current Egyptians) so if there's something in there that disqualifies Moses please feel free to enlighten me and I'll withdraw that portion of the argument.
Also, off-topic, I found this rather odd section in Exodus 4: 24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)
God almost killed Moses randomly at an inn, apparently. O_O
-
Those are all reasons why he was brought into her household, but was he actually a part of the family as a royal? We see that in popular culture (Prince of Egypt, for example), but we don't necessarily see proof in the scriptures that the Pharaoh accepted him as part of the family, or as someone who could be considered a royal by him (take on the role of a prince or in the succession). He was also very much not well-integrated into that family, considering he sided with his heritage and brought ruin upon the house of Pharaoh.
The Egyptian thing I feel is more cut-and-dry. Joseph and his family lived in Egypt, and Joseph was governor (;)) of the land while laying the foundations for generations of living in that country. However, they were still set apart, and were not considered the same as the Egyptians (evidenced when the Pharaoh for whom Joseph meant little took racist action against the Jews). Even if Moses were adopted by the family, he was still not a by-blood Egyptian, in the same way that Joseph and the patriarchs were not Egyptians when the Pharaoh welcomed them to their new home. Calling someone an Egyptian because you saw the man come from that way wearing those clothes but didn't actually know anything about him doesn't make him an Egyptian.
-
Those are all reasons why he was brought into her household, but was he actually a part of the family as a royal? We see that in popular culture (Prince of Egypt, for example), but we don't necessarily see proof in the scriptures that the Pharaoh accepted him as part of the family, or as someone who could be considered a royal by him (take on the role of a prince or in the succession).
Verse 10 specifically states "she took him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son", I don't know what's more cut and dry than that, lol. Even ignoring the Pharaoh himself, Pharaoh's Daughter is royalty (even in Redemption), she took Moses as her son, so why would he not then be considered royalty himself?
The Egyptian thing I feel is more cut-and-dry. Joseph and his family lived in Egypt, and Joseph was governor (;)) of the land while laying the foundations for generations of living in that country. However, they were still set apart, and were not considered the same as the Egyptians (evidenced when the Pharaoh for whom Joseph meant little took racist action against the Jews). Even if Moses were adopted by the family, he was still not a by-blood Egyptian, in the same way that Joseph and the patriarchs were not Egyptians when the Pharaoh welcomed them to their new home.
Can the official definition of Egyptian be added to the REG then (especially if you're editing it anyway) so that we have it on record to reference?
-
Can the official definition of Egyptian be added to the REG then (especially if you're editing it anyway) so that we have it on record to reference?
Well we do have a definition, but I'm assuming you want it laid-out, though that would be required for ALL civilizations (since they are all treated the same). I'll work on that.
Verse 10 specifically states "she took him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son", I don't know what's more cut and dry than that, lol. Even ignoring the Pharaoh himself, Pharaoh's Daughter is royalty (even in Redemption), she took Moses as her son, so why would he not then be considered royalty himself?
I've said what I can on the other end of this issue (remember why I took this side ;)). Anyone else have a counterargument?
Any other thoughts on Jesse? I'd have more problems with him being made royal, or with ALL of Esther's descendants being royal (since their attachment to any royal family ended long before their time).
-
Well we do have a definition, but I'm assuming you want it laid-out, though that would be required for ALL civilizations (since they are all treated the same). I'll work on that.
If it would be easier, you could post a general definition for "cultural" identifiers like Egyptian in a central location, then just reference that location for the cultural listings themselves.
Anything you can do would be very helpful, especially for us amateur card makers so we have a basis for assigning cultures to our card ideas. ;)
-
Don't forget to add your requests for REG updates HERE (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/reg-and-wiki/2015-reg-update-thread/). Cannot guarantee that everything will be addressed how you want it to be, but I can guarantee I will read the actual words you write, in their entirety, and only THEN ignore them completely. Or something like that.
Back to the topic at hand, anyone have any other counter-arguments for Moses being a Royal?
-
Because he REALLY doesn't need another identifier?
-
At this time Moses was born; and he was beautiful in God’s sight. And he was brought up for three months in his father’s house, and when he was exposed, Pharaoh’s daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son. And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.
Acts 7:20-22
Stephen says that Moses was adopted and raised as her own son (similar to Exodus), so I suppose that the only real question is does adoption count? We have enough evidence to say that yes he was indeed adopted.
-
... so I suppose that the only real question is does adoption count?
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
I sure hope adoption counts. I've been going around telling people I am an heir.* :)
*While not specifically an argument in favor of making Moses royalty, this passage always make me feel good. I hope it makes you all feel good as well.
-
Any update on whether we've provided enough evidence to have this reviewed? (for Moses, not the Daniel Heroes)
-
Any update on whether we've provided enough evidence to have this reviewed? (for Moses, not the Daniel Heroes)
That topic has been discussed and re-visited several times over the years. I don't expect anything to change.
-
What is the official stance on why Moses doesn't qualify then? I'm curious what the reasoning is. Is it just that adoption doesn't count?
-
I don't think that the Egyptian identifier will ever happen (for reasons that Gabe specified and that I mentioned above). As far as royalty, that's also been debated a lot before, and we've gotten plenty of information here to make a decision as we make an update to the REG as to whether a change is needed.
So currently, the status quo ruling that he is neither is still the ruling. It won't change unless you see it in the new REG (which will be pointed out if that is the case).
Thank you everyone :)
-
Sorry, I meant to specify that the royalty part is what I was wondering about. I'm fine with him not getting Egyptian. :P
-
Any update on whether we've provided enough evidence to have this reviewed? (for Moses, not the Daniel Heroes)
That topic has been discussed and re-visited several times over the years. I don't expect anything to change.
I really don't mean to whine or to be saying this about one person's response, but can we please not get this response when we ask about giving an identifier to a character (i.e. royalty for Moses, musician for Isaiah/Simeon), get told what the current definition is and are asked if we have any scriptural evidence to back up our argument and then we provide it?
This isn't about Gabe or his response specifically, but it seems to me at least, that you (the collective elders, you) are using the argument of "We've always played it without ruling him that way", as your rebuttal to browarod's argument without giving any other reason why his proposal is being turned down.
-
1. Does Moses being royalty actually affect anything in the game? He's not a King so even if you converted him to purple he wouldn't gain the benefit of Throne of David for example.
2. If we did give him royalty, that could potentially limit future abilities that we create--for example, making a CBN battle winner if used by royalty would be incredibly strong with Moses and probably not something we would want. (Not that we're planning to do that with Throne, but the point is that expanding a character's identity inherently makes that character stronger.)
3. This particular example is one of interpretation, and it has typically been the MO of the Elder team to stick with the status quo and not make changes unless there is an obvious benefit to the game.
-
I really don't mean to whine or to be saying this about one person's response, but can we please not get this response when we ask about giving an identifier to a character (i.e. royalty for Moses, musician for Isaiah/Simeon), get told what the current definition is and are asked if we have any scriptural evidence to back up our argument and then we provide it?
This isn't about Gabe or his response specifically, but it seems to me at least, that you (the collective elders, you) are using the argument of "We've always played it without ruling him that way", as your rebuttal to browarod's argument without giving any other reason why his proposal is being turned down.
What he's actually saying is that we have hashed this debate out several times, and when I ask for scriptural basis it is to get as much information out there as possible. I was only involved in this maybe once before, but Gabe has likely seen all of these arguments and the evidence, and the group has stuck with the ruling in the past (so we'd need more to overturn that).
However, without the information being provided, we as the Elder group have to assume what the evidence is from everyone who holds that view, and that's not going to help us decide on any changes.
Now that we have everything, we can have a discussion as Elders as warranted, and if there is a change, then we will announce it. There needs to be clear evidence (as agreed by the group deciding these things) to undo a status quo ruling that has been in place for a long time, so saying that something is staying the same should not be a surprise, particularly in the short-term.
This type of conversation is also helpful as we work on a new REG to ensure that our definitions are not confusing to players or ambiguous generally.
Further, there are going to be changes to "the way we've always done it" in this update, but we are not going to share that until we have everything codified and verified as far as impact. Just know that your assessment is unfair and inaccurate, and I hope that you'll see what I mean later on.
-
1. Does Moses being royalty actually affect anything in the game? He's not a King so even if you converted him to purple he wouldn't gain the benefit of Throne of David for example.
2. If we did give him royalty, that could potentially limit future abilities that we create--for example, making a CBN battle winner if used by royalty would be incredibly strong with Moses and probably not something we would want. (Not that we're planning to do that with Throne, but the point is that expanding a character's identity inherently makes that character stronger.)
3. This particular example is one of interpretation, and it has typically been the MO of the Elder team to stick with the status quo and not make changes unless there is an obvious benefit to the game.
To be honest, I think this is a worse reason than "it's been X way all this time, I don't see it changing" to not correct a character's identifiers (though I personally didn't have anything against Gabe's post). I feel as though we (the Redemption community) should be striving to provide representations of the people from the Bible that are as accurate as possible. Just because a character doesn't gain anything immediately by having an identifier corrected, or might cause something to become more powerful, doesn't mean we shouldn't update that character so as to represent them accurately. If you don't want that character to be a part of a specific group you can always change the definition of the identifier to exclude them, but don't exclude them "because it wouldn't change much/anything."
Based on the definition of royalty in the REG we have provided evidence that suggests Moses should be considered royalty. If you don't want Moses to fit for whatever reason, that's fine, all I ask that the definition/reason be made clear as to why Moses doesn't get the status which:
This type of conversation is also helpful as we work on a new REG to ensure that our definitions are not confusing to players or ambiguous generally.
if this is true then that would be splendid and all my concerns would be appeased. :)
-
:police:
-
This type of conversation is also helpful as we work on a new REG to ensure that our definitions are not confusing to players or ambiguous generally.
Given that this is a topic that has come up time and again with much the same conclusion, what definition do you think will be put forward in the updated REG for "royalty" that would not be confusing and/or ambiguous when it comes to Moses?
I am not arguing as much as asking for a sneak preview.
-
I am not arguing as much as asking for a sneak preview.
Maybe just a "no-Moses" clause ;)
In all seriousness though, that's not my decision to make by myself, or anyone else to give on their own. The Elders, as a group, will discuss each change to be made to the REG, and no one person could overrule a consensus.
To browarod, I can say that those are not the only reasons for excluding Moses, just additional ones and expounding on the issue as a whole. Treating them as the only reasons to keep the status quo is unfair.
Lastly, while you (and others) may disagree with the current ruling, it does not mean that it is an incorrect rule, or that we should devolve into an argument about how things are run (thanks for coming in, Mr. Police Man RDT :))
-
Lastly, while you (and others) may disagree with the current ruling, it does not mean that it is an incorrect rule, or that we should devolve into an argument about how things are run (thanks for coming in, Mr. Police Man RDT :))
I never said it was an incorrect rule, though I do disagree with the current interpretation based on the current definition. All I'm asking for is clarity. If there's a specific reason why the evidence we provided doesn't indicate Moses is royalty like we seem to think it does, I just want it added/clarified in the definition of what counts as royalty (since there's obviously room for doubt in the current definition, otherwise this wouldn't keep coming up).
Since it sounds like you're already planning to do that, I'm fine with this discussion being concluded.
I apologize if it came across that I was attacking anyone. I personally find some of the reasons posted here to be less than spectacular (such as the "status quo" argument and the "it wouldn't change anything" or "it might make something overpowered" arguments) however if that is how the Elders as a whole decide these things I'm certainly not in a place to judge. It would be nice if that was recorded somewhere (preferably in the REG), though.
Hopefully that helps clarify my position/feelings. :P
-
The point I was trying to make, was that as you said, these arguments have come up before, and it has always boiled down to "Yes, Character X fits the defenition of identifier Y, but Character X has never been ruled to have identifier Y before and we don't think that it will help anything to give him identifier Y so he wont get it."
I understand you don't want certain characters to have certain identifiers, I get that. I can see that it would be very abuse-able in some cases, but I've never liked the argument of "We've never ruled that way before so don't expect us to ever do so in the future." To me, and I could be reading more into than is meant to be there with this being all text and all, it smacks of a sanctimonious, we-know-better-than-you-and-we-don't-have-to-explain-why attitude.
And while I understand that a lot of these arguments will become moot (hopefully) after you finish the overhaul, and I do agree that would be a good thing however the chips may fall, I was just really trying to ask for an answer that didn't seem so dismissive of our arguments or points of view. After all, we were told that despite having written a song that is still used in Worship today, Simeon is not considered a musician and the definition was not changed to exclude him, or others.
That being said, I will reiterate that I was in no way trying to focus on Gabe or just what he said, but on an attitude that I read to be there, and that if my words were taken to be critical of him, I offer my apologies. I also apologize if I am reading too much into this or seeing your answers/arguments in a light other than that in which they were offered.
-
The point I was trying to make, was that as you said, these arguments have come up before, and it has always boiled down to "Yes, Character X fits the defenition of identifier Y, but Character X has never been ruled to have identifier Y before and we don't think that it will help anything to give him identifier Y so he wont get it."
This is an inaccurate assessment of history. These discussions have come up before. Players wanted to make Moses an Egyptian and royalty. The elders at the time discussed it and decided he does not fit the definition of either and ruled against it.
Just because it gets brought up again doesn't mean that it's a good use of the elders time to discuss it again (and again and again).
**EDIT
After all, we were told that despite having written a song that is still used in Worship today, Simeon is not considered a musician and the definition was not changed to exclude him, or others.
Simeon did not write a song. He spoke words which were recorded in scripture and later turned into a song by others. That does not fit the definition of musician.
-
Just because it gets brought up again doesn't mean that it's a good use of the elders time to discuss it again (and again and again).
In fairness, the only reason I suggested revisiting it now is because a REG update is already in the works so it seems like a good time to tidy up the definition, if possible, to confirm why Moses (or others) either does or (more likely, based on current Elder opinion) doesn't fit in the interest of preventing this discussion from happening again (and again and again) in the future.
Obviously the Elders' time is valuable, I'm not trying to diminish that, and I always will appreciate the time you guys do put into Redemption (on all the fronts).
-
I am not arguing as much as asking for a sneak preview.
Maybe just a "no-Moses" clause ;)
Ha! That would be funny.
This is an inaccurate assessment of history. These discussions have come up before. Players wanted to make Moses an Egyptian and royalty. The elders at the time discussed it and decided he does not fit the definition of either and ruled against it.
Just because it gets brought up again doesn't mean that it's a good use of the elders time to discuss it again (and again and again).
Given this historical pattern, in the event that the upcoming definitions are still confusing/ambiguous might it be worthwhile to include a subsection to the definition in the REG for "Notable X that appear to be Y but are not?" This could include the list of verses considered (where applicable) and the reason for lack of inclusion. This is already sort of done with trumpets in the definition of "Involving Music." If this were in place, at least a player would know that X was considered and what evidence was used.
I know this would add a bit of work to updating the REG, but I am not sure that there are that many ambiguous cases that the work would be overly burdensome.
-
Well now that this is all settled, let's discuss the scriptural evidence to classify Moses as a N.T. Female.
-
Given this historical pattern, in the event that the upcoming definitions are still confusing/ambiguous might it be worthwhile to include a subsection to the definition in the REG for "Notable X that appear to be Y but are not?" This could include the list of verses considered (where applicable) and the reason for lack of inclusion. This is already sort of done with trumpets in the definition of "Involving Music." If this were in place, at least a player would know that X was considered and what evidence was used.
Actually, that's a good point. I'm not sure if we'd add that to the REG itself, but perhaps I'll put it in the FAQ (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/rulings-board-posting-rules-references-new-rules-and-faq/), since I have a section on "Why isn't X a Y?" there already. The REG should generally be a place to document what is, not necessarily what is not. The FAQ should get updated once we publish updated identifier lists.
-
To me, and I could be reading more into than is meant to be there with this being all text and all, it smacks of a sanctimonious, we-know-better-than-you-and-we-don't-have-to-explain-why attitude.
I'm just going to be honest here...that right there is one of the biggest problems this community has, and probably one of the root causes of many of the other problems. Let me be clear that I am not singling out Praeceps or any particular individual--I readily admit there have been times I have done this myself so I am speaking to US, not him or them or this group or that group. I've seen it from Elders just as I've seen it from those not on the Elder group. Far too often we read things that aren't actually being said or assume the worst when someone says something that disagrees with our position. I'm not sure why, but somehow disagreement has been equated with disrespect in the culture of this forum. As is often the case, when someone feels disrespected, they fire back and we've all seen how those threads end up...
I don't want to go much further so as not to derail this thread, but I am literally begging everyone to please do 3 things when reading and responding:
1. Assume the other person is responding with good intentions (until they explicitly fail to do so)
2. Remember that a soft answer turns away wrath
3. Be okay with someone respectfully disagreeing with you
Once again, I admit I have failed at these things on more than one occasion, but I am doing my best to do better. I encourage everyone to do the same. 8)
-
I wanted to follow up here with some scriptural backing as to why we do not consider Moses an Egyptian (or royalty since he would have been Egyptian royalty).
By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.
Hebrews 11:24-26
-
I wanted to follow up here with some scriptural backing as to why we do not consider Moses an Egyptian (or royalty since he would have been Egyptian royalty).
By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.
Hebrews 11:24-26
There's what we needed to hear!
-
I wanted to follow up here with some scriptural backing as to why we do not consider Moses an Egyptian (or royalty since he would have been Egyptian royalty).
By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.
Hebrews 11:24-26
There's what we needed to hear!
Interestingly enough, that verse has been in Hebrews this whole time... ;)
-
Thank you Gabe for providing that verse. It is much easier for me to accept Moses not being royalty since that verse confirms he willingly gave up the association as opposed to just having the other verses posted earlier and simply being told "he's not."
I withdraw my arguments and pack up my briefcase. Case dismissed! *gavel bang*