Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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?

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?

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.

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

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).

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?

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.

Because he REALLY doesn't need another identifier?

... 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)

That topic has been discussed and re-visited several times over the years. I don't expect anything to change.

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

Quote from: browarod on May 29, 2015, 11:20:34 AM

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.