The reason fighters can't have nice things.

[Prak]

Well, if Batman's not a good example, or Conan, what about Kratos?

He starts his adventures as a mortal* (not that you play that, but he does), going to probably 6th level or so before he meets a foe he cannot overcome with his current abilities and calls out for Ares' intervention. He shows improvement over time, and is obviously much more than mortal, but mostly displays Charles Atlas Superpowers


*well... ok, apparently not, as of GoW3, but, still.

[Zinegata]

The thing people keep forgetting is stories revolve around a particular narrative.

For instance: Batman stories are generally self-contained detective stories. He doesn't really have an "arc" where he grows and changes. He's always this mysterious vigilante detective dude who solves crimes.

That's not the case with games, where most games do revolve around levelling up. I mean, take the example of Icewind Dale II. The game features like 40 hours of epic combat for a party to go from level 1 to 20. But from a narrative perspective the story can seriously boil down to like three paragraphs of prose.

[hogarth]

Well, if Batman's not a good example, or Conan, what about Kratos?

There are tons of video games that revolve around beating up monsters, getting stronger, then beating up tougher monsters -- a pattern that traces its roots back to early fantasy video games which trace their roots back to D&D. Of course, there may have been improvements along the way.

[Username17]

Evidence of leveling up is really easy to see in a story. It's not "the hero now faces a slightly more difficult enemy," it comes in "the enemy that once took a team is now soloed, or the enemy that came solo now comes in a team." It's a change in the order of magnitude. The girl who defeated a witch in the first story goes on to defeat a coven, and then a army of witches. The peasant boy who fight bandits ends up riding a dragon and wielding artifacts powerful enough to level cities.

So like how Arjuna has problems with one demon and then later personally hacks his way through the entire demon army of Lanka? No matter how restrictive your demands get on what "counts" as leveling, examples do exist in folklore, because folklore is titanic and is full of many things.

-Username17

[K]

Jesus starts as the son of God.

Irrelevant. The important part is character growth, which according to the most widespread and well-known version of the myth, we totally see.

Lol. You'd like to ignore the fact that his father is a god in every part of the myth? Or how his story paralells every demi-god ever? Or how there isn't even agreement in any religion featuring him that he even becomes a god? Seriously, Christian theologians are still debating the divinity of Jesus even if your local church has the issue wrapped up.

How convenient. It's nice to know that even gods can be retconned like DC superheroes.

[K]

Evidence of leveling up is really easy to see in a story. It's not "the hero now faces a slightly more difficult enemy," it comes in "the enemy that once took a team is now soloed, or the enemy that came solo now comes in a team." It's a change in the order of magnitude. The girl who defeated a witch in the first story goes on to defeat a coven, and then a army of witches. The peasant boy who fight bandits ends up riding a dragon and wielding artifacts powerful enough to level cities.

So like how Arjuna has problems with one demon and then later personally hacks his way through the entire demon army of Lanka? No matter how restrictive your demands get on what "counts" as leveling, examples do exist in folklore, because folklore is titanic and is full of many things.

-Username17

Indian myth is like to worse example you could give considering that the line between hero and god doesn't even really exist in the canon. I mean, Arjuna is called the Fourth Krishna and Krishna is his brother, and Lanka is simultaneously depicted as a country of people and a land of demons.

I mean, if you tried to translate that to DnD is falls apart because they all might be mortal, or all gods as we would define them, or somewhere between. Considering that Arjuna has temples, I'd call him a god.

[Goldor]

So... No True Scotsmen?

[Username17]

So... No True Scotsmen?

Yes.

Indian Myth has people that gain in power over the course of their story until they are equal of gods and therefore it does not count as a story in which people gain in power.

-Username17

[Prak]

you know, honestly it's awesome to see that you guys have these kind of discussions between each other, and not just other posters. Granted, you're both being considerably more polite than I think you would be if it were anyone else, but, good to know.

[K]

So... No True Scotsmen?

Yes.

Indian Myth has people that gain in power over the course of their story until they are equal of gods and therefore it does not count as a story in which people gain in power.

-Username17

I've taken classes in Eastern Religion, and I don't actually see any power growth at all in any of the myths.

It's a fact that the only way to become a god in India myth is to be reincarnated as one or to be born as one. At best, there is a series of rituals that is supposed to assure that you are a god in your next life. The very idea of growing in power in this life runs counter to every principle in Hinduism (remember, these are the people that still have a caste system to this day).

There are certain yogic practices that are supposed to grant supernatural powers, but those tend to be one-time transformations. there is no assumption that deeper understanding grants additional or greater powers.

[Zinegata]

Jesus starts as the son of God.

Irrelevant. The important part is character growth, which according to the most widespread and well-known version of the myth, we totally see.

Lol. You'd like to ignore the fact that his father is a god in every part of the myth? Or how his story paralells every demi-god ever? Or how there isn't even agreement in any religion featuring him that he even becomes a god? Seriously, Christian theologians are still debating the divinity of Jesus even if your local church has the issue wrapped up.

How convenient. It's nice to know that even gods can be retconned like DC superheroes.

Yes, actually.

Greek myths as we know it today is just the distilled version based on many conflicting and retconned accounts.

That's also the whole point of the gnostic gospels that you cited.

There are literally thousands (perhaps millions) of ways to interpret the life of Jesus Christ. The gnostics represent the various beliefs of early Christians. I particularly like the Gospel of Judas and how it depicts Judas as a Magnificent Bastard playing a Divine Xanatos Roulette.

Here's the thing though: Maj is not out to prove all of them follow this model. She's just out to prove that at least one such account exists. Because you challenged her to give one example

That it also happens to be the model accepted in most Christian Bibles is just icing on the cake.

So blame the fact that you challenged people to present one example, and that you're still perpetuating this extremely silly debate.

Really, again: You're probably NOT gonna see Level 1-20 progression in most stories. Because what's important in such stories is the narrative, not the complete list of things Beowulf stabbed before going to Grendel. But it's different in RPGs, where people do like having level 1-20n progression.

(OTOH, real history does depict a lot of people "levelling up". Napoleon started out as a cadet of the artillery, moved up the ranks, became a general, then became Emperor. But again, this doesn't really translate well to games anyway, so why bother going in circles about this?)

[FatR]

So like how Arjuna has problems with one demon and then later personally hacks his way through the entire demon army of Lanka? No matter how restrictive your demands get on what "counts" as leveling, examples do exist in folklore, because folklore is titanic and is full of many things.

-Username17

That was Rama who fought the demons of Lanka (but he is another example, anyway).

Anyway, I loled at the idea that people in Indian myths cannot accumulate supernatural power in life. The myths where everyone and their mother can gain ridiculous mojo by asceticism, so that even the greatest of gods will need trickery to deal with you.

[Kaelik]

you know, honestly it's awesome to see that you guys have these kind of discussions between each other, and not just other posters. Granted, you're both being considerably more polite than I think you would be if it were anyone else, but, good to know.

Apparently you don't pay attention. Every few weeks something about Fighters competing without magic comes up, and Frank and K set out to murder each other with words over it.

[K]

Here's the thing though: Maj is not out to prove all of them follow this model. She's just out to prove that at least one such account exists. Because you challenged her to give one example

That it also happens to be the model accepted in most Christian Bibles is just icing on the cake.

I don't think even one of those modern interpretations thinks that Jesus being the son of God is "irrelevant" to quote Maj. Her example completely falls part right there. Being the son of the the One True God is critical to all parts of the myth.

And having a divine parent makes you a demi-god. He was never a "normal person" even when he wasn't performing miracles.

Being a demi-god who has supernatural powers and eventually becomes a full god is not a power-up in any fashion, especially considering that there are no stories of what happens after he becomes a god, so even her modern interpretation falls apart as an example because we never actually see a power up. As a full god, he may not have any powers at all.... we don't know because the story ends there.

[K]

[

Anyway, I loled at the idea that people in Indian myths cannot accumulate supernatural power in life. The myths where everyone and their mother can gain ridiculous mojo by asceticism, so that even the greatest of gods will need trickery to deal with you.

You can get supernatural power through certain yogic practices, but it's the "one-time hero power up". The heroes don't get more power by mastering other yogic practices, or even accomplish greater feats later in their adventures.

I mean Arjuna is called the Fourth Krishna, which means he is considered an incarnation of Krishna despite the fact that he is simultaneously in the same stories with Krishna. His yogic practices that make him a super warrior equal to gods do that because he is considered an incarnation of a god.

Indian myth is really just a mess. Heroes and gods and random-ass supernaturals all start at the same level, meaning there is never any evidence of power ups other than the "one-time hero power-up".

[Username17]

No. Just, no.

Being a "god" is not a power level in Hindu mythology, it's a race. There are level zero gods and level holy-shit-what-the-fuck gods. And people advance from one to the other. And people who aren't gods and never become gods nonetheless get powerful enough to stomp various gods into the ground.

Yes, the Christian mythos doesn't make any fucking sense, not the least of which because they can't make up their minds ass to whether they have one god or three or whether there are in fact things that their god can't do at any point. But none of that applies to people who aren't Christians. Buddha can be not a god and still better than a god. Arjuna can be both a god and not a god depending upon your point of view and still be more powerful than some gods and less powerful than some things that are not gods.

Outside the Abrahamic tradition, "god" simply does not mean "infinitely powerful". Or indeed imply a specific power level at all. Some of the Japanese Kami are pretty underwhelming.

The fact that Arjuna is in some sense the same person as the god who is in the chariot with him does not in any way invalidate him having grown in power over the course of his adventures.

-Username17

[souran]

Here's the thing though: Maj is not out to prove all of them follow this model. She's just out to prove that at least one such account exists. Because you challenged her to give one example

That it also happens to be the model accepted in most Christian Bibles is just icing on the cake.

I don't think even one of those modern interpretations thinks that Jesus being the son of God is "irrelevant" to quote Maj. Her example completely falls part right there. Being the son of the the One True God is critical to all parts of the myth.

And having a divine parent makes you a demi-god. He was never a "normal person" even when he wasn't performing miracles.

Actually, in any of the Christain subsects that believe he was/is divine, the idea that he was a "normal person" is actually ESSENTIAL to the myth itself.

Basically, all European Christian theology, (Roman, Protestant, Orthadox) believes in the mortality of the living christ. Christ was no more or less human than judas.

Now it starts to get dicey beyond that because of things like trinity theology, the nature of miracles, the details of the ressurection etc.

However, all that stuff aside, your central point is bogus because assuming that you are using both the gospels of matthew and John (Mathew being the oldest, John being the one that talks about Christs divinity/mortality the most) then it is actually essential to the christian narative that christ be god-in-flesh.

Being a demi-god who has supernatural powers and eventually becomes a full god is not a power-up in any fashion, especially considering that there are no stories of what happens after he becomes a god, so even her modern interpretation falls apart as an example because we never actually see a power up. As a full god, he may not have any powers at all.... we don't know because the story ends there.

Thats kind of a funny argument that would seem to ignore the 30 days that christ spent with his diciples after the resurection (Luke, Mark, John) and you know, most of the new testiment (like the apossil paul who claimed visions of god guided him).

I don't agree with Maj either, I just think it interesting when people make arguements about christianity that seem to ignore the history of christianity as a religion and mode of philsophical thought especially considering that it is as influential on western culture as the greeks.

[Koumei]

Some of the Japanese Kami are pretty underwhelming.

You're dealing with people who think an umbrella is a scary monster. There's a reason Rosario + Vampire's monster school features Western monsters as the main characters (vampires, werewolf, snow fairy, succubus, witches), and its because Japan's supernatural things suck ass.

"Oh no, help, the monster is going to protect me from sun burn!"

The other examples are valid, though. I just felt it necessary to mention how their mythology is clearly just some kind of in-joke designed to confuse foreigners.

[Maj]

Heh. Remind me to use the term religious fanfiction when talking about the gnostic gospels, because that is a rather funny yet appropriate way of calling them.

You'd like to ignore the fact that his father is a god in every part of the myth?

It's completely irrelevant to the fact that Jesus grows up. So he's a demigod - does that necessarily mean that he can't level?

How convenient. It's nice to know that even gods can be retconned like DC superheroes.

Ironic, since I'd consider that Council of Nicea you mentioned to be the original retconners. I mean, they're the ones that defined the myth and relegated everything else to fanfic status to begin with. Doubly ironic since you're also tossing around the term "demigod" but nitpicking me when I say he transforms into a deity.

I'm not getting religious on you, so keep mine out of it, and chill with your bad self.



When I said Jesus "transforms into a deity" I was looking at it from the point of view [that I coincidentally think most Christians would irrelevantly agree with] of Jesus gaining immortality. If Jesus showed up today in the middle of a gang war and got shot, he'd probably tell the bullets not to hurt him, and they'd lay down on the ground and take a nap. Or something. The point is after he died, he came back with the ultimate power of unkillablility.

OTOH, real history does depict a lot of people "levelling up".

I'm totally with you here.

[Username17]

It's completely irrelevant to the fact that Jesus grows up. So he's a demigod - does that necessarily mean that he can't level?

Jesus is a really shitty example and I want you to stop using him. He is the god in a monotheist tradition that nominally believes in unlimited power. Regardless of whether Jesus is "made flesh" or not, he's still infinitely powerful at all times and one and the same as the creator of the entire universe.

If he doesn't solve some particular problem he has, it is because for whatever reason he chooses to not rewrite all of space time since he began it in order to have that problem never have existed in the first place for the sake of his giant Xanatos Gambit. It's never ever because he can't do something, because there is nothing he can't do.

The fact that his miracles are frankly pretty lame certainly is one of the major holes in the religion itself, since presumably if he actually had limitless power he could have performed some miracles that more than 12-15 people would have actually noticed and even exceeded those miracles claimed by rival gods. But that does not change the fact that within Christian Theology, Jesus performs shitty miracles because it is part of his Xanatos Gambit to perform shitty miracles, and not because he would be at any point unable to perform miracles that people would notice or care about.

And that's the objection K was making to your example, and it's a damn good objection, and you should accept defeat. The problem is that he was making the same objection to Greek and Hindu heroes, when that doesn't make any sense because the gods in those settings actually have definite limits to their power, so if they do a miracle that is small it's quite possibly the biggest one they could do, rather than it being "all part of the plan" to not intervene more or something. So K's objection nails the Jesus example rather well, but it's not even a coherent answer to characters in non-Abrahamic traditions.

-Username17

[Maj]

I would have such an easier time not caring about the subject except that I don't understand why - when talking about Christian myth - the story as written can't be discussed without bringing into it a bunch of bullshit that religious people added later.

[Zinegata]

He is the god in a monotheist tradition that nominally believes in unlimited power. Regardless of whether Jesus is "made flesh" or not, he's still infinitely powerful at all times and one and the same as the creator of the entire universe.

No he's not. Heck, that's the whole point of the gnostic gospels.

Jesus is open to interpretation. That's part of his appeal. Some people think he is the God in a monotheist tradition. Some believe he is an aspect of the God given human flesh. Some believe he's actually the prophet of said God.

And again, all Maj needs is one interpretation of Jesus where he does actually "level up".

If he doesn't solve some particular problem he has, it is because for whatever reason he chooses to not rewrite all of space time since he began it in order to have that problem never have existed in the first place for the sake of his giant Xanatos Gambit. It's never ever because he can't do something, because there is nothing he can't do.

The fact that his miracles are frankly pretty lame certainly is one of the major holes in the religion itself, since presumably if he actually had limitless power he could have performed some miracles that more than 12-15 people would have actually noticed and even exceeded those miracles claimed by rival gods. But that does not change the fact that within Christian Theology, Jesus performs shitty miracles because it is part of his Xanatos Gambit to perform shitty miracles, and not because he would be at any point unable to perform miracles that people would notice or care about.

Except, of course, what you're describing is an extremely specific interpretation of Jesus. Which isn't really even that mainstream, since it has elements of extreme Christian beliefs like "pre-destination", when very many Christians do also in fact believe in the opposite tradition of "Free Will".

Really Frank, the only gospel (gnostics included) that even says that the whole thing was a Xanatos gambit was the Gospel of Judas.

So really, you're saying Maj is wrong because you came up with one example where Jesus didn't level up - he was just pretending to be weak all the time. But that view isn't mainstream. And more importantly, it's the complete opposite of what K asked everyone to provide.

K asked for an example pre-70s where a mythic figure levelled up. Maj chose the example of Jesus, focusing on the widely accepted interpretation that he was in fact man for a time before he became divine. That easily fulfills K's conditions.

And that's the objection K was making to your example, and it's a damn good objection, and you should accept defeat.

You two have been flat-out wrong so many times it's hilarious you think this argument still works. You don't win just because you say so - it's frankly a very sad argument to make.

K lost this entire thread the moment he brought up Batman. Because K can't get it through his head that characters can have multiple interpretations.

Batman in Infinite Crisis may be a plot-bending superhero, but he's not in Year One. Likewise Jesus may be a God of infinite power to some Christian crazies for whom the entire gospel was just a massive Xanatos roulette on his part, but for a lot of people he was a man before he became God.

So before telling Maj to never bring up Jesus again, maybe some people should stop brining up Batman too?

[Zinegata]

Heh. Remind me to use the term religious fanfiction when talking about the gnostic gospels, because that is a rather funny yet appropriate way of calling them.

Full disclosure: I used to write fanfiction, and those fics achieved a fair level of popularity. So in a way I totally get how the gnostic writers must have felt when the Romans decided to co-opt Christianity and introduce this whole "canon" business.

And really, it's rather funny how people don't realize that the Romans never really adopted monotheism. They simply decided to have an official Church, picked Jesus as their central figure (because like I said - he's open to interpretation), but nonetheless tried to fit in all of the elements of their existing religions into the new Catholic Church. This whole monotheistic thing was honestly a product of the Dark Ages after the fall of Rome, because everything had basically gone to shit except the Churches and Monestaries.

I mean seriously, the only reason why the Virgin Mary is held in such great regard today (and is reputedly a source of miracles) is because she was meant to replace all of the existing fertility Godesses thoughout the empire - Isis being the most popular.

Even today, one can seriously argue that despite the "You shall have one God" thing in the 10 Commandements, that Christianity never actually left its polytheistic Roman roots. Otherwise, why do we have patron Saints for literally everything, just like how Romans had Gods for everything?

I'm totally with you here.

Funnily, as this debate was raging I was watching a documentary on Hannibal. And how the guy who eventually defeated him - Scipio Africanus - had levelled his way up the ranks.

[Username17]

I would have such an easier time not caring about the subject except that I don't understand why - when talking about Christian myth - the story as written can't be discussed without bringing into it a bunch of bullshit that religious people added later.

The story as written was itself rewritten by people who came later in any case. Even if we were talking about Coptic Christians, whose material is by far the oldest and most "pure" - it's still several generations after the fact and filled with self-inserts and rewrites.

The Christian Faith is not available in some sort of pure undiluted scriptural form, because no such texts exist and no one would follow them even if they did (what with them being written in archaic Greek). The Christian Faith is simply whatever the fuck it is that Christians (the body of people who say that they are Christians when asked) tell you that they believe when asked what that is. And Christians believe that not only is their god so much bigger than all the other gods that he can beat them up and they don't even exist or maybe they are demons that he made in order to promote some specifically incomprehensible Xanatos Gambit, but that he is in fact limitlessly powerful. And that he can fully comprehend, create, destroy, or change anything in the past, present, or future.

And when you have power like that, even for a brief moment at any point in the past present or future, then you really have access to unlimited power at every moment in the past, present, and future as well. Since unlimited power you could intervene on your own behalf at any point along the way or alter the entire stream of time so that it was never necessary or fucking whatever.

Unlimited power doctrines don't make any fucking sense, but there they are. Heavenly father, creator of the entire universe, the all seeing and all acting beard in the sky is incapable of having leveled up, because the amount of power he can exert at any point in time is always infinite and therefore unchanging. And that's what Christians believe in, because they would rather have the last word in a "My dad can beat up your dad" argument than to be epistemologically coherent.

-Username17

[A Man In Black]

how it depicts Judas as a Magnificent Bastard playing a Divine Xanatos Roulette

tvtropes will rot your brain.