Talk:God, Christian Faith (3.5e Deity)

Title Change

God is a misleading title. I suggest it to be changed to Holy Trinity. Votes? --201.230.125.85 19:27, 8 December 2009 (MST)

Agreed. This is very Holy Trinity. God may be too broad a title for an article this specific. --Jay Freedman 19:48, 8 December 2009 (MST)

Agreed Three Is More Propper. Holy Trinity

Actually it would be better to use is given names like YHWH, Hashem, Adonai, Yahweh what have you. "God" is more of a title and not really the name of the deity you are trying to stat up. Next you may want to write up two different versions, the "Old testament" YHWH and the New Testament Holy Trinity. If you want an interesting look at the later look for a book called "Fantasy Wargaming"; which does have write ups of the Christian saints and Angels as well as the Demons of the Christian religion.

That book would be good to add to the Publication List. This page is referred to as "God" since calling this deity a title it has previously used leads to lots of conflict. For example "He loves all and welcomes any and all into His Kingdom as long as they are a believer in the Savior Jesus Christ, the Messiah." is an aspect of Christianity that other religions do not follow. In Christianity the savior has already happened, and thus it shaped the world. Whereas is Judaism or Muslim denominations humans treat their God as a sole being who's actions are not influenced by the Messiah already existing and already shaping the world. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2014 (MDT)

Mithraism and a few other "Pagan-Mystery" religions had savior figures, but that is beside the point. Since Yahweh or Jehovah was originally the primary deity in the Hebrew religion, it would be a little better to use the names they gave him as opposed to the generic title of "God". DumoktheDM

I don't know if that is necessary. Those are Hebrew words used in the Bible; not necessarily English.

I think that it would be great to make a "Yahweh, Old Testament" page about Yahweh since this page is very written with regard to the New Testament. Do you think that this would resolve this issue? We could also add a link on the top of this page stating "For the page about Yahweh please refer to 'Yahweh, Old Testament'." --Green Dragon (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2014 (MDT)

Considering that the majority of this deities' followers do refer to it with the generic title of God, I think the name is fine. Also consider that the descriptor, ", Christian Faith" helps to distinguish the article, appropriately. The Holy Trinity, specifically, is not as widely received as the name, however, as a number of prominent Christian sects have variations of it, or do not have it, at all. For these reasons, I believe the status quo to be the more acceptable choice. Jwguy (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2014 (MDT)

Necessary?

Is this page really necessary? Deities are mostly campaign specific aren't they? If in a campaign a people worship the Christ should it be better to just link it to wikipedia? Well it just an observation.--Lord Dhazriel 12:10, 17 December 2008 (MST)

This is stupid. as was said above, you. are. supposed. to. be. ROLEPLAYING! not showing how pious and religious you are.

This is totally out of place. 1: there are plenty of evil christ-worshipers. 2:if you really think this should exist, shouldn't the favored weapon be a HAMMER since he was a carpenter? i don't think he likes whips after everything that happened. --Name Violation 00:45, 20 October 2009 (MDT)

Christ drove out the merchants from the Temple with a small whip. He called it a den of theives. Its the only time he used a weapon other than his voice. I thought it was a funny joke to have it as a favored weapon. --129.123.252.131 10:59, 20 October 2009 (MDT)

Any religion can be worshiped in D&D. Deities and Demigods even gives the Greek, Egyptian, and Asgardian deities. Why should European, Middle Eastern, Asian, and Western beliefs be diminished? While it says you should not worship a monotheistic religion, it is by all means possible to do so. D&D is as imaginative as you want it to be. The idea of a monotheistic religion based in D&D where almost every other people is pagan could bring interesting ideas to the world of the players. Just because it is a real world religion does not mean it isn't possible for the game of unlimited possibilities. Sure, there are evil Christ worshipers, but their are evil worshipers of every faith. If they really are evil Christ worshipers, are they really worshiping Christ? Or are they just saying they are? An "evil Christ worshiper" to me sounds more like a satanist: someone who worships everything that Christianity tells you not to. If you think about it, the Nine Hells of Baator were designed after Dante's inferno: Hell. The Seven Celestias of Heaven are like Heaven itself: many different ranks of angels all leading to the highest angel. Would it not be interesting to add Cherubs or even Seraphs to D&D? How would you like to be walking around, doing your own thing in the world, when a 6 winged angel with an epic voice, and once that you can really only see its mouth appears to you and tells you that your God needs you to do something for Him or for His faith? A cleric would actually have say an actual Holy Text to work from with the Bible. It could really be an RP based thing for a Cleric of this religion. Most religions in D&D are either for RP reasons or for religious classes, such as the cleric. Thus if you play one of those, its all about showing how pious and religious you are. You cannot say its stupid just because you do not believe in it in real life. You can role play a Christ following Cleric in D&D. Think about it to, their are all those sacred vows in the book of exalted deeds, including the one where you give up material possessions. The very idea of Christianity is to love man and give up everything you own to follow Christ. That feat is practically made for a cleric of this faith. --Hepo. October 31, 2009

Agree. --Green Dragon 20:19, 1 November 2009 (MST)

Correctness

“	They believe Christ created the entire universe, earth, and all that inhabit it. The belief in Christ also believes in Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind from eternal doom in Hell.	”
—http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Christ_%283.5e_Deity%29&oldid=422179

Don't Christians think God created everything though? And the Jesus Christ part sounds quite Mormon - or am I wrong? --Green Dragon 20:19, 1 November 2009 (MST)

All Christians believe God created everything. The Mormons just believe that the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate personages. Mormons still believe God created everything. --Jay Freedman 20:37, 1 November 2009 (MST)

Yeah, this says Christ created everything though. That should probably be changed, I would imagine. And I think I am wrong about referencing the LDS faith - they say "Heavenly Father", I was thinking of something else. And this could just be changed to "God" and not "Christ"... --Green Dragon 21:12, 1 November 2009 (MST)

“	In addition, they were to travel all the land and spread the news of the good King to anyone and everyone to save as many from being condemned to Baator, or Hell. God, or Jehovah, is viewed as the God of All Creation, Love, and Mercy, for He is all that is good and just and created all that exists. He is also a jealous God, for He is not pleased by those who worship other gods. Nobody is out of the reach of His grace and mercy (and also His wrath). He loves all and welcomes any and all into His Kingdom as long as they are a believer in the Savior Jesus Christ, the Messiah.	”
—http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=God_%283.5e_Deity%29&oldid=422708

What is this part talking about? Is Jehovah God? And this does not work with the alignment (wrath, jealous, etc). --Green Dragon 21:20, 1 November 2009 (MST)

Those changes are all fine, its just that some names are interchangeable. Muslim belief is in Allah, and Christian and Judaism belief is in Jehovah (obviously two different aspects of the belief). Jesus Christ is God, therefore God is Christ. The only thing that really separates them (that I am aware of) is when Jesus says only the Father knows when the end times will be and that he does not. Clarifying that even though Jesus is God, he is still man and does not share God's thoughts. Anywho, that was the reason those were written. Remember, the New Testament says God to be love, but the Old Testament shows God's wrath and how He will use war to fix things or get things for His people (Sodom and Gomorrah and His people attacking the lands of Israel, the promised lands). The Bible also does talk about God being a jealous God, once again, more so in the Old Testament. To try to place God's personality is difficult because you can't just read one part. He is lawful good because He is all that is good and He expects His followers to do their best to follow His decrees (think about it, you were to be stoned to death if you do not obey His command of keeping the Sabbath day holy and not working on it. That is laying down the law right there). Also note, that in the clergy part, it talks about latin being the language of the mass. Technically, Jesus was a Jew, and thus His language was Hebrew. Hebrew would be, in effect, the language of the faith.

An alignment describes a general behavior. Not the absolute dictation on RP. Having a lawful good character who occasionally lies is acceptable because the lawful good alignment just gives a basis to the way you should act. Paladins, are an exception, as they must represent their alignment and faith at all costs. --68.61.179.244

If you want to get technical, God himself is all good alignments at the same time, so if we have to choose, he would be Neutral Good, not Lawful. His clerics thus can be any good alignment. And yes, there are evil clerics of Him, but they do not truly worship Him in their hearts. As it is written "By their fruits thereof thou shalt know them", I'd look it up for you if I wasn't going to bed right now. -- Danzig 07:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But if a Paladin, in representing and serving his Deity, must adhere strictly to his alignment, why must the deity show no such compunction? And, since the Christian God has, demonstrably, killed entire populations of humanoids for no reason other than that He didn't approve of their behavior, I can't conclude that he's any less than True Neutral, if not Chaotic Neutral.

Lawful Good?

Lawful, yes, but Good? The Judeo-Christian god to me seems a bit too keen on the smiting and nuking of civilizations. Not to mention the fact that he orders his followers to execute people based on things such as sexual orientation or the fact that they choose to work on the sabbath. His actions based on my readings of the bible in no way portray what is known within the D&D realm to be "Good." Pelor would not kill thousands of children because of the disobedience of one king, nor would Heironeous ever blast a city off the face of the planet because of a little bit of sin on the part of a PORTION of its citizens. Therefore, I suggest altering the alignment of God to reflect his true nature: Lawful Neutral. -74.44.161.26 18:36, 16 February 2010

The followers of the Judeo-Christian God/Jesus/Yahweh/Yeshua ben Joseph/etc etc. believe that their deity is a lawful good deity. It has been roleplayed a million times in the sense of the over-zealous paladin of pelor or heironeous (yes, they would do it - if they thought that it was good). Though a non-follower may disagree (read: every other party member of the over-zealous paladin), that doesn't change the alignment. That being said, I must disagree.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Lawful, yes, but Good?" Who are you to question the motives of the Almighty? Next to Him, we are but insects. -- Danzig 23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay....I'm not even sure how to reply to that. I'm not the one questioning "the Almighty", as you put it. The Judeo-Christian God is definitely LG to all of his followers. That really ends any debate on the subject. If you personally feel like the deity would make a better LN God, then just simply make a variant.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   00:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Relax, Hooper, I meant the dude above you. You're OK. \m/ I always said He was all good alignments as one, but that anybody could worship Him, even if they were evil. What I meant was this guy uses the same tired arguments to say "God isn't good" when he wasn't there when these places (Sodom & such) got destroyed, and how are we really to question the reason behind their demise? Sure, Pelor wouldn't do that, but he's FICTIONAL... -- Danzig 06:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

D&D has created a category which they name "Good". Is the "D&D Good" the same as "God's Good"? No. God says good is "God's Good" and D&D says good is "D&D Good". They are all different types of good. So, does God have to conform to "D&D Good"? Or, does D&D have to conform to "God's Good"? Answer: No on both counts.

It is okay for them to be different. If I say God is not good, that just means he ain't "Jay Good". Sometimes it is okay to think outside the box. --Jay Freedman 08:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, to say something is real needs proof. I live in Utah. Mormons, through the Book of Mormon, believe in a few battles. Anthropologists looked into these battles and were not able to find any evidence at the point of conflict. Does this make them fake? No, I guess God could have just removed it. Does this make them unbelievable? To some, of course. To others, no. It all depends. Extrapolating this makes things very subjective.

About the "Lawful Good" making it seem as if one can understand God and that going against Christianity could be the case. Do you think it could just be changed to "Lawful Good*" and then "* — God is not understandable. Based off His actions in The Bible this comes the closest to a D&D categorical match for His actions therein. If you are thinking it is implied as a given, it is not.". I don't know. What do people think about including something like that? --Green Dragon 23:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If it has the potential to be a big deal, just put "Rule 0" or "DM's Choice".   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   23:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hooper here. But... Perhaps we aren't looking at the big picture? See my topics below. --Jay Freedman 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OP here, I'll have to say I agree with Hooper as well. Though I did find Danzig calling Pelor fictional to be ironic seeing as he did so when referring to his own mythical deity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.85.194.213 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

I never said my God was fictional. Maybe you think He is, but that's your loss. Also sign your post so I know who this is above me being an immature atheist douche. -- Danzig 00:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You, sir, have fallen for a troll. (And he's feinted you into acting rather unchristian as well). JazzMan 01:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

By no means did I intend to troll. However, it does really irritate me when someone gets all "holier than thou" and hypocritical at the same time. How was I being immature? I merely asked a question with the intent to provoke intellectual discussion.

Religious zealots don't understand that to someone not indoctrinated, their deity doesn't really stand out among the thousands of mythos created by man.

In terms of an intellectual debate, the burden of proof rests in the hands of those that make claims beyond normal reason.

In order to have such a discussion free of hypocrisy, there are two options:

1. The rules of the discussion maintain a neutral basis on rational thinking and arguments without logical support hold no value. Here, all mythologies are treated equally as mythology. The abilities and flaws of Athena and Jehova can be compared on an intellectual basis with no bias. Those that partake in any belief systems discussed are forced to step down from their pedestal and join everyone else on the level plane of reason.
2. A discussion where subjective beliefs are respected as absolute truths. This means anyone can enter and present an argument with no required support and zero rational basis but all other members of the discussion must not challenge any aspect of their claims. This means that while one person insists on the truth of the bible, another can present an argument for their belief in Kord and nobody can question either as we cannot harm someone's sensibility with grounded logic.

So I beg of you all, for the sake of rationality and as creatures of intellect, please check your faith at the door and try to be objective when entering an intelligent discussion. -OP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.85.194.213 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

I think you are in the wrong place if you want a solid debate about religion. This is a gaming website. If you want to discuss whether or not God exists, try RationalWiki. If you want to discuss how God fits into D&D, then you are in the right place, but flippantly calling Him mythical while in discussion with believers is trolling, whether or not it's your intention. JazzMan 21:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Ahem. Since my last comments got deleted... I'll just ditto Jazzman here. --Jay Freedman 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OP, it's a two-way street. You don't insult my faith, and I will from now on not insult your lack thereof. Do we have a deal? And furthermore, it is not being unChristian to speak up about being trolled. Christians have just as many rights on this wiki as anyone. As Jazzman pointed out, all we're here on this page for is to add a real-world deity to a fictional setting. I figured, if you're gonna add the Christian God to D&D, might as well get it right. Barring using either Jesus or YHWH in D&D, though, one could always just use Ilmater, if real-world historical deities in D&D bother you. But then again, what about people who use Set, Osiris, Kali, or Dagon? The game is what you make of it. Just don't troll me, and I won't verbally lash out. -- Danzig 18:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that I am not the first person to recognize that that 'Lawful Good' alignment is abrahamic propaganda. Archetyper 21:26, 13 May 2011 (MDT)

Danzig, when I first read that comment of yours, with it's obvious absurd circular logic, I thought that you were making an exaggerated parody of abrahamists, but now I see that you are the real deal. You prove the truth of Poe's Law. Archetyper 21:55, 13 May 2011 (MDT)

You are cutting pretty close to personal attacks, Archetyper. I'll say it again: if you have issue with the entry, then explain it. If you are just here to debate religion, go somewhere else. Any more personal attacks on users of this site and you will be blocked for a period of time to cool off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jazzman831 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC). Please sign your posts.

So again, you have made no arguments as to why we should change the article as I have repeatedly asked you to do, and your entire post consists of personal statements about another user, which I have repeatedly asked you not to do. The "truth that [I] forbid from being spoken" is, so far, calling Danzig an exaggerated parody of himself, and calling me a pusher of "abrahamist propaganda" (whatever that means). Those are not "truths" we tolerate on this website on this site. We'll see you again in a week. In the meantime, please feel free to take your newly-found free time to read over WP:Civility ("Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks ... of other [editors]") and WP:Etiquette ("Argue facts, not personalities.") JazzMan 11:04, 14 May 2011 (MDT) PS: Bluff called. Go ahead and ask GD to de-sysop me.

See also User talk:Archetyper#Banning. Changing this article outsides its bounds, scriptures, is vandalism. Your character may believe what they believe. You may include this into your campaign as you see fit. --Green Dragon 22:28, 16 May 2011 (MDT)

Is it okay to be multiple alignments at once?

Since this "God (3.5e Deity)" can be whatever the GM wants him to be? Can we list him as "Alignment: Any"? Can we list him as "Alignment: All"? Can we list him as both? Does Mr.God need an alignment for this article? Lets assume Mr.God needs an alignment for this article because GD says so. Just for pretend, of course.

I, myself, would list him as "Alignment: Whatever tickles your pickle". Why? Because every single person has a different opinion and view of what God really is. The problem with this is... Then isn't there a different "God (3.5e Deity)" for every single person in the entire world? Yes. Can we list them all right here on D&D wiki? Maybe. Do we want to try? Personally, I sure as heck don't. Haha.

We could be really specific too. We could name the articles: "Jay Freedman's Unique View of Mr.God" or maybe "Green Dragon's Ultimate View of Mr.God". But, thats pretty lame, ain't it. Not to mention redundant and childish.

We could name them by Religion. Things like "God: by the Catholics" or "God: by the Baptists" or maybe "God: by the Mormons". Do we want all those technicalities here on D&D wiki? Well, thats up to Green Dragon, isn't it? --Jay Freedman 08:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess when it comes to this article, there is no wrong answer. --Jay Freedman 01:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is an Alignment for that, it's called "Chaotic Neutral" which is usually reserved for crazies or Deities like Eris who really enjoy stirring the pot.

God (3.5e Deity): An Article or a Category?

In your opinion should "God (3.5e Deity)" be an Article or a Category? Simply list your opinion below in only one word if possible. Thanks! You guys rock! --Jay Freedman 08:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The category of "God" is already covered by Category:Deity, or what do you mean? --Green Dragon 23:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! "God" is a category not an article. This article is too broad in it's scope. To large, to uncertain, to unpredictable. Even if we were to limit this article to simply, lets say, a Dictionaries definition of "God". Could you gain consensus for this definition? Would everybody agree on that specific terminology?

Probably not, because everybody has a different definition for God. Heck, I would even argue that Category:Deity is equal to God (3.5e Deity). Because every single article found within Category:Deity could in fact be included within the article God (3.5e Deity) and still be considered "true" and "correct". Yes, all of them. Therefore, God (3.5e Deity) is equal to Category:Deity. Thus making this article no longer necessary. In conclusion, I propose we make this broad and unassuming article a redirect for Category:Deity. --Jay Freedman 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are getting a bit too theological for what is, ultimately, just a homebrew RPG description. JazzMan 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I am, in fact, being too theological. However, I also believe I am correct. Making this article a redirect for Category:Deity is the best logical choice for this wiki to pursue. Socially, logically, and theologically speaking. Good insight Jazzman. --Jay Freedman 00:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Except D&D Wiki is, ultimately, about D&D. The question this article brings up is: How does "God" fit into D&D? This article is not about making a Bible-correct article about God. That would be the Wikipedia article on God (or Conservapedia, who knows). This article is about God in relation to how it fits into D&D; a fantasy world with unlimited possibilities. This article needs to encompass the idea of "unlimited possibilities" and "infinite ways" not "what does the Bible say about God in relation to planet earth". Or do mean something else? --Green Dragon 00:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh goodness, you mentioned Conservapedia. (Ironically, this article is longer than theirs.) But on topic, I agree with GD. If it bothers you that this article doesn't describe God completely (and it can't anyway), then just pretend it describes a different god who happens to have the same name. Redirecting it to the category doesn't really help this wiki. JazzMan 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would really like to stress this is about God in relation to how it fits into D&D. One could add things like "In a campaign with God all other deities are considered "Hero's" and God created everything." Who knows. What do you think? --Green Dragon 00:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. I thought this article was asking "Who is God in D&D?". The answer of course is, "Whatever you want him to be." But now, I understand that GD is asking "How does God fit into D&D?". A completely different question.

So, I ask the question. How does God fit "into" D&D? The answer I get again is, "Anyway you want him to." He is anybody, anything, anyway, and anyhow you would like him to be. Man, is it really that easy? I guess so. Kinda just like Jazzman said, "Then just pretend it describes a different God who happens to have the same name." Nice work guys! When it comes to this article, there is no wrong answer! Good luck! --Jay Freedman 01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know for certain. However, although God is the creator of everything, doesn't He also have codes he is by? He definitely has Dogma (10 Commandments). Or would you say that is just a group of followers getting issued decreases by Him? I don't know, your thoughts? --Green Dragon 04:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He, She, It? I don't know what to call God. As for Dogma?... Everybody thinks God's Dogma is different. Jews say one thing, Christian's say another, and Muslims say something else. They all call him God. The only thing they all have in common when it comes to the 10 commandments is the Prophet Moses. Moses is accepted by all three world religions, so they all have a place for the 10 Commandments somewhere in their Official Doctrine. Sorry but, I'm afraid Dogma is just as sketchy as anything else. No consensus there either. --Jay Freedman 06:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(I am assuming this is the Christian one) Maybe this should be moved to God, Christian then? --Green Dragon 21:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not. "God, Christian Faith" sounds perfect for this article. It is less ambiguous and all of the current information is correct under these circumstances. Good idea. --Jay Freedman 19:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved it. --Green Dragon 23:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Contribution to the intended effort here

I wish to comment on some past postings and also lend some information you may find useful. Some past postings raised questions about the character of the Omnipresent, Omnipotent One. The best way to better understand this is to go out and ask believers about this very question. You will also need to read the entire bible, taking nothing out of context.

The first question that is difficult to answer is "what is his name"? Is it God, Jehovah, Yahweh? Genesis mentions the name given to Abram (he isn't renamed Abraham till much later) at the Burning bush is: I AM........this is a declarative statement, he's saying "I Exist on my own".

In reading the Bible you may wonder, "is God good, evil, or indifferent"? I think it is important to Consider everything in context.....everything he has done benefits everyone. It is also important to not Jump to conclusions without thoroughly examining the situations.

This, I hope will help to break some ground in determining proper inclusion, without offending fellow believers or advent gamers.

Much respect and happy gaming, if there's anything further to add don't hesitate to email me.

-DuketheFinger- dukethefinger@yahoo.com

The thing about this is that no singular reading of the Bible produces any one single view on either of these questions. The name of God as "I AM" is a part of the Book of Exodus, not Genesis, and furthermore is followed by "YHWH", which is interpreted as "Yahweh". This is something that is not always present in newer interpretations of the Bible, for whatever reason is unknown. The question of Good, Evil, and Indifference, the matter is thoroughly subjective; God's actions or inactions can largely be seen either way, both in the Bible and in present times, which is why there is a discussion in the first place.

I respect that you've reached a plateau in your spiritual journey, in these regards, but please understand that it is important that you see this as it is: A question that has many answers, simply because it can be answered many different ways. There is no way to simply boil it down into a single, eventual truth because there has yet to be anything that is not subjective or abstract, and therefore no foundation for absolutism.

That said, I believe this matter was ultimately resolved, though mostly through the consensus of silence. The important thing to understand is that this is a wiki, not a theological forum. Everyone's ideas, no matter what they represent, or misrepresent, are welcome, and we have plenty enough space for all of them. We argue only on the application of the game, not on the moral principles or accuracy to other subjects. Jwguy (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2012 (MDT)

Translation

Just a suggestion, change "Shall not kill" to "Shall not murder." "kill" is not specific enough. The player might get confused that they can't kill ANYTHING. "Kill" and "Murder" are two very different words and "Murder" is more specific over "Kill." The player shouldn't be allowed to murder fellow believers and/or have the intent to take another Human's life. Just saying... {just an on looker looking for a deity for my character} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.210.0.200 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 27 June 2016‎ (MDT). Please sign your posts.

I changed this now. --Green Dragon (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2016 (MDT)