Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: Gabe on March 30, 2018, 03:55:41 PM
-
Thank you to the many people who voiced constructive criticism (http://www.cactusforums.com/off-topic/heroic-nephilim/msg580550/#msg580550) about the Nephilim card we previewed last week. Overall I feel the community challenged one another with good discussion based on sound reasoning.
In the past we've avoided printing cards based on extremely controversial topics (Ishmael and Hagar being some other examples). We value all scripture, but there are some things that scripture doesn't elaborate on enough for our finite minds to completely grasp, making it impossible for us to accurately represent them in a way that is satisfactory to everyone. For those few topics, what we gain by creating a card is far less than what we may lose.
When we introduced antediluvians in CoW I recall a number of people hoping that we had printed Nephilim. Despite our decision and reasoning not to print it, I got the impression that it might be a good idea so we added it to the set this year. That was an error on my part. For that I am sorry.
We will continue our path this year, and going forward, to not print cards based on the few things that we feel cannot be represented well in the game. Instead, we've remove Nephilim from the set list and added a new card.
Again, I'd like to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion surrounding Nephilim. This community is a blessing to be a part of, even when we don't all agree, because we choose to deal with one another in a kind, loving, respectful way. I apologize for misleading our team by encouraging us to print a controversial card.
-
Awe too bad I though it was really cool. Thanks for listening to the community though a ton of people seemed to be concerned by it
-
Even though I had no issues with the card I don't really blame you and the card design team for pulling it given the reaction of what seems to be the majority. I was very excited all the gameplay aspects of the card though and I hope its replacement will be very close.
-
Wise move Gabe. Too bad, I thought it was a really cool card.
-
I understand the decision made (although I don’t completely agree with it). I definitely don’t feel you misled the team, Gabe, because you brought to the table a card that was a potentially cool card to create. I’m pretty sure you didn’t bring forward the idea to intentionally create a negative stir. If anything this has caused some great discussion on a long-controversial topic.
My only question is: can we still get a black/pale green FBTN EC??!!
-
Even though I had no issues with the card I don't really blame you and the card design team for pulling it given the reaction of what seems to be the majority. I was very excited all the gameplay aspects of the card though and I hope its replacement will be very close.
The replacement card is something completely different. However, we will definitely be looking for opportunities to make a similarly versatile character in future sets.
-
I am disappointed from a game standpoint. That said, I understand and agree with the decision.
The real question is, will the new card be from the same general part of the Bible, or is the numbering going to be thrown off?
-
The real question is, will the new card be from the same general part of the Bible, or is the numbering going to be thrown off?
I really dislike it when the numbering is off. ;)
-
Can I ask why we can't just make him as an EC? I haven't seen anyone yet that has a problem with him just being an EC?
-
That option was considered, but there was still much debate over the human vs human/demon aspect. We believe the wisest course of action was to simply move on from this specific character and hopefully we will find a future character that will allow us to use the framework of Nephilim even if it's not exactly the same.
-
Eber is an interesting character, one source describes him as follows: Eber – descendant of Shem, ancestor of Abraham, original ancestor of the people associated with the Assyrians.
Just throwing that out there if somebody is willing to do more research into who Eber actually was.
-
Thank you for taking the community's input into consideration, and, more importantly, for striving for Redemption to be Biblically faithful. :D
-
aka "sorrynotsorry"
When we introduced antediluvians in CoW I recall a number of people hoping that we had printed Nephilim. Despite our decision and reasoning not to print it, I got the impression that it might be a good idea so we added it to the set this year. That was an error on my part. For that I am sorry.
The problem was never the inclusion of Nephilim, but its face-value Good side. I'm glad the card isn't be printed but saddened to see the retraction is still prideful, face-saving and fallacious.
-
aka "sorrynotsorry"
When we introduced antediluvians in CoW I recall a number of people hoping that we had printed Nephilim. Despite our decision and reasoning not to print it, I got the impression that it might be a good idea so we added it to the set this year. That was an error on my part. For that I am sorry.
The problem was never the inclusion of Nephilim, but its face-value Good side. I'm glad the card isn't be printed but saddened to see the retraction is still prideful, face-saving and fallacious.
The good side was not the only issue being discussed.
What you think of the retraction is up to you, but the reasoning Gabe gave is completely accurate. Even among the Elder team there were different viewpoints on the nature of the Nephilim and different viewpoints on how they should be represented in the game (if at all).
Not everyone holds the same view you do, and many people would have liked to see the Nephilim printed as they were previewed. Fortunately, those individuals were understanding of the controversy it was causing, and to their credit refrained from causing a huge fuss. Taking shots at the Elder team after a decision went in your favor is extremely poor taste IMO.
-
Your opinion remains your own. There was no controversy on the visible side about anything but the good alignment, and this post is on the visible side couching and referring to information that is not known to any but a select few. That is indicative of the same elitism and lording of privilege I have consistently opposed since the EZ boards.
-
The discussion of whether Nephilim were human or a human/demon hybrid was most definitely on the public side of the forum. While not as contested as the "good vs not good" issue, it was brought up by multiple people.
-
Yet had already been a settled matter and was merely riding the coattails of a bigger controversy. Goliath has been human in this card game for years, and even those most educated on the nature of evil in the spiritual realm have always been ok with the "neutral" stance of all evil, all human. The controversy this post is addressing had nothing to do with that aspect of the confusion over language, yet that was the element which was highlighted by the "retraction" as a reason for the whole card to have been a mistake.
Those who believe strongly the spiritual hybridization that is part of the story of the Nephilim and the Rephaim cannot be expected to compliantly hush when presented with a statement that still denies the severity of said belief, and remains in the exact same flippant and condescending tone that sparked the other aspect of the problem (which was not addressed at all in the "retraction") in the first place.
-
Your opinion that the tone was flippant and condescending remains your own.
-
Dismissive at the very least. Whether that is synonymous with condescension and flippancy is a question for the descriptivists.
-
In my opinion even though much more could be said on the theological side of the Nephilim everyone has been heard clearly and even though I don't understand the reactions (or lack their off) to what I've said I consider it christian liberty to come to different conclusions than I do. Actually I prefer the approach of people that test something but come to honest different conclusion over the approach of people that just chose one side over the other despite good reasons for it.
I think it's natural that we focus on different aspects of doctrine and feel passionate about what we consider to be true. I felt it was necessary to do everything I can so this card doesn't keep it's hero side. I heard the "Heroes of old" thing but think it was explained properly by people opposing them being a hero in the original thread.
I was passionate because I think it's the strategy of the enemy to call good evil and evil good. I was like "not on my watch" and I'm sorry if I offended anyone in the cause of the discussion. I was sincerely shocked about considering them anything but pure evil because of the conclusions I've drawn from my research.
Having said that I am very thankful for the decision that was made by the elders team! Seriously! I think it's awesome that some people said they wanted to test it more thoroughly. I think that's a great idea despite which conclusions one ends up with!
I also want to distance myself from every inadequate talk about the elders or other individuals. I know that people from the "anti heroic-Nephilim camp" feel the same. I hope Christ-likeness is something we all strive for!