Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Isildur on January 11, 2009, 11:23:41 PM
-
Ok so I have been wondering since Saul is a Romen citizen why arent other New Testiment evil characters considered Roman Citizens if Saul is shouldnt all the Phari's, Sad's, and other Characters from the New testiment be Roman Citizens?
Also is a Roman Emp. a king?
-
Interesting... As long as they were born in Rome, I guess... good point. :)
I don't think so. They're emperors. ;D
-
Not everyone who lived under Roman rule was a full-fledged Roman citizen. There were several prerequisites and family bloodlines that needed to be present before one was considered a Roman citizen from birth, and a few things like serving in the military could grant you citizen status later on in life. However, most people living in Judea probably weren't citizens of the empire, just people who happened to live in Imperial provinces.
As to your second question, I don't know (for Redemption purposes).
-
Well I have looked up this Roman Citizen stuff and I seem to have put forward a Idea that is not sound though! It would seem that any one born after 20Bc or so would probaly have Roman Citizenship so that pretty much rules out the Phari's and Sads but not those who were born after the prementioned time.
Edit: I have found information that Judea was under Roman control in 63 Bc though I do not know if Rome was under a Republic at that time and if a Client nation is alowded to gain citivenship.
-
Actually, I am glad that you brought this up. Although I do not know the specifics about citizenship, I am indeed curious about the "king" label. I find it interesting that Pharaohs are listed under "kings," but not Emperors. Yet, both are considered "royalty." I guess that seems contradictory to me.
If I were ruling a tournament, before reading the glossary, I would have assumed that Emperors could be targeted as an "evil king." Why exactly is that not the case?
-
If I were ruling a tournament, before reading the glossary, I would have assumed that Emperors could be targeted as an "evil king." Why exactly is that not the case?
Dpends on how "king" is defined. I'd say no cause that's why Solomon isn't a judge... yes, he judged, but a judge is a position, not just anyone who judged, someone who was in charge before kings. I think that king is a certain title given to rulers of certain nations. An emperor is an emperor, not a king. That's the "title" of Rome.
-
I'd say no cause that's why Solomon isn't a judge... yes, he judged, but a judge is a position, not just anyone who judged, someone who was in charge before kings. I think that king is a certain title given to rulers of certain nations. An emperor is an emperor, not a king. That's the "title" of Rome.
That would not explain why Pharaoh is listed as an evil king. Pharaoh is a "title" of Egypt.
-
Maybe the REG has not been updated to include the now numerous Emperors under the Evil King umbrella. It could quite possibly be a simple oversight.
Godspeed,
Mike
-
Maybe the REG has not been updated to include the now numerous Emperors under the Evil King umbrella. It could quite possibly be a simple oversight.
That is certainly possible, but I was thinking otherwise only because 1.) Emperors have been around since Apostles; and 2.) The "Royal Family" glossary listing has been updated to include the FoOF/RoA Emperors.
-
Maybe the REG has not been updated to include the now numerous Emperors under the Evil King umbrella. It could quite possibly be a simple oversight.
Godspeed,
Mike
That would be my guess.
It really depends whether "king" is used to describe someone of power (which would include emperor) or a specific title (which would not include emperor).
-
It really depends whether "king" is used to describe someone of power (which would include emperor) or a specific title (which would not include emperor).
That definition would have to explain why an Emperor is not a king, but is considered a member of a royal family.
I don't mean to be nitpicky. It just seems contradictory. I'm sure the PTBs have already discussed the difference before putting it into the REG. I just was wondering what the bottom line was.
-
Well, as far as Pharaoh and King of Egypt are used almost interchangeably, but I have never heard of Roman Emperors as Kings of Rome, there does seem to be more of a difference between Roman Emperors and Kings than there are of Pharaohs and Kings
-
Maybe the REG has not been updated to include the now numerous Emperors under the Evil King umbrella. It could quite possibly be a simple oversight.
+1 My guess is that someone noticed that Pharaohs weren't listed under "kings" or "royal family" because Egyptians have been a viable defense for a while. Emperors as a group weren't viable until this last year. Someone probably noticed they were "royal family" because they tried to block King David with Nero, but never noticed that they weren't listed as "kings" because it never came up. So the REG was updated with the things that people pointed out, but not with this until now.
For consistency, I would guess that both Pharaohs and Emperors will be listed in the New REG as "kings" and "royal family".
-
Hey,
I tend to avoid identifier discussions and leave them up to Bryon and Mike, so I'm not extensively in the know here, but I'll take a shot at it.
Saul/Paul is specifically referred to in the Bible as being a Roman. Thus he is considered Roman. Pharisees, Sadducees, etc are not considered Roman because the Bible does not specifically refer to them as Romans.
As far as the Pharaoh/Emperor/King issue, my guess is that the Pharaoh's were mistakenly included in the Kings list. Emperors are not Kings, Pharaoh's are not Kings. But as I said, I'm not really in the know on identifier issues.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne (http://www.freewebs.com/redemptionne)
-
From what little I know and have read, pharaohs were Egyptian kings. Emperors were not Roman kings.
-
As far as the Pharaoh/Emperor/King issue, my guess is that the Pharaoh's were mistakenly included in the Kings list. Emperors are not Kings, Pharaoh's are not Kings. But as I said, I'm not really in the know on identifier issues.
The dictionary defines "Pharaoh" as an "Egyptian King." I would agree that Emperors are not kings. I just think that the term "royalty" is a term used for kings. Personally, I would like to see Emperor removed from the "Royalty" identifier, but Pharaoh kept as a "king" identifier. That would fit better with dictionary definitions.
-
The Egyptians wouldn't have called their rulers "kings" at all; their word for the position was Pharaoh. Much like the Russians called their rulers "Tzars" during their monarchic stage and the Germans called their emperors "Kaiser" during the era of the Holy Roman Empire, Pharaoh is just the Egyptian word for "king". The only reason Shishak and So are called "kings" in Redemption and Neco and Hophrah are called "Pharaoh" is because that's how the Bible refers to them, but technically they should all be Pharaoh _______.