The Forge Archives

Ron twice has attempted to close the thread entitled The Mechanic of "Religion" in Role Playing Games; yet the topic is hot, and there seems much to be said about it.

I agree with Reverend Daegmorgan (Greyorm) that Contracycle (Gareth?) has been very offensive; and with Simon that he has also been somewhat rude and even illogical in his attacks. I also happen to think he's right, at a certain level.

If the Greeks believe that Apollo drives the sun across the sky in a chariot and the Egyptians that a dung beetle rolls it across the sky, why does it matter which is true? It ultimately matters because I'm going to wind up with some idiot player who figures out how to go on a quest to see which is true, and when he and his party gets there--perhaps containing a cleric of Ra and a cleric of Apollo, trying to settle the matter once and for all--they are going to discover either that one of them is right, or that both of them are wrong. Either the myth is the truth about the world, or it is not. If it is, in that sense, true, then any myth that is contradictory must be false. If the myth is solely about spiritual realities and has nothing to do with how the sun actually crosses the sky, then our hypothetical clerics have completely misunderstood core concepts of their respective faiths--neither chariots nor beetles are involved, really, but are just symbols for something else.

And as the referee, I have to know how the sun really moves across the sky, just so that I've got that answer when the players attempt to determine it for real; unless I'm prepared to railroad them by thwarting their every effort to make that determination.

That said, I think that there are a lot of solutions to this; and that Contracycle puts forward some notions about religion that are simply not true.

Christianity is noted for being uncompromising in its position on many things; yet its chief apologist in the twentieth century, C. S. Lewis, declared that it was far more open to other faiths than the atheism he had previously embraced. If you are a Christian, he said, you are free to believe that all other religions contain truth, that they have value in them worth considering, and that they indeed may be true insofar as they do not contradict Christianity. If you are an atheist, you must believe that all religions are fundamentally wrong and false at their most basic premise. Thus although Reverend Daegmorgan is a pagan priest and I am an evangelical Bible teacher, we may actually be closer to each other in many important ways than either of us are to James Randi's debunking organization. We at least agree that there is something more than the physical realm, even if we may argue about what it is.

I mention this because Gareth seems to think that it is not possible for the people of one world religion to think there is any truth at all to another world religion. Historically this does not hold. Henotheism has a long and strong history, and I mentioned it in that thread. If I am an Israelite, I do not have to believe that the Philistines are completely wrong about Dagon, or that Dagon does not exist and so can never help them. All I have to believe is that Dagon is not equal to The Lord and cannot hope to defeat Him. If I'm a Philistine, I certainly do believe that there are gods in other countries, and that these are real gods; I just believe that Dagon is greater.

And if it happens that The Lord says that the sun moves across the sky because He ordered it to do so, and Dagon says (and I have no idea what Dagon actually says on this point) that the sun moves across the sky because it is the chariot of glorified victorious Philistine warriors, then the Israelites believe the Philistines are mistaken on that point, and vice versa. They don't believe that the other is mistaken about everything, or that the opposing deity does not exist, merely because there's a mistake on one point. They probably believe that the other deity is lying to steal the glory for himself.

It is equally plausible to have a situation such as the Roman inclusivism, which frequently came down to, "Oh, you call him Ares/Tyr/Ishtar, but in Latin his name is Mars", and that some of the stories were things about which there was some uncertainty ("Gee, we don't actually know how the sun moves across the sky, because there are several different ways the gods are said to do it").

Yet in the end, something has to be the reality of the situation, or else the world has to be such that all reality is subjective.

I'm not comfortable with "all the reality is subjective". I can't really imagine my two clerics reaching the sun and one seeing a dung beetle while the other sees a chariot. I can see that it might work, but I'm with Gareth on this--it doesn't really solve the problem, it only makes it worse.

But I would extend the henotheism concept further. Hey, I run Multiverser--this works for me. There is a universe somewhere in which the sun rides in Apollo's chariot every day, and another in which a dung beetle pushes it, and another in which the sun was created on the fourth day and set to rule the day, and another in which it coalesced over millions of years from particles of gas being drawn toward each other. Each of those mythologies is true in some universe; each of those deities, where a deity is involved, exists and exercises that power. Now, only one can be true in this universe, that is, the sun that crosses the sky daily is doing one of those things--or maybe something entirely different, however Frey or Amaterasu Omikami or Surya handle the sun. That doesn't make the mythology false; it only means it applies somewhere else. The fact that in this universe a dung beetle pushes the sun across the sky does not invalidate Apollo's claim that he drives it in his chariot every day. The gods are the same, the mythologies are all in a real sense true (and in a sense that does not require them to devolve to metaphor and symbolism), and no one's beliefs are really falsified.

Of course, I still agree with Gareth: we still have to know which one actually takes the sun across the sky in this world.

Or maybe they take turns.

I also agree that there is a great difference between whether spirits exist and actually work on our behalf (a supernaturalist view) or the powers are merely extended from ourselves (a naturalist/materialist view, ultimately); and I agree that in the latter case you're really talking about psionics, not magic. Simon is right that at one level what matters is what works; but like Gareth I feel I, as referee, would need to know why it works and how it works if I am going to have to present the outcome of its efforts. For one thing, if this power is spirits beyond myself, much depends on their reaction to me; but if it is my own power, far more depends on my strength and whether I am overy tired.

I hope the discussion can continue with a bit more civility.

--M. J. Young

Hey howdy M.J.,

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your well thought out commentary.  You obviously possess a wealth of knowledge concerning theology and mythology, not to mention history and culture.  Although my knowledge is insufficient to add to this discussion, I look forward to reading more meaningful banter. :)

Thanks,

- Ted

I'm a professional witch.  That is, I have 13+ years experience practicing witchcraft and studying various occult systems.  I also sell occult/metaphysical books and supplies, and get paid to read tarot and dispense magical advice.  As a result, I often hear some variation on this question: "so which one of these magical systems works the best?"

One of my stock answers is this:

"Consider each magical system as a computer OS.  The hardware the OS runs is always pretty much the same: electrons flowing through silicon chips to activate and manipulate various devices.  Strings of "on" and "off."  Now, what the OS does is turn those strings of "1s" and "0s" into something that the human mind can comprehend (to one degree or another), and turn commands from the user into codes the hardware can understand.

"I can run Windows, Unix, Linux, or even a Mac emulator on my PC.  All have different strengths and weaknesses.  They all look different, they all act different, they all have a different "baberous words of evocation."  But they all run the same hardware.

"So, instead of "which is best," the question becomes "what do you want to do, and how do you want to do it?"

At this point, far too many people look at me with blank, uncomprehending eyes, and I sigh and hand them a copy of Malborough's Charms, Spells, and Formulas or something similar.

Where I'm going with this is that I am fine with a certain degree of subjectivity, as this has been my experience of mysticism in the real world.

I would direct the interested to Hero Wars, specifically the Narrator's Book and the chapters on HeroQuesting.  It is suggested that a group of heroes questing in the otherworld might encounter a Black Knight (as from Arthurian literature) or Humakt (the Orlanthi god of death), depending on whether their quest started from a Malkioni (vaguely Arthurian monotheist) church or an Orlanthi temple.

So, M.J., I might answer your question as to who is right by asking who cast the spell that got the party to the sun.

In Hero Wars, the heroes sometimes enter the otherworld by taking onthe roles of gods and heroes and re-enacting their myths.  Thus, a band of hero questors might encounter a god or hero in their quest, and never know that they were encountering other hero questors from other times and places.

See also Neil Gaiman's Sandman and American Gods, as well as Alan Moore's Promethea for other ways in which the subjective perceptions of a world's underlying reality might be well done, dramatically.

Greetings M J,

So, does anyone else here miss Art Bell yet?

Quote from: M. J. YoungIf the Greeks believe that Apollo drives the sun across the sky in a chariot and the Egyptians that a dung beetle rolls it across the sky, why does it matter which is true?

In terms of game mechanics it matters only in-so-far as the myth directly affects the world mechanic.

As you say...

Quote from: M. J. YoungIt ultimately matters because I'm going to wind up with some idiot player who figures out how to go on a quest to see which is true, and when he and his party gets there--perhaps containing a cleric of Ra and a cleric of Apollo, trying to settle the matter once and for all--they are going to discover either that one of them is right, or that both of them are wrong. Either the myth is the truth about the world, or it is not. If it is, in that sense, true, then any myth that is contradictory must be false. If the myth is solely about spiritual realities and has nothing to do with how the sun actually crosses the sky, then our hypothetical clerics have completely misunderstood core concepts of their respective faiths--neither chariots nor beetles are involved, really, but are just symbols for something else.

Nope.

As applied to game worlds the myths work only subjectively.

If a world mechanic postulates that vimanas are aerial vehicles of the gods then, perhaps, a PC may be able to be conveyed via vimana to a destination.

If, however, a world mechanic postulates flying chariots which can by pulled only by specific animals (which is the case in Greek myth) then, in game terms, a character would need to A) aquire said chariot, B) find said beasties, and C) hope Zeus doesn't fire-bolt yer arse outta da sky!  ;)

In other words, in game terms, it is not so much the substance of the myth as how the elements of the myth are applied to the mechanics of the game world.  Not what the players may or may not believe about the world, but rather what has been established as true within the reality of that world.

IE: If minotaurs are listed in the creature catalog but trolls, gnomes, and mummies are explicitly left out then this establishes the window dressing of the world.  Window dressing which can, should, and all too often isn't, based upon the specific myths, legends, and pantheons that are being borrowed from.

For instance:  AD&D mixed so many creatures from myth and legend it was hard to keep track what was and wasn't in existance in my game world for my players.  Also my world had no cavaliers.

Why?

Because it was my world, created from the ground up, and I established, within the world mechanic, what was.  I even had a solid two months of game play outlined, complete with random encounter charts and all that fun stuff you seem to find time to do when you're in HS.

But my BIGGEST problem was trying to explain that the sun rotated in opposite to how it does in our real world.  I can still distinctly recall trying to explain this (pointing to the game map, then table to point to the floor) and ending up just throwing in the towel and saying "sure, yeah, you're right I have it all wrong" just to get back to the game.

And, yes, there was a point to why the sun rose and set in reverse.

Of course the lesson I came away from that session was (since the person I was having the problem with was a newbie player and I really didn't want to confuse them) was that all this stuff needs to be written up clearly and concisely for the players.

Now, that said....

Quote from: M. J. YoungAnd if it happens that The Lord says that the sun moves across the sky because He ordered it to do so, and Dagon says (and I have no idea what Dagon actually says on this point) that the sun moves across the sky because it is the chariot of glorified victorious Philistine warriors, then the Israelites believe the Philistines are mistaken on that point, and vice versa. They don't believe that the other is mistaken about everything, or that the opposing deity does not exist, merely because there's a mistake on one point. They probably believe that the other deity is lying to steal the glory for himself.

Again, as a point of belief, this really would be part of the back ground story and would have very little, as outlined, to do with actual game mechanics.

Assuming a game with physics relatively similar to our own the explanation of "how" and "why" things might work isn't really all that important, so long as the explanations relay the fundamental facts of matters.   IE: the sun rising and setting in the same manner, the sun radiating heat, the sun providing light, and etcetera.

Quote from: M. J. YoungI'm not comfortable with "all the reality is subjective". I can't really imagine my two clerics reaching the sun and one seeing a dung beetle while the other sees a chariot. I can see that it might work, but I'm with Gareth on this--it doesn't really solve the problem, it only makes it worse.

The bit about the dung beetle, it can be argued, is both allegorical and symbolical.  There was a good explanation of this very myth on the History Channel (I think) a few months back.  They tend to replay their programs after a bit, keep an eye out for the once about egypt.

Now to your comment.  It's really a hard one.  This delves squarely into cosmology, and there were various models at various times for how the celestial bodies worked.  Of course in games with multiple pantheons you are quite right, there would have to be a larger meta-explanation to govern this since every sun-god can't actually be up there....

Or can they?

It may be that the "gods" don't really pull the sun at all?  Maybe each region has it's own luminescent orb?  Or, then again, maybe the gods are just going to the great Starbucks in the space station orbiting above the horizon to have a laugh?

Quote from: M. J. YoungI also agree that there is a great difference between whether spirits exist and actually work on our behalf (a supernaturalist view) or the powers are merely extended from ourselves (a naturalist/materialist view, ultimately); and I agree that in the latter case you're really talking about psionics, not magic. Simon is right that at one level what matters is what works; but like Gareth I feel I, as referee, would need to know why it works and how it works if I am going to have to present the outcome of its efforts. For one thing, if this power is spirits beyond myself, much depends on their reaction to me; but if it is my own power, far more depends on my strength and whether I am overy tired.

Well there is a sort of division in most games between elementalism, spiritism, and daemons.  (Ok, so I just coined my own terms to try and break this all down.)

Elementalism is the manipulation of energy forces.

Spiritism is the manipulation, use, or reliances upon spirit energies.

Daemons, obviously, are those ultradimensional preternatural beings which grant, or use their own innate powers on behalf of, to someone who binds them/seeks to enter their service.

That said, I've always had a problem with Psionics.  I don't really know why, save that most systems treat it as a cross between the forms above.  I've also thought of it as purely "mind over matter", and as such should have required very strong belief... or something.

Then again my first (and only) introduction to game mechanics governing psionics was in AD&D.  Which literally treated it as another form of magic.  (I know some DMs who adapted the Psionic system to use in place of the native magic system, so I guess some liked it.)   I refused to use/allow psionics in my games.

My loss, I know.  Luckily none of my players cared for it either.

Of course, now that I read your post, I realize that my real problem with Psionics wasn't the system, but rather the lack of a adequate explanation for how it worked.




Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

QuoteSo, does anyone else here miss Art Bell yet?

Well, I didn't listen to him much, but I do miss him.  I hope that he got that rocket of his...

Quote from: M. J. YoungIf the Greeks believe that Apollo drives the sun across the sky in a chariot and the Egyptians that a dung beetle rolls it across the sky, why does it matter which is true? It ultimately matters because I'm going to wind up with some idiot player who figures out how to go on a quest to see which is true, and when he and his party gets there--perhaps containing a cleric of Ra and a cleric of Apollo, trying to settle the matter once and for all--they are going to discover either that one of them is right, or that both of them are wrong.

Hero Wars handles exactly this kind of situation. Each priest has a Mythology of [my deity] ability, plus various magical powers. You'd handle a situation like this as a contest between their mythology abilities, perhaps augmented using various magical powers derived from the myths in question. In the end, whichever wins directs the ritual qurest they are both participating in into their god's mythic otherworld. It's a streightforward test of faith.

Of course two such pairs of priests could engage in the same contest and the Apollo priest could win in one case, and the Ra priest in the other. You sem to be assuming that the world is always experienced in the same way by different people, that the world is 'static' in the sense that it always obeys predictable mechanistic laws. in a magical world this is not necesserily the case, the world may present itself differently to different people, it is an animate force, it may even have it's own agenda because the world is itself magical or even divine.

Therefore I appreciate your attempt to bridge the gap between myself and gareth, but I'm afraid on these points it is unspannable.


Simon Hibbs

Quote from: simon_hibbs

Quote from: M. J. YoungIf the Greeks believe that Apollo drives the sun across the sky in a chariot and the Egyptians that a dung beetle rolls it across the sky, why does it matter which is true? It ultimately matters because I'm going to wind up with some idiot player who figures out how to go on a quest to see which is true, and when he and his party gets there--perhaps containing a cleric of Ra and a cleric of Apollo, trying to settle the matter once and for all--they are going to discover either that one of them is right, or that both of them are wrong.

Hero Wars handles exactly this kind of situation. Each priest has a Mythology of [my deity] ability, plus various magical powers. You'd handle a situation like this as a contest between their mythology abilities, perhaps augmented using various magical powers derived from the myths in question. In the end, whichever wins directs the ritual qurest they are both participating in into their god's mythic otherworld. It's a streightforward test of faith.

I don't feel this answers the question.  Why is this an test of faith in the first place?  In the scenario given, they are going to see the sun - not engage in demonstrative piety.

Lets say the Egyptian priest rolls high, and the Apollonian priest rolls low.  The characters travel to the sun, and see that it is indeed, before their very eyes, a vast ball of dung being pushed by an exceedingly large beetle.

What is the Apollonian priest to make of this?  What does the Apollonian priest say to others when he returns to the temple?  What happens to the Apollonian priests world-system; surely it has been severely challenged.

I agree with MJ that to a large degree most instances of this sort of thing will be accomodated fairly easily; but this is why I have claimed previously that I don't see much faith, as we use the term, at work.

QuoteYou sem to be assuming that the world is always experienced in the same way by different people, that the world is 'static' in the sense that it always obeys predictable mechanistic laws. in a magical world this is not necesserily the case, the world may present itself differently to different people, it is an animate force, it may even have it's own agenda because the world is itself magical or even divine.

Thats fine; that certainly would be the assumption that would come to without any indication to the contrary.  To go back a step, the way I read your first sally in this direction, I read it as "seeing as the world is symbolic, it can be symbolic in a game too"; I hence attacked the first part.  If instead we say "in this game, the world IS subjective, and itself is divine" then there are no problems and we move on to discussing how that actually works in the game.

I'm not sure that HW actually does discuss this, though.  So Simon, if you were running an HW game and this very test was performed by two PC's, with differing interpretations of what the sun is, how would you resolve the consequences of the discovery that it can be either, depending on who won the contest?  I'm not talking about what they actually see, so much as how you would expect them to react to what they see?

Quote from: contracycle
I'm not sure that HW actually does discuss this, though.  So Simon, if you were running an HW game and this very test was performed by two PC's, with differing interpretations of what the sun is, how would you resolve the consequences of the discovery that it can be either, depending on who won the contest?  I'm not talking about what they actually see, so much as how you would expect them to react to what they see?

Such a situation isn't explicated specificaly in the rules, true. Perhaps I spoke too soon. This issue has come up on the Hero Wars discussion boards, and hopefully similar situations will be covered in the HeroQuest rules.

In Hero wars (or the upcoming HeroQuest), a contest involved competing abilities, and the participants have a certain degree of controll over the amount of risk they are prepared to take in the contest. Take big risks, and you can either win big, or lose big as a result. A complete defeat for a character in the above situation would equate to a complete loss of faith. A minor defeat might lead to a minor crisis of faith, the penalties for which would be the standard ones proscribed by the rules. i.e. a penalty to relevent abilities (mythological lore, magical affinities, etc), much like a wound effect in physical combat.

Religious faith is based on personal conviction, acceptance of doctrine and the evidence of the senses. If I as a priest of Aries have had it demonstrated to me that my religion is lacking, the fact that another priest of Aries says he defeated a priest of Ra in such a contest is little comfort. My faith has been shown to be lacking at least. How can I now go and contiinue teaching the myths of my religion in good faith?


Simon Hibbs

Quote from: M. J. YoungIf the Greeks believe that Apollo drives the sun across the sky in a chariot and the Egyptians that a dung beetle rolls it across the sky, why does it matter which is true? It ultimately matters because I'm going to wind up with some idiot player who figures out how to go on a quest to see which is true, and when he and his party gets there--perhaps containing a cleric of Ra and a cleric of Apollo, trying to settle the matter once and for all--they are going to discover either that one of them is right, or that both of them are wrong.

I'm going to focus on this one little point here, mostly because this sort of point is often used in discussions I have seen and they are rather flabby IMO, no offense to MJ.

What I mean is, so what if the set out on a quest to find out who moves the sun across the sky. Imagine doing that today. How would you do that? Imagine someone doing that back in the time of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. How would they do that?. I mean they could walk East to where the sun sleeps for the rest of their lives and find all sorts of interesting things but never find out how the sun is moved across the sky. I mean, just because they are crazy enough to go on a quest to find out how the sun moves across the sky does not mean they will ever find it, hence why such myths weren't dispelled so handily. It's not like just walking down the street to the chemist to find out what moves the sun across the sky. It could conceivably take the rest of your *players* lives to find out, and even then you may not even get close. Or they eventually get there and find Appollo and a dung beetle playing rock,paper,scissors to see you has to move the sun today.

My point here is that while maybe such things will need to be either this or that because both religions can't be right, a lot of those things are simply unprovable. The sun may just be a bad example, though. What's a myth that can be more practically confirmed?

Quote from: Jack Spencer Jr
My point here is that while maybe such things will need to be either this or that because both religions can't be right, a lot of those things are simply unprovable. The sun may just be a bad example, though. What's a myth that can be more practically confirmed?

I think that in a magical world, where magical rituals based on myth can produce demonstrable effects, that such matters must therefore be provable. I imagine the contest in question might involve both priests performing their differing rituals, invoking their gods and simultaneously calling up a vision of the sun - whichever vision appears wins. Something like that.

In the end though, this only proves the superiority of the faith of of one priest over the other. In the end, I believe all such contests will reduce down to this. I don't believe that an absolute proof of religious truth is possible in this world, and I fail to see why it's either necessery desirable in a fantasy world either with or without magic.


Simon Hibbs

Quote from: simon_hibbsI don't believe that an absolute proof of religious truth is possible in this world, and I fail to see why it's either necessery desirable in a fantasy world either with or without magic.

It's funny you should say that. I have just posted to a thread in RPGnet about the movie Signs and noted the similarity to the movie Pulp Fiction. It works a lot like that, I think.

In my games, what the Priests would see would depend on whose area of influence they were doing the looking...if communing from Greece they would see Apollo in his Chariot, if from Egypt the Beetle...if from somewhere else...depends on whose gods control it.
If no religion specifically controls it?
They see what they expect to see...and can each argue the other is wrong.

In my games, these game religions are factually true...Winds occur because of the Zephyrs etc...

I have a proposal for a thought experiment.  Let us imagine a world (som of) whose inhaitants believe it to be flat.  Furthermore, for reasons we don't really need to care about, a ships captain decides to sail off the edge of the world (to commit suicide maybe), which according to the maps is over there.

It seems to me that whatever answer you give to this problem would make a statement about the reality of the world.

If the ship falls off, everyone was right.
If theres no edge, they were wrong (although they would not know what shape the world really was yet)
If it depends on what the captain believes, or what the crew believes, or what the mass of the populace believes, then we have a subjective universe.

Once such an answer was given to the players, it will be perforce True as far as the game goes; if it is changed later, some explanation for the initial understanding which is satisfying to the audience must be given.

Now I'm heavily into exploration of setting; I'm highly likely to construct a reason and go look at the edge of the world, just because I think it would be a cool thing to "see" in this medium.  I would wonder what the GM has imagined about this already.  I'm thus quite likely to compel the GM to give me an answer, given the opportunity.  Many actual games at the table (as opposed to products on the shelf) will totally deny me the opportunity to see this with my "own" eyes by keeping me occupied with the foreground rather than the background up until the curtain falls; but it would still, perhaps secretly, be on my list of Cool Things To Do in that game.

So, I'd like to fish for comments on that scenario.

Quote from: M. J. YoungIf the Greeks believe that Apollo drives the sun across the sky in a chariot and the Egyptians that a dung beetle rolls it across the sky, why does it matter which is true? It ultimately matters because I'm going to wind up with some idiot player who figures out how to go on a quest to see which is true, and when he and his party gets there--perhaps containing a cleric of Ra and a cleric of Apollo, trying to settle the matter once and for all--they are going to discover either that one of them is right, or that both of them are wrong.

OK, let me use the same quote Jack did and take a slightly different spin on it - emphasizing the "settle the matter once and for all" part.  Wanting to settle things once and for all is a perfectly good thing (in a game world or in real life), and it can lead to other good things (in a game or in life).  But it almost never works out that way - things are almost never settled for once and for all, anywhere.  Add a little alternate cosmology/physics/whatever to a game world (of MANY different flavors, not just "subjectivity"), and there's no end to the possibilities.

Maybe the Ra priest is right - for a while.  Then the Apollo priest is.  Or they each have variations on a third, underlying "fact" - that might not also be the final, settled truth.  Maybe reality changes based on what's uncovered during this expedition, and maybe that change is retroactive, and maybe it doesn't and it isn't.  Why does anyone (GM, player, whoever) need to know which of these it "really" is, as long as they can manage (to the particular play groups' satisfaction) an enjoyable game experience?

The question for me, in an RPG, isn't what the Ultimate Truth is, it's whether I can make the events work in my game.  Some groups need to explain how it could be that the sun was once pulled by a chariot and is now pushed by a dung bettle - maybe they need an Ultimate Truth.  Others just don't care.  They know what (if anything) they can ATTEMPT to do about this dung bettle situation (kill it, "believe" it back into a chariot, whatever), and that's all that matters.

I'm reminded of the Dying Earth Uber-magic preventer - if you think up a way to get a HUGE benefit for no risk out of the system, it doesn't work.  You think you're smarter than the eons of wizards that preceded you?  Think again.  The specifics of WHY it doesn't work either don't matter, or can be made up on the fly, whatever the gaming group chooses.

In a game world, knowing the Ultimate Truth - or even knowing whether there is or isn't an Ultimate Truth to know - is hardly required.  Some groups may find it helpful, or even essential - others don't care.  One of my GM's is very good with the "not even knowing" bit - he intentionally doesn't even give himself trully Ultimate Truths.  Our answers are always contingent, and we're never even sure on what they are contingent.  But sometimes, we figure out pieces, and that turns out to be helpful in the game world.  Sometimes those pieces contradict each other, and sometimes we can figure out why - other times we can't.  Once or twice, that kind of inconsistencey has caused a game to self-destruct, but not often.

That works for me as a generally accurate description of real life as well.  Except for the inconsistencies causing a self-destruct part - that doesn't happen to the real universe.   Little pieces of it, maybe, but not the whole thing.  For which we should be very thankful . . .

Gordon

Perhaps the quest changes reality, or the quest is an intervention by mortals that shifts the balance one way or the other.  By interacting with characters from their myths, PC's can shape reality.  This isn't the same as introducing slack relativism into your game -- rather, it protagonizes your PCs to the extent that they are intervening in the very structure of the universe they play in.

If I go on a quest to the realm of the gods and aid the air god in proving his superiority to the sun god, I have changed the universe.  The air priests and the sun priests might have debated the matter for centuries until my intervention settled it.

Quote from: M. J. Young

If the Greeks believe that Apollo drives the sun across the sky in a chariot and the Egyptians that a dung beetle rolls it across the sky, why does it matter which is true? It ultimately matters because I'm going to wind up with some idiot player who figures out how to go on a quest to see which is true,
--M. J. Young

QuoteWhat's a myth that can be more practically confirmed?

Well, in RL,  a myth persists at least partly because it can't be confirmed easily. I.e. those that could be, have been(or they have been disproved.).

frex: The 'flat earth' was disproved by someone sailing all the way around(although there are other ways, but they arn't as adventerous).
Also, many myths are explanatory, rather than making a statement about the world.

How would you prove something like 'The Goddess makes the plants grow'?

Of course, according to some philosiphies, you can't actually 'prove' anything, as there is no way to tell if your senses are being fooled somehow.

Anyway...I'm gonna try to pull all the stuff together.

As far as I can tell tell the problem seems to be this:
Player comes up with some way to verify a truth about the world and resolve conflicting views. (We'll use the the ole sun analogy).

There seem to be 3 solutions presented for  a GM to use.

1)Absolutism:Players get to the sun and find out the 'truth'. Apollo pulls the sun, or may the dung beetle does, or maybe it's a diffent god altogether, or no god at all.Maybe each has part of the truth (Apollo hands the sun over to the beetle somewhere over Malta...)  Anyway, the issue is resolved.

The main problem with this is it tends to screw with the world view.
Of course this can be nice, if there isn't a conflict, so the myth might be expanded in new ways.

For example players might prevent the sun from moving by stealing the axel from Appollo's chariote (which would make a neat legend).


2)Relativism:The priests see different things. Or maybe if you leave from Egypt you find a dung beetle, but if you leave from Greece you find Appollo.
Nicely prevents conflict, but prevents the myth from being 'used' , other than as background. No stealling appollo's horse and stopping the sun in egypt.

3)Uncertentiy:Either A)The 'proof' is so difficult it can never be attempted, which feels a bit like railroading, although it is, in a sense, realistic.
 
B)There is some doute- Perhaps the priest who helped you created an illusion or maybe  your spell didn't work correctly or something.

I would even tentativly call A sim, B narrativist and C gamist, althought thats a bit  of an oversimplification.

I think one of the real disagreements here has to do with what is and is not metaphysical, in the literal sense, within a given game universe.  If divinity is largely a metaphysical issue, or entirely so, then you don't need to fomulate mechanics or answers for any of it.  If, on the other hand, there is some concrete link, then you will need mechanics.

Here's an example:

Remember Ars Magica?  One of the things there was something called the Dominion, which was the Aura of the Church, of God, of miracles, etc.  Now Dominion had a definite, measurable effect on reality: magic was hindered by it, for example.  I think there was also a way to do a detect spell that would pick up how much Dominion was around, just like how much Magic Aura or Faerie Aura there was.

Now in this universe, there is a definite, demonstrable presence, locally referred to as Divine.  Whether there is or is not Dominion is not up for debate; it's not a matter of faith, because it can be proven.  As to whether the Dominion results from the more or less direct presence and attention of God, that depended on exactly how your campaign worked (and on which edition of Ars Magica you were using).

On the other hand, you could happily run Ars Magica without this mechanic, and say that Divinity is a matter of faith, period.  Thus you would just drop out the mechanic for Dominion entirely, and see what happened.  Of course, you might well want the odd miracle around, which would be fine so long as what happened did not have some kind of extra measurable effect --- it just happens and is very difficult or impossible to explain.  In that sort of universe, Christianity is a question of faith.

Personally, I happen to like that kind of thing.  Why shouldn't magicians in the European Middle Ages be Christians, just like most other people?  And as to the argument between, say, Christians and Jews about whether Jesus was the Messiah, they can argue it to their hearts' content without ever being able to prove anything.

It seems to me that this is all a matter of whether you want religion (and magic, for that matter) to be about faith or to be demonstrable.

Quote from: damion2)Relativism:The priests see different things. Or maybe if you leave from Egypt you find a dung beetle, but if you leave from Greece you find Appollo.
Nicely prevents conflict, but prevents the myth from being 'used' , other than as background. No stealling appollo's horse and stopping the sun in egypt.

I've just written up a half-baked RPG on a closely related subject on RPG.net. In this RPG, the True believer's view of reality determines their reality, when they choose. So the priest of Apollo can borrow Apollo's chariot and horse, and the Egyptian priest can interact with dung beatle and sun as appropriate.

Quote from: contracycle
Now I'm heavily into exploration of setting; I'm highly likely to construct a reason and go look at the edge of the world, just because I think it would be a cool thing to "see" in this medium.  I would wonder what the GM has imagined about this already.  I'm thus quite likely to compel the GM to give me an answer, given the opportunity. ....

So, I'd like to fish for comments on that scenario.

I think damion, clehrich and Gordon Landis are going in the right direction on this. There are some things that a religion teaches that are articles of faith, and there are others that are incidental. For example the different authors in the New Testament disagree on some details, but none of these are realy material to the religious message. Psalms variously describes 'the circle of the earth', and 'the four corners of the world' - so is the world round or square? Of course the answer is it realy doesn't matter.

Clearly there are some things that all religions are going to agree on - apples are tasty, deserts are hot, etc. Many things are experienced in the same way no matter what your religious persuasion. Other things are more open to debate and the dividing line isn't necesserily clear.

One common concept in religious philosophy is the concept of the otherworld, or spirit world. Heaven and Hell, the Dream Time, Nirvana and so on. Greg Stafford resolves many of these issues by explaining that in Glorantha many of the answers to mythological questions are found in these otherworlds. In the Yelmic otherworld Yelm is the Sun Emperor of the universe. In the Orlanthi otherworld, Elmal the loyal thane is torchbearer of the sun flame. What you experience depends on which otherworld you visit, each of which magcialy maps on to the middle world in which the sun is a fiery ball in the sky. However each of these otherworlds provide usable magic in the middle world.

I can't say exactly what the answer is for your example world, because I don't know enough about it. All I can say is that there are ways of resolving this situation that do not require objective proof on religious issues, one way or another.

Of course if you want to have absolute objective and provablly unambiguous religious truths in your game, that's fine. I just don't see why it's either desirable or necessery.


Simon Hibbs

Its desirable and necessary becuase the above is Gloranthas primary, and extremely significant, weakness.  It renders the game unusable to except in the most abstract mechanical way.

If the answers are to be found in these otherworlds, what are these answers?  What is the sun?  If multiple otherworlds disagree on what the sun is, then the fact is that the Answers are NOT in these otherworlds; all you will get is something that makes you feel good and reifies your worldview.

I agree that many of these issue are not material to the religious message; that is exactly why I regard it as inexcusable to fail to explain essentially mundane aspects of the world on the basis that someone, somewhere has a belief about them.

This statment, for example:

Quote
What you experience depends on which otherworld you visit, each of which magcialy maps on to the middle world in which the sun is a fiery ball in the sky. However each of these otherworlds provide usable magic in the middle world.

I can only respond to this statement by asking "why".  WHY do people experience conflicting "truths", and WHY are they, nevertheless, able to perform magic.  And even, why are they going to otherworlds; the question is about the world they functionally share.  To my mind, this is not adequately or even at all explained in HW; furthermore, my anecdotal experience leads me to believe that it is such a sore point in the Gloranthan community that there is a reflexive reaction against even discussing the topic.

IF Glorantha is indeed meant to be a subjective world of the "faith creates reality" stripe, ala Mage, then that needs to be explicitly discussed with the GM so that the GM is empowered to make informed decisions.  I am unsure as to whether this indeed meant to be the case, though.

QuoteI can't say exactly what the answer is for your example world, because I don't know enough about it. All I can say is that there are ways of resolving this situation that do not require objective proof on religious issues, one way or another.

There is no example world; the point was that the character action is one of discovery, exploration.  It is a situation which compels the GM to give a hard decision; it can't be handwaved away by saying "Well, you believe you'll fall over the edge".  The player will say "I know what I believe, what do I see?"

Edit: lastly, NO claims are incidental to an argument which claims to be informed by Divine Revelation, IMO.

Second edit: Just to reiterate that I am not inherently opposed to subjective worlds; I love Mage, frex.  My objective is to argue that the issue cannot remain unadressed; if a world is to be subjectively formed, then that subjectivity is the Truth which must be conveyed to the GM.

Quote from: contracycleIf the answers are to be found in these otherworlds, what are these answers?  What is the sun?  If multiple otherworlds disagree on what the sun is, then the fact is that the Answers are NOT in these otherworlds; all you will get is something that makes you feel good and reifies your worldview.

Which is an argument I'd not be surprised to hear from a Gloranthan mystic. On the other hand, I'd not be surprised to hear it from a real world mystic either. Goodness! A game world capable of the same degree of religious controversy and richness as the real world, how terrible!

QuoteI can only respond to this statement by asking "why".  WHY do people experience conflicting "truths", and WHY are they, nevertheless, able to perform magic.

At a metagame level - because the game designer made it so. At an in-world level, because the world IS. I think therefore I am. Philosophers in the real world have struggled with this since at least the time of Xenophanese and still not even the most ingenious scientists and philosophers of our age can answer it. Does that make games set in the real world unplayable?

Quote...that it is such a sore point in the Gloranthan community that there is a reflexive reaction against even discussing the topic.

Funny, it seems to come up pretty often on the digest.

QuoteEdit: lastly, NO claims are incidental to an argument which claims to be informed by Divine Revelation, IMO.

Quite so, I have no time for bilblical literalism (does Leviticus relay mean that Americans should be able to buy and sell Canadians as slaves, for example?). Fortunately the bible itself (in it's most generaly accepted forms) contains no such claims of literalness. Hence the alegorical nterpretation of religious doctrine that dates back to the earliest written human philosophies, as I have mentioned several times already. Why do you keep insisting on a literal interpretation when that is not relevent to the discussion?

QuoteSecond edit: Just to reiterate that I am not inherently opposed to subjective worlds; I love Mage, frex.  My objective is to argue that the issue cannot remain unadressed; if a world is to be subjectively formed, then that subjectivity is the Truth which must be conveyed to the GM.

Fair enough. But is a world is intended to contain within it the same variety and richness of religious experience and belief as some poeple believe is available in the real world, why can it not be so?


Simon Hibbs

Quote from: simon_hibbs
At a metagame level - because the game designer made it so. At an in-world level, because the world IS. I think therefore I am. Philosophers in the real world have struggled with this since at least the time of Xenophanese and still not even the most ingenious scientists and philosophers of our age can answer it. Does that make games set in the real world unplayable?

It certainly does for me, it renders the world valueless and uninteresting - because of the contradiction of certainty (action) and uncertainty (comprehension).

I think you have overextended the questions; I was not asking a philosophical question about the origin of the world; I am asking about the details of the worlds operation.  So, frex, science CAN answer the question of "why is the sun hot" - "because its a giant ball of burning gas".

Without such detail, both player and GM have to take the world on nothing more than designer say so.  I don't see how this can in any way convey anything about, or allow play with, a serious representation of religion or mysticism or mythology.

Quote
Why do you keep insisting on a literal interpretation when that is not relevent to the discussion?

As I said, I believe that to IMPLICIT in the claim to DIVINE revelation.  It is information derived from a supernatural source; this is what gives it greater credibility than mere human information.  If this were not the case, there would be no reason to consider any such information as any more important than any other claim or rumour.

Quote
Fair enough. But is a world is intended to contain within it the same variety and richness of religious experience and belief as some poeple believe is available in the real world, why can it not be so?

Because if it fails to give some intellectual meat to chew on, then it is NOT a rich religious experience at all, its a cardboard one in which you go through the motions without comprehension or sense of importance or significance.  I don't find HW to be religiously rich; I deeply suspect that TROS - which also uses contradictory interpretations of the mystic truth, but decouples this from mechanics - would actually perform better for an  exploration of the religious sense.  It has other problems with the coherence of its world-concept; but I could pick one of the exhibited faiths and reasonably comprehend its position and dogma, and the game itself would NEVER produce a contradiction for me to have to resolve.  I do not know if there IS a canonical truth, but I don't care or need to care.

I guess I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding the issue on a practical level.  I understand the theoretical arguement, as has been said its the same theoretical arguement that's been going on since mankind first conceived of supernatural forces.

But to take this back to the practical I'm left with a big "so what?".  And maybe that's because I don't understand CC's point completely.

There's the old theological question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".  What I'm hearing you say Gareth is that if the game does not provide a concrete answer to such questions, then the GM cannot possibly adjucate the game appropriate ("what if the PCs captured a bunch of angels and ordered them to dance on a pin...I need to know how many will actually fit")

This to me is essentially the same thing (in the days before modern science) as asking "what is the sun really" and worrying about what you'll do if the players actually find a way to go there.

Is this really what you're having a problem with?  I can't for the life of me see how this has any practical impact on a GM's ability to function.  He must merely do what GM's have always done.  Come up with something and move on.  Why is there an expectation that the PLAYERS should be able to understand something that their CHARACTERS by definition could never understand?

Quote
Because if it fails to give some intellectual meat to chew on, then it is NOT a rich religious experience at all, its a cardboard one in which you go through the motions without comprehension or sense of importance or significance.

Hmm, Honestly, I can't think of any game that is INTENDED to give a rich religious experiance.  

Actually, contra, could you try to define what you are looking for here? A game that gives insite into a real religion? A game that gives a spiritual experiance like you could have with a real religion?   I think a better understanding of the problem might be helpful

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: simon_hibbs
At a metagame level - because the game designer made it so. At an in-world level, because the world IS. I think therefore I am. Philosophers in the real world have struggled with this since at least the time of Xenophanese and still not even the most ingenious scientists and philosophers of our age can answer it. Does that make games set in the real world unplayable?

It certainly does for me, it renders the world valueless and uninteresting - because of the contradiction of certainty (action) and uncertainty (comprehension).

Time to call it quits, I think. If you don't even consider games set in the real world, or trivial fictional variations of it, to be playable then you and I evidently don't have much in the way of common ground as to what constitutes a playable game.


Simon Hibbs

Quote from: Valamir
There's the old theological question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".  What I'm hearing you say Gareth is that if the game does not provide a concrete answer to such questions, then the GM cannot possibly adjucate the game appropriate ("what if the PCs captured a bunch of angels and ordered them to dance on a pin...I need to know how many will actually fit")

In line with Kesters argument, it doesn't particularly matter unless it is mechanically represented.  For real people, these problems were unsolvable until the development of the scientific method; but for the fictional people we are talking about in games, they have direct access through magic.  Thus the contradiction - any game with magic empowers the people in that fictional world to ask real questions and get real answers.  Either these have Absolute answers, or they have Relativistic answers; either tells you something about the underlying nature of the world.  I don't believe that an appeal to REAL relativity and incomprehension are relevant or defend the proposition that it does not matter.  It does matter becuase the players WILL engage with the game in an analytical manner and seek to exploit opportunities.  They will think about the world and how it works and what they can do with it and within it.

The use of the relativistic argument to opt out of giving exposition of the world produces, IMO, many more problems than it solves.  For one thing, effectively all the metaphysics are In Character communication rather than Writer -> Reader.  Secondly, there is no information to contradict the default material assumptions we already possess about the world; this seems to me to produce the very antithesis of what is desired.

My argment is, in summary: the world may or may not be relativistic in fact, but a GAME PRODUCT cannot be so, because to do so would be to decline to explain some of the rules of the game.  A relatavistic game world IS ITSELF a rule that must be discussed prior to play; it does not in itself let you off the hook of describing what is True.

Quote from: simon_hibbs
Time to call it quits, I think. If you don't even consider games set in the real world, or trivial fictional variations of it, to be playable then you and I evidently don't have much in the way of common ground as to what constitutes a playable game.

Simon, I don't even know how to parse this; it appears to be saying that you refuse to discuss the matter because I don't share your perception of the real world.

It might instead be asserting that my opinion of Glorantha, which you believe to be a good and or plausible model of the real world, is too remote from your own.  Thats probably true; becuase I simply don't think that Glorantha presents a plausible model of how people think about mythology at all, and for this very reason.

Re contra's comment,

QuoteFor real people, these problems were unsolvable until the development of the scientific method; but for the fictional people we are talking about in games, they have direct access through magic. Thus the contradiction - any game with magic empowers the people in that fictional world to ask real questions and get real answers. Either these have Absolute answers, or they have Relativistic answers; either tells you something about the underlying nature of the world.

Not to be a broken record, but this is basically the problem of metaphysics, which I think was also suggested in Simon's comment,

QuoteAt a metagame level - because the game designer made it so. At an in-world level, because the world IS. I think therefore I am. Philosophers in the real world have struggled with this since at least the time of Xenophanese and still not even the most ingenious scientists and philosophers of our age can answer it. Does that make games set in the real world unplayable?

I do not entirely understand your point here, contra.  Why does having magic mean that all knowledge is accessible?  I mean, suppose we take divination as an example, since it's clearly about acquisition of information.  

Okay, so I look at your horoscope or whatever, in a magical universe, and I discover that you've got a nasty predilection towards having bogeymen rip your arms off.  That is, it looks like bogeymen sort of have you relatively high on the priority list, and if you don't watch yourself pretty closely you're going to get it one of these days.  Okay, now supposing the magic all works, and this is completely true, we have a couple of conclusions:

1. This is not really that dissimilar to an oncologist telling you that you may have a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, and better keep an eye out for lumps.  It doesn't mean you WILL be eaten by bogeymen, just that it's kind of likely.  In game terms, this means that the PC is now warned that bogeymen are something to be on the lookout for, and maybe the PC ought to carry around dead weasels or whatever it is you use to ward off bogeymen.

2. As far as the certainty and how/why issue, I suppose the GM could well come up with some reason why astrology (or whatever) works.  But if the PC just hired an astrologer, that pretty much means that the PC doesn't know how it works.  And if he asks the astrologer, she might well sell him a load of old cobblers because she doesn't want competition.

3. As to why astrology works, suppose it's because Space Alien Angels use cosmic zip beams to cause effects.  Unless you're so powerful that you can fly out there and beat on them, why is this an issue?  And if you want a game in which the PC's may really be that powerful, then yes, you're going to have to figure out EXACTLY how everything works.

My feeling is that the whole "real world" issue is a dangerous one, because it presumes that we all know exactly how the real world works.  But we don't: we take scientists' word for it.  I can't see that PC's in a game world are really any different.  

Looking back on this, I realize it sounds kind of hostile, which really wasn't my intent.  I just wonder if people are sort of talking past each other here, focused on quite different issues.

Sorry it's long, too.

Quote from: contracycleMy argment is, in summary: the world may or may not be relativistic in fact, but a GAME PRODUCT cannot be so, because to do so would be to decline to explain some of the rules of the game.  A relatavistic game world IS ITSELF a rule that must be discussed prior to play; it does not in itself let you off the hook of describing what is True.

Interesting...but I don't know that I buy it.

Take the X-Files.  Muldar and Scully had only the vaguest notions that something was going on.  We the audience didn't know any more than they did (although many hours were spent conjecturing).  As it turned out in the end, the writers and producers of the show didn't really know either.  There was no detailed story arc wrapping the whole thing up in a nice neat little box...the show just pretended their was.  Didn't hinder the success of the show.  It LOOKED like there was some big carefully orchestrated secret stuff going on in the background...but in reality...there wasn't.

In Greek Myth, the world was carried on Atlas's shoulders.  When the hero hercules arrived he found that was indeed the case and actually carried the world himself for a time also.  Bang the myth is proven.  But wait.  Who carried the world before Atlas.  Why doesn't he get tired more often.  What would have happened to the word if Hercules had hit him with a club and knocked him unconcious.  How long could Hercules have continued to carry the world.  If Hercules was strong enough to support the world why doesn't he appear that strong any other time.  I mean he got beat in a discus throw by a kid for crying out loud.

Its a MYTH.  Playing in a world of myth takes a certain mindset.  You seem to want to approach the idea from the standpoint of a modern scientific mind with tests and proofs.  Quite frankly that isn't an appropriate mindset to have.

So magic gives the players the ability to test the truth of the myth.  What player with the right attitude would do that?  Think of it this way:  Myth is real.  Zeus really does strike down people with lightening bolts who displease him.  He's a GOD.  You find a magic item that allows you to fly.  Are you REALLY going to fly up to the sun to see if its really Apollo in a chariot?  In a world where women who dare to compare themselves to godesses get turned into spiders as punishment for their hubris are you REALLY going to test the gods?

Not likely.  Not if you really understand what it means to play in a world where myth is real.  Its just not an issue.

QuoteMy argment is, in summary: the world may or may not be relativistic in fact, but a GAME PRODUCT cannot be so, because to do so would be to decline to explain some of the rules of the game. A relatavistic game world IS ITSELF a rule that must be discussed prior to play; it does not in itself let you off the hook of describing what is True.

Gareth, I hope that snipping this bit provides focus, 'cause it helps me see where my view differs from your's.  Which is not at all in the "a relativistic game world" statement - if Relativism is True in the game world, you're not off the hook for describing what's True, you've established what is true, and there are a range of possibilities and problems that occur as a result.

But . . . that vs. a non-relative reality are not the only options.  There's nothing wrong with declining to explain some (SOME) of the rules of the game.

When it comes to non-relative metaphysics vs. relativism, I can say that there IS no final answer in this game world - we don't know, the characters don't know, the designer doesn't know.  We ARE off the hook for explaining what is True, if we want to be - we're not saying it IS relative (or not), we're saying you (we) don't know.

Unless we WANT to have - or find, or establish - that kind of Truth in our game play.  It can be there, and it might need to be for certain groups and play styles, but I just don't see that a game product has to have it in order to be playable by others.  I have had many great play sessions where the characters and even the players (even the GM) are trying to figure out this kind of stuff about the game world - sometimes we like to get an answer, sometimes not.

And failure to get an answer doesn't NECCESSARILY mean that there isn't one.  Unless you're saying that the Ultimate Truth is that we CAN'T know the Ultimate Truth - a viable choice, one that also doesn't require relativism, but again just one way to go.

I guess I see Gareth's argument as sitting on a duality where I see a plurality.

Gordon

jhgjhg

Quote from: ValamirTake the X-Files.  Muldar and Scully had only the vaguest notions that something was going on.  We the audience didn't know any more than they did (although many hours were spent conjecturing).  

I stopped watching the X Files in series 2 for exactly that reason; it gave me the impression of being an endless tease with no bang.

Quote
So magic gives the players the ability to test the truth of the myth.  What player with the right attitude would do that?

To explore.

Quote
Think of it this way:  Myth is real.  Zeus really does strike down people with lightening bolts who displease him.  He's a GOD.  You find a magic item that allows you to fly.  Are you REALLY going to fly up to the sun to see if its really Apollo in a chariot?  In a world where women who dare to compare themselves to godesses get turned into spiders as punishment for their hubris are you REALLY going to test the gods?

But, DO they really?  That is my question.  I'm claiming that if you put in a myth that Zeus strikes people down with lightning, then this should be True, otherwise IMO the players will not buy into it.  Or at least, I can't.  

Hmm, thinking about this further, perhaps the question I am asking is "whats my motivation?"  Seeing as I do not believe, I need some structure in which to comprehend the beliefs of my character.  I had no problem, as a Vampire character, in understanding their belief in god, the archangel michael, etc etc.  As it happens, I think an under-remarked aspect of Vampire is that to an atheist the very confirmation of god is itself horrifying.  If the rapture happened tomorrow, the implications would, for me, be absolutely terrifying.  So to enter into disbelief in a world in which god is real, in which his vengeance is real, and to try to think in that mode, is tacitly disturbing all the time.  Hence my belief that all of the WW games suffer from the attempted synthesis, to my mind that attempt dilutes the purity of the vision that is possible with each alone.  My character had a framework for developing opinions about god quite distinct from my own framework for thinking about god, becuase the clear validity of the "god myth" was my own embodiment in the game.  With all that reinforcement, staying in that mode was accessible.

I've spent a fair amount of time recently thinking about a question someone asked on RPG net the other day - has anyone ever done a serious atheist presentation of religion in an RPG.  I think this is a very interesting thought.  You could give me a reason to believe that I could buy as a player by building a strong anthropological model of cultic behaviour as socio-political construct in a particular context.  Then I would have an understanding from which to take my characters perspective, a way to understand the form and function that doesn't require a second, nested, suspension of disbelief.

... continued, because the system choked when I tried to post it all in one block...

My problem with the HW presentation is this; if I'm an Orlanthi warrior, I know that Orlanth exists because I can fly in the ceremonies every year.  I know that, I've done it.  But it is also quite possible that Lunar priest could come in and prove, absolutely, that Orlanth does not exist at all.  Or, a malkioni could prove that only one god exists, full stop.  What I'm not clear on is what this is supposed to mean to my character.  It's been proven to me that only one god exists and that I have been deluded and worshipping devils in disguise - should I be worried?  I'm not sure because apparently it will be unquestionably proven to me again that Orlanth exists in his own right as his own self at the next annual ritual.

If there were some appendix like "Proof: a theological model in HW" which explained to me exactly what they mean by proof, I might have some idea of what is meant to be going on, how I as a player am supposed to respond to this appearance of contradictory inputs to my character.  At the moment there is none and so I experience something equivalent to the Idiot Block in linear fiction.  This occurs when a writer refuses to let a main character make a connection that is obvious to the reader.  The writer is delaying realisation on the characters part in order to stretch things out, but to the reader the character is in serious danger of coming across as a total idiot.  The problem then is that the reader loses sympathy  with the character because the character is so stupid; this is one way Not To Do It.  To me, this is HW characters need to do all the time, becuase they are constantly faced with information that completely denies their most dearly held beliefs and yet not notice, somehow.  Hence, I can't really sympathise with the character.

It's also not enough IMO to say that I simply don't understand the mythic frame of mind.  That is obviously the case - I'm a dialectical materialist.  The audience of any any product will be many and varied things.  If you produce an RPG which is purported to be about the mythic mindset, or at least focussed on that subject, I think it is incumbent upon to you to explain this mythic mindset.  This is after all a role playing game, and I'm buying it in order to play the role and have fun doing it.  Denying me a vitally important factor in my ability to identify with the character by imposing the Idiot Block fatally undermines the game.

Various comments:
1)Even scientists don't know what is absolutely true. However it doesn't really matter.  Scientificly, if we say X happens because of Y and we can take the implications of Y and predict other things that also occure, then Y is considered true, even though there could be a different mechanism, Z that just looks like Y in all the tests we have done so far. Hence, the scientific method.

For games, what I called the 'Uncertenity' solution is plausible. I.e. you try to fly to Sun, Zeus will zap you an't you won't make it, the magic required is impossible to get ect.

Some information  charachters should just not attempt to find out. This is because a game is a game, and not as complex as reality. A greater problem would be, say a DnD characther leaves a castle and surprised by an arrow trap. The arrow hurts them enough to knock them unconcious.
The charachters goes out, has many, many adventures, comes back, is surprised by the same trap. This time they pull the arrow out of their thight and stick a bandade on it, wondering why the last time it went all the way through both legs.  
Now you can do some handwavy stuff to cover these things but, but there are always things a player can do to expose the fact that a game isn't as detailed as RL.


Unfortunatly, I'm not as familiar with Hero Wars cosmology as I would like, but I'll give it a shot.
My characthers solution would be this:
1)Disproving Orlanth exists would entail disproving the fact that I fly every
year and the fact that he helps me in battle(or whatever). This would be almost impossible for someone to do. If a Lunar priest did, I would just assume that to them, Orlanth is demon, I could say the same thing to them, your god is a devil in disquise. It's just a name thing.

Quote from: contracycleMy problem with the HW presentation is this; if I'm an Orlanthi warrior, I know that Orlanth exists because I can fly in the ceremonies every year.  I know that, I've done it.  But it is also quite possible that Lunar priest could come in and prove, absolutely, that Orlanth does not exist at all.  Or, a malkioni could prove that only one god exists, full stop.  What I'm not clear on is what this is supposed to mean to my character.  It's been proven to me that only one god exists and that I have been deluded and worshipping devils in disguise - should I be worried?  I'm not sure because apparently it will be unquestionably proven to me again that Orlanth exists in his own right as his own self at the next annual ritual.

A Lunar priest would not prove that orlanth doesn't exist, because he knows orlanth exists. he just doesn't believe that orlanth is moraly worthy of worship. Likewise with a monotheist, the malkioni believe that the pantheistic 'gods' are merely juiced-up demons. Ultimately these are opinions. An orlanthi knows that his ancestors were orlanthi, some of them may even have become gods. Orlanth game his people their way of life and the laws they live by, as well as the magic they use to survive.

Most Orlanthi probably won't think beyond this, but some who have traveled and lived among foreigners might do so. They may even find that a foreign faith suits their new lifestyle better than the religion of their ancestors, this has happened in Gloranthan history. It comes down to the values important to society and the individual. These values are a matter of personal choice in Glorantha, just as they are a matter of personal choice in the real world.

Incidentaly there are true atheists in Glorantha - the Brithini and the men of God Forgot.


Simon Hibbs

Quote from: simon_hibbs
A Lunar priest would not prove that orlanth doesn't exist, because he knows orlanth exists.

Surely, the Lunar priest MUST know that the barbarians have a god called Orlanth; that is not secret information.  Sure they beleive its a delusional understanding - but thats why making these fuzzy statements about knowledge and truth and proof is highly confusing.

Quote
he just doesn't believe that orlanth is moraly worthy of worship.

And I've warned about that before - moral worth does not enter into the discussion of what the world IS.  Most theists could accept the existance of a god/power/entity that they do not worship; most christians claim satan exists absolutely but is not morally worthy of worship.  The question is not about who or what these people consider MORALLY valid, but about how the world is built and operates.

Quote
Likewise with a monotheist, the malkioni believe that the pantheistic 'gods' are merely juiced-up demons. Ultimately these are opinions.

But if they are OPINIONS, then in why are they having game mechanical effects?  And if they are only opinions, then the entire concept of proof is null and void.

Quote
Incidentaly there are true atheists in Glorantha - the Brithini and the men of God Forgot.

This again is a very interesting and very specialised use of a term which does not accord with its common parlance at all and which is in fact in total opposition to the conventional usage of this term.  In Glorantha, in fact, the Atheists are in RW terms the only serious ideologues; most other people have an opportunistic flexibility of mystical consciousness (which is what I draw form the muddy state of Truth) based on what they observe and experience; whereas the Atheists maintain and explicitly counterfactual position arguing that the gods, despite their clear and present interventions, do not exist!

Quote from: damion
For games, what I called the 'Uncertenity' solution is plausible. I.e. you try to fly to Sun, Zeus will zap you an't you won't make it, the magic required is impossible to get ect.

I'm happy with uncertainty up until it gets enshrined in a game mechanic.  If the existance of god is uncertain, then how can mystic power which derives from god be certain?  Or, if the mystic power is de facto cretain and has mechanical existance, then how can god be uncertain?

Quote
1)Disproving Orlanth exists would entail disproving the fact that I fly every
year and the fact that he helps me in battle(or whatever).

Oh no; you might be able to fly for some other reason that you merely think of as Orlanth.  In principle.

Quote
This would be almost impossible for someone to do. If a Lunar priest did, I would just assume that to them, Orlanth is demon, I could say the same thing to them, your god is a devil in disquise. It's just a name thing.

Yes but what does that mean?  Is a demon a "corrupted angel falling from heaven and damned eternally to live jeoulously alienated gods grace" or does it mean "the gods of my enemy"?  There are massively distinct implications (and I well know that one is not Gloranthan) and so it is not just a name thing at all.  Whether youyr god is a god in its own right or a demon in someone elses pantheon may well matter a great deal.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote
he just doesn't believe that orlanth is moraly worthy of worship.

And I've warned about that before - moral worth does not enter into the discussion of what the world IS.  Most theists could accept the existance of a god/power/entity that they do not worship; most christians claim satan exists absolutely but is not morally worthy of worship.  The question is not about who or what these people consider MORALLY valid, but about how the world is built and operates.

How the world is built and operates is explained in the ruls, the Narator's Book, and has been extensively explicated on various discussion groups. The middle world is described, the otherworlds are described, how they interact is described. We've covered this before, and previously you focused on _why_ Glorantha is so. Since not even the real world meets your standard for adequately addressing this question, I can't see how any answer in a fictional world can come close.

Perhaps you might mention any fictional worlds which meet your critera in this regard? i.e. Explaining precisely why and how they came into being in ways which preclude the possibility of questioning the explanations? Please, go ahead.

Quote

Quote
Likewise with a monotheist, the malkioni believe that the pantheistic 'gods' are merely juiced-up demons. Ultimately these are opinions.

But if they are OPINIONS, then in why are they having game mechanical effects?  And if they are only opinions, then the entire concept of proof is null and void.

Because each point of view is at least partly true. This is a paradox, just as any real world human philosophy other than pure nihilism inevitably contains paradoxes (c.f. The writings of Bertrand Russel, et al). We've covered this before too.

Quote

Quote
Incidentaly there are true atheists in Glorantha - the Brithini and the men of God Forgot.

This again is a very interesting and very specialised use of a term which does not accord with its common parlance at all and which is in fact in total opposition to the conventional usage of this term.  In Glorantha, in fact, the Atheists are in RW terms the only serious ideologues; most other people have an opportunistic flexibility of mystical consciousness (which is what I draw form the muddy state of Truth) based on what they observe and experience; whereas the Atheists maintain and explicitly counterfactual position arguing that the gods, despite their clear and present interventions, do not exist!

[/quote]

In fact, Gloranthan atheists believe that the so-called gods do exist but are in fact demons, that the otherworlds are material in nature, but contrary to the Malkioni they believe that there is no ultimate divine creator.


Simon Hibbs

Hi there,

This is all very interesting, because in the main I agree with Gareth's points and yet am, like Simon, an ardent Hero Wars player/GM and fan of Glorantha as a game setting.

Thought I'd throw that in there to dispel the possibility of a dichotomized argument.

Best,
Ron

hmm . . . let me try a little line-by-line to see if I can make my thoughts here clear

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: damion
For games, what I called the 'Uncertenity' solution is plausible. I.e. you try to fly to Sun, Zeus will zap you an't you won't make it, the magic required is impossible to get ect.

I'm happy with uncertainty up until it gets enshrined in a game mechanic.  If the existance of god is uncertain, then how can mystic power which derives from god be certain?

The existence of *something* is certain, and mystic power derives from it.  The mystic power is certain - that it derives from the god is not.   That it derives from something is obvious (a god, a Universal God-aspect, inner power, subjective reality - many possibilities)   Do we *have* to know for sure what it derives from?  Why?

There are plenty of things of uncertain derivation in every game world I"ve ever played in, and it's rarely a problem.  Only if you build up a body of evidence (mostly during play) that strongly indicates only one likely derivation - and then contradict that - will people have an issue.  And given the imagined realities of RPGs, it's not so hard to keep the ultimate derivation fuzzy enough that flat-out unacceptable contradictions just don't tend to happpen.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: damion
1)Disproving Orlanth exists would entail disproving the fact that I fly every year and the fact that he helps me in battle(or whatever).

Oh no; you might be able to fly for some other reason that you merely think of as Orlanth.  In principle.

Yes, and I'd say we need not be certain about what that reason is.  In fact, BY not being certain about what that reason is, we keep our game options open - without confirming that "relativism" IS the way the world IS.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: damion
This would be almost impossible for someone to do. If a Lunar priest did, I would just assume that to them, Orlanth is demon, I could say the same thing to them, your god is a devil in disquise. It's just a name thing.

Yes but what does that mean?  Is a demon a "corrupted angel falling from heaven and damned eternally to live jeoulously alienated gods grace" or does it mean "the gods of my enemy"?  There are massively distinct implications (and I well know that one is not Gloranthan) and so it is not just a name thing at all.  Whether youyr god is a god in its own right or a demon in someone elses pantheon may well matter a great deal.

Yup, it matters - Glorantha (as I understand it) will entirely eliminate the "corrupted angel" stuff (Gareth knows this, I'm sure - no insult intended).  But Glorantha still keeps a range of possibilities open.  Not knowing THE answer doesn't mean you can't eliminate SOME things as the answer.

Hope that's interesting,

Gordon

Greetings All,

Nice evening.

Sharpen your blades and dig in, this post is a long one.

Quote from: ValamirIn Greek Myth, the world was carried on Atlas's shoulders. When the hero hercules arrived he found that was indeed the case and actually carried the world himself for a time also. Bang the myth is proven. But wait. Who carried the world before Atlas. Why doesn't he get tired more often. What would have happened to the word if Hercules had hit him with a club and knocked him unconcious. How long could Hercules have continued to carry the world. If Hercules was strong enough to support the world why doesn't he appear that strong any other time. I mean he got beat in a discus throw by a kid for crying out loud.

Actually it was a punishment laid upon Atlas, the carrying of the weight of the world.  The reason that Heracles didn't do any of what you ask is simple, the story wasn't written to be an action thriller, the myths were composed to relay *gasp* morals.

Yes, it's a morality tale.  Once, maybe long long ago, it might have been much more.  But as the stories exist (and they are *not* the original tales but the end result of a long story telling tradition) what we have are morality stories.  Which is not to say there is nothing of history in them.

But what history?  And how far do we expand the possible to attempt to find out what the underlying stories may have been based on?

Quote from: ValamirSo magic gives the players the ability to test the truth of the myth. What player with the right attitude would do that? Think of it this way: Myth is real. Zeus really does strike down people with lightening bolts who displease him. He's a GOD. You find a magic item that allows you to fly. Are you REALLY going to fly up to the sun to see if its really Apollo in a chariot? In a world where women who dare to compare themselves to godesses get turned into spiders as punishment for their hubris are you REALLY going to test the gods?

Basically I agree with your sentiment.  The myths (in game terms) are merely a practical way to relate information to the players.  However, Zeus is not merely *a* god.  Zeus is the de facto commander-in-chief of his pantheon.  To most this means very little, but in game terms you can equate it to being the commander of a ship.  In fact one might even go so far as to say he lead a mutiny against his father to seize command.

So, in keeping with my previous question, how far are we willing to take this?

In a science fantasy setting maybe what we have here could be, quite literally, a mutiny aboard a starship or space station.  (Remember the court of Mount Olympus is located high up in the sky, more or less.)  After all the Titans didn't reside on Olympus, now did they?  In fact the Titans (of which Zeus and his kin were children) were the "old order" that was overthrown; where did they come from?

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisAnd failure to get an answer doesn't NECCESSARILY mean that there isn't one. Unless you're saying that the Ultimate Truth is that we CAN'T know the Ultimate Truth - a viable choice, one that also doesn't require relativism, but again just one way to go.

Not to sound tetchy but, folks, this is starting to sound a bit... well not ridiculous but, well, like some of what is being said doesn't really relating to *in-game* concepts at all but is rather muddled with philosophical debate.  Which is fine.  (You just know some odd remark must be about to follow after that lead in.)  We all have questions about how things work.  But, if I may be so bold, we don't have any answers.  A lot of theory, but not solid hard facts.  Not even science can claim to really know anything, they just have a really good idea of how they think things work, to best of their ability to explain them... which is what the old myths probably were originally; our ancestors best attempt to explain things.  To the best of their ability.

Everything, and I do mean *everything* we know is merely what we *think* we know.  From the moment we are born our minds are blank slates.  All that we learn we take upon faith, even history.  Historical fact, is it really real?  How do we know, because a book says so?  Is that really good enough?

The only *facts* we can say we know is based upon what we have actually witnessed, meaning seen/experienced first hand, would you not agree?  (Applies within the cotnect of a game or in real life.  And thus could be a good approach to the game myths, at least from a players perspective.)

Case in point:

Quote from: contracycleBut, DO they really? That is my question. I'm claiming that if you put in a myth that Zeus strikes people down with lightning, then this should be True, otherwise IMO the players will not buy into it. Or at least, I can't.

Not to sound harsh but, frankly, IMO, personal belief or disbelief is irrelevant.  It's in *how* the material is presented.  It's in whether the author maintains a relatively consistent level of in-game reality, meaning consistency of form and function, in both the rules mechanics and meta world mechanics.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisWhen it comes to non-relative metaphysics vs. relativism, I can say that there IS no final answer in this game world - we don't know, the characters don't know, the designer doesn't know. We ARE off the hook for explaining what is True, if we want to be - we're not saying it IS relative (or not), we're saying you (we) don't know.

Sorry, Gordon, but that's just not true.  Especially not in something as complex as the environment of a role-playing game.  By definition the rules of play *have* to govern the basic and essential questions of what is or is not possible within the context of a game thus, that said, I suppose (IMHO) that I'd have to amend my statement to say this just doesn't apply at all.  Chess can only be played a certain way before it ceases to be chess.  Everyone who plays *knows* the rules of play.  The rules of play establish the in-game principles governing what is and is not possible.  Thus, by definition, the rules of play plainly lay out and establish relative truisms.

Or, as contracyle put it (quite well too) :

Quote from: contracycleMy argment is, in summary: the world may or may not be relativistic in fact, but a GAME PRODUCT cannot be so, because to do so would be to decline to explain some of the rules of the game. A relatavistic game world IS ITSELF a rule that must be discussed prior to play; it does not in itself let you off the hook of describing what is True.

Yes, I realize that is what you quoted and were responding to.  But the key phrase is GAME PRODUCT.  Real world philosophies, while perhaps good for source material, have no place in a game.  A game is meant to be an entertainment, not a soap box platform to ram ideologicial truisms down peoples throat.

Unless you're playing the game of life with the optional politically correct rules.   ;)




Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

I keep thinking that I should jump back into this thread that has managed to go three pages without me, and then not thinking of anything to say. I'm inspired to get in now,

Quote from: because Ronin the main I agree with Gareth's points and yet am, like Simon, an ardent Hero Wars player/GM and fan of Glorantha as a game setting.

Gordon tried to resolve some of this

Quote from: when heDo we *have* to know for sure what it derives from? Why?

There are plenty of things of uncertain derivation in every game world I"ve ever played in, and it's rarely a problem.

As I think I suggested initially, and as Gareth (a.k.a. Contracycle) has admirably maintained, if you are the referee you have to be a step ahead of the players. If I'm a cleric in D&D, or Glorantha, or Krynn, or even Star Wars for goodness sake, it's perfectly reasonable for me to believe whatever the party line is. It is perfectly rational for me to think that my deity is the supreme deity and everyone else is mistaken.

But if I'm the referee, I have to know whether there is a supreme deity, and who that is if there is one; or if there isn't one, what is the relationship between all these gods, and how do you determine what is really true?

We've had this issue about the sun go by several times, and it seems that Gareth is the only one who really gets it. Ra's cleric believes that dung beetles really, physically, roll the sun across the sky. Apollo's clerics believe that their god really, physically, drives it in his chariot. Now, maybe we'll never settle the question. Maybe the referee will railroad all efforts to find out into failure. But the solutions that have been put forward do not really address the problem adequately.  It is suggested that both are true subjectively, or on some other plane of reality; but this means both are false objectively in this realm, and the sun really is a ball of flaming gas circling the earth, or even a vast fusion engine some one point five million miles away which the earth circles.

It's all well and good to talk about the spiritual significance of the myth. I believe in the value of myth. But as referee I have to understand whether the myth is also the truth, or which myth is the truth, so I know how to adjudicate matters.

To take it to a different level, let me suggest a particularly odd and rare idea with which I have some experience: interfacing Multiverser with D&D.

Multiverser has rules for magic and psionics which are integral to its system, and enable players to create and use an unlimited range of powers. D&D also has rules for magic and psionics which are considerably more limiting, both in what can be done and how it is done. Yet Multiverser allows me to bring my Multiverser player characters into D&D to become D&D PCs without ceasing to be Multiverser PCs. That means they are still able to do what they could do before, but have to work within the D&D world rules.

One of those rules is the cast and forget rule; Multiverser doesn't have that, limiting the use of magic by probability of success and chance to botch. But it is inherent to the D&D world rules that the magic is incorporated into the sounds of the words, and that as the words are pronounced the caster releases the magic and forgets the words. (I don't know if that's true in 3E, but it's the old rules at least.) Now the question becomes, is that the reality of the world, or the understanding of the people within it? At this point the referee needs to know how the world really works. If it works one way, player characters lose all of their magic; if it works another way, they run roughshod over the game system by inventing whatever they need. The players don't have to know; but they are going to find out. The referee has to know.

Multiverser provides and answer to this problem. If it didn't, the referee would have to guess at how to make it work.

Now, in anything where it doesn't really matter, the referee can certainly fill in the gaps with guesses or creative mechanics. But things like how magic really works and what is the truth about the gods could be important. The answer in a particular game or world might be that it is all subjective and subject to change, that it will appear the way the investigator expects. But, as Gareth says, this requires some explanation in itself--you can't just say that it must be subjective because you don't know what it's like, and if it is subjective you've got to explain how that works. If there is an objective reality, then whatever parts of that matter have to be explained; but even if there is no objective reality, the subjective approach has to be defined in some way that lets the referee understand how to handle it.

That, really, is the rub. The game creator can't answer every question. He hands the ball off to the game referee, who continues writing the background as it's needed. But the game creator has to explain to the referee what he's thinking, and in sufficient detail that the that the referee can pick up the task and continue in a way which is consistent with what already appears.

Gareth and I are not arguing that it can't be subjective; we're arguing that even if it is subjective, the reality has to be explained.

--M. J. Young
Cross-posted with Kester because my wife insisted on having me leave work to watch a movie in the middle of writing this; Kester does seem to see the problem as well.

Hi again,

This is a bit long; sorry.

I think there's a very fundamental disconnect going on here, in the sense that the reigning notion seems to be that the narrative content of myth constitutes the literal claim of a religious worldview.  For example, the implication here is that because of the Greek myth of Atlas, the Greeks probably thought that the world was actually carried on his shoulders.  Certainly this seems to be at stake in the issue of why the sun moves (dung ball or chariot).

Now I certainly accept that one can design one's world such that mythology provides a convenient (and attractive) description of the universe.  But that need not be true.  Setting aside the question of what the actual ancient Greeks did or did not believe (an impossible and much-debated question), consider the number of modern Christians who do not believe in the literal truth of the Gospel story.  For many of them, it is the meaning and idea of the teachings of Jesus that matter, not the particular details of (say) his casting demons out of people and into swine.

Kester gives us two takes on this:

QuoteYes, it's a morality tale. Once, maybe long long ago, it might have been much more. But as the stories exist (and they are *not* the original tales but the end result of a long story telling tradition) what we have are morality stories. Which is not to say there is nothing of history in them.

And

Quotewhich is what the old myths probably were originally; our ancestors best attempt to explain things. To the best of their ability.

Now I'm not singling Kester out negatively; he's put things exceptionally clearly, is all.  I happen to disagree deeply, however, with the latter description.  Step back a moment: does it seem plausible that our ancestors really couldn't think of anything more plausible to explain the motion of the sun than that some guy was driving a chariot across the sky?  I think we have to presume that they derived some meaning from the story, of course, but it seems entirely possible that the meaning in question was not a literal explanation or description.

So in an RPG context, what have you got to deal with, as a GM?  If your world is one in which the gods do have a literal existence and that is important for you, fine, but then this whole discussion is pretty much moot.  You've already solved the problem.

If on the other hand what you have to deal with is that there are 10,000 worshipers of Apollo over in the next village, and they tell this story about the god driving his chariot across the sky, then you do not necessarily need to know if this is literally true.

First, consider what those worshipers actually do (in a religious context, that is).  They perform rituals of various kinds.  They tell stories.  They seek guidance from oracles (such as Delphi).  They may become priests of the god.  Now you can reasonably conjecture that some of these folks take every myth and story quite literally, no matter how uncomplimentary or bizarre.  Some of them think it's all allegory; some of the priests may think so as well, by the way, and interpret the stories in ways that may help and guide the faithful in their lives.  And probably a lot of them are somewhere in between.  Just like folks now.

Next, consider some sort of priestly magician, i.e. one who receives actual power from Apollo through some sort of ritual praxis.  Take the Delphic Oracle, for example, who goes into a trance of communion either through which the god speaks directly or in which she hears his voice and interprets it in ecstatic verse.  Okay, she certainly "knows" that Apollo is really there, and the fact that a fair number of her predictions come true "proves" that it's really Apollo, right?  Well, but this is exactly what our historical sources tell us was really the case; does that mean that you all now believe in Apollo?

In fact, what you have here is a person who experiences a genuine mystical contact with the divine.  Happens all the time, folks, and doesn't really prove or disprove anything, except that folks throughout the ages have experienced mystical ecstasies.  Is it brain chemistry?  Funny gases coming out of the cracks at Delphi?  Drugs?  Auto-hypnosis?  Apollo?

I really don't see why this makes much difference, from a game perspective, unless you have a universe in which for some reason the truth is actually known to you already, as a principle of the universe, in which case as I say the problem is already solved.

From my own perspective, I think the focus on mythology (an ill-defined category anyway) is not terribly helpful.  For magic and whatnot, the big question is going to be ritual.  For social structures, the big issues are going to be theology (broadly construed) and in a sense ritual (particularly public ritual).

As to the idea that PCs are going to "find out the truth" by magical investigation, why should they?  If the gods (or whatever) are the source of that power, then surely they can limit things.  And if the universe is such that magic "trumps" the gods, then presumably you do have some reason why that is the case, since it's a somewhat odd conception internally.

The fact is that people over the millennia have worked with this problem in their own lives, and while crises of faith (in a broad sense) are certainly common enough, so is deep, certain faith.  Why should our PCs be so different?

Howdy clehrich,


To preface my remarks be aware that all my preceding post have been made in a "reference to RPG/games" mode.  This one... marginally so.

Ah, the rose does have so many thorns, best to stand under it.

Quote from: clehrichNow I'm not singling Kester out negatively; he's put things exceptionally clearly, is all.  I happen to disagree deeply, however, with the latter description.  Step back a moment: does it seem plausible that our ancestors really couldn't think of anything more plausible to explain the motion of the sun than that some guy was driving a chariot across the sky?  I think we have to presume that they derived some meaning from the story, of course, but it seems entirely possible that the meaning in question was not a literal explanation or description.

Our ancestors probably knew a lot more than we give them credit for, in fact I know they did.  Just look at the pyramids or megalithic/cyclopean ruins dotting the surface of our planet.  Yes, they are everywhere.  Yes, we are living in a post-cateclysm world.  No, we don't acknowledge this fact, despit Plato's mention of it.

Ah, but that's just myth, right?

The preconception here is that the myths are presented as something which did, in fact, exist and was used by our ancestors.  But, strangely, that myth is somehow legend, and that legend is fable, and thus are just stories to be told.

But they're not.

Staying within that premise... random ciphers for you:

Atlas = Gravity.

Grimoires = (Medieval) Text Books

Ab = Father = Pater

Ra = Life = Light (Lucifer = Morning Star)

Rah = Evil (Rahab = Father of Evil)

IR = that which sees/sight/to see

Grigori = The Watchers = Ir

G.RI..GO.RI  = ?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

P.S.  Now, who wants me as a GM?  Just one or two frustrating ciphers like that a game.  And they'll mean something, within the context of the game, promise.  *smirks*

Howdy, Kester

QuoteNow, who wants me as a GM? Just one or two frustrating ciphers like that a game. And they'll mean something, within the context of the game, promise. *smirks*

Sounds like a hell of an Unknown Armies (or similar) campaign, to me.  I used to try stuff like this on my players, and boy, they hated it --- except for the guy who started doing it back, of course. ;>

Where do I sign?

Quote from: Kester PelagiusYes, I realize that is what you quoted and were responding to.  But the key phrase is GAME PRODUCT.  Real world philosophies, while perhaps good for source material, have no place in a game.  A game is meant to be an entertainment, not a soap box platform to ram ideologicial truisms down peoples throat.

Let us imagine two different fantasy worlds, Unitia and Freethinkia.

In Unitia there is a single obviously, and provably true religion which all rational beings must accept as the one true religion. Dissent is not possible, because the natural laws of the universe show that the religion is infalibly correct.

In Freethinkia, the full range of human philosophies exist, and it's cultures display a huge variety of modes of thought and cultural values. No one ideology can absolutely prove itself to the detriment of the others, indead individuals must decide for themselves what is important in their lives.

Which setting is ramming ideological truisms down people's throats, and which is offering the players (and their characters) the most freedom of expression?


Simon Hibbs

Quote from: M. J. YoungBut if I'm the referee, I have to know whether there is a supreme deity, and who that is if there is one; or if there isn't one, what is the relationship between all these gods, and how do you determine what is really true?

Our difference of opinion is that I believe that it's perfectly valid for a game designer to say 'Nobody in the game world realy knows for sure, they have to take it on faith. In fact, it's unprovable within the game world'.

I happen to think that's a valid answer, and since it's the answer we have to accept in the real world, it's one I'm pretty familiar with.


Simon Hibbs

What simon just said, mostly.  Faith is a particular subcase that I'm not personally interested in using as an example, but essentially - if it's unprovable within the game world, no reason it has to be provable within the game system.  And ultimate explanations rarely need to be provable - behavior needs to be well described, but "why" need not be.  There have to be descriptions of the behavior of (e.g.) magic, but there is no NEED for ultimate explanations.

(Lapsing into personal/anecdotal mode - look, I've had this converstation with 3 different game groups over the course of 10+ years.  We play fine without ultimate explanations (and fine with 'em, in some cases).  There are two problems I've seen - one is that some people REALLY like to have ultimate explanations and play with things from there, and the other is the situation I mentioned before, where everything is building/pointing to a particular ultimate explanation and then the GM (or whoever) does something that's just wildly inconsistent with that established direction (in a way that feels wrong - I have seen sudden reversals about, say, the nature of the gods thaat feel right).

But I confess to a bit of frustration with people saying there HAS to be an explanation - we've gone without on many occasions.  Some games/game designers (Talislanta, Glorantha - others?) go out of their way to say they WANT to be lacking in these kinds of explanations.  They work.  Not to everyone's taste, but . . . not everyone likes Traveller, either.)

Let's take demons in Sorcerer.  What are they, REALLY?  Do you need to establish what they are, REALLY, to play Sorcerer?  No.  You need to have rules for what they do in the world, how they interact with the PC's, but part of the point is that they are an UNKNOWN (in most Sorcerer descriptions I've seen - obviously, you could explain 'em if you want).

Any part of a game world can be seen that way.  Taste will vary, and a game world where everything was like this (if Sorcerer didn't have a REAL - for the particular game - definition of Humanity) that might be "bad design."  I've never seen such a game world (there's always something explained fully), but if folks are attacking that notion - OK, I'll agree.  But I'm not buying the "must explain everything/everything basic" claims.

Another angle, so I can respond to Kester:

QuoteSorry, Gordon, but that's just not true. Especially not in something as complex as the environment of a role-playing game. By definition the rules of play *have* to govern the basic and essential questions of what is or is not possible within the context of a game

OK - my claim is that (e.g.) details about the FINAL, TRUE, and REAL source of various mystical powers are not basic and essential concepts.  They can be, if you want them to be.  And if you don't make them that way, you'll need to keep the issues around that decison in mind.  But in the big, shared, imagined reality that is an RPG, a lack of ultimate explanation (managed appropriately) is (IME) actually often an asset.  Rarely is it a liability - again, except for reasons of taste.

Boiling it all down - how things work in the RPG world needs to be well described, I'll agree to that.  Why they work that way, I'll STRONGLY claim, need only be described as personal taste dictates.  Yes, why can have a big influence on how - and it's fun playing with why, in lots of different ways.  Why often/always comes up as an issue.  But it need not be dealt with head-on.  "No one knows why."  Those words can be your friend.

MUCH longer than I thought - but as this thread progreses, I become more and more certain that we ARE talking about the exact issues I've gone round and round with various game groups on.  And as a result of those rounds, I've formed a pretty strong opinion.  Appologies if it comes across as TOO strong - I'm honestly mystified that folks would think there's an absolute need for an ultimate explanation of, say, MYTH in an RPG game world.  Maybe you want it - maybe you like games that have it, and/or hate those that don't.   Those are different statements.

To me, the only issues with lack of explanation are the ones I cited above.  So from a design advice point of view, I'd say focus on those issues, not on a need to explain the ultimate nature of something.

Gordon

Quote from: simon_hibbs

Quote from: Kester Pelagius
Let us imagine two different fantasy worlds, Unitia and Freethinkia.
In Unitia there is a single obviously, and provably true religion which all rational beings must accept as the one true religion. Dissent is not possible, because the natural laws of the universe show that the religion is infalibly correct.
In Freethinkia, the full range of human philosophies exist, and it's cultures display a huge variety of modes of thought and cultural values. No one ideology can absolutely prove itself to the detriment of the others, indead individuals must decide for themselves what is important in their lives.
Which setting is ramming ideological truisms down people's throats, and which is offering the players (and their characters) the most freedom of expression?
Simon Hibbs

I don't think 'idealogical' truism must reduce the freedom of expression.
I can think of several reasons to have a game world like this, and there are most likely others. The most basic argument would be, that even if religion is a 'solved' problem, many other interesting things can happen.

1)One reason would be to make religious conflict a  non-issue, which is fairly different from RL. Heck, imagine a world where you could understand any natural even by asking the correct priest, what would society be like? This could be very intersting from an exploration POV.

2)Also, you can still have conflicts, even if everyone agrees.  Even if everyone knows Apollo moves the sun accross the sky, people could disagree on how the gods want them to behave, or you could have completely inane disagreements, like weathers Apollo's chariot has two horses or four....

I'm just saying I don't think idealogical truisms constrict a game designer at all and in fact, intersting things can be done.

Quote from: damion

Quote from: simon_hibbs
I don't think 'idealogical' truism must reduce the freedom of expression.
I can think of several reasons to have a game world like this, and there are most likely others.

For example?

QuoteThe most basic argument would be, that even if religion is a 'solved' problem, many other interesting things can happen.

That's fair enough. I'm not arguing that all settings that do so are bad, I was meeting the challenge that doing so is necessery for a setting to be playable or interesting.


Simon Hibbs

Hi there,

Simon, you might be fighting a battle or two in a war that isn't occurring. Battle #1 is to defend Glorantha against all comers, which, I think isn't much of an issue. Ultimately, its quality as a game-world (even at the most basic philosophical level) is not controversial. Battle #2 is to "meet the challenge" that you mention in your most recent post. I think that is doomed to failure - disagreement in internet debates always skirts perilously close to issue-dodging by redefining the question. Therefore the best you can hope for is to be understood, and I think you've achieved that.

Over and over, Cehrlich has stated the fundamental issue: perceived meaning of "what is" is the issue, not whether "what is" really has meaning. As Gordon has observed as well, there isn't much light to be generated by expecting meaning of an imaginary world to illuminate real meaning, or its perception - especially not by citing "evidence" within the context of that imaginary world and its workings.

Let's consider as well this issue: what is the role of a GM relative to the game-world? Does its issues/metaphysics represent (1) something that he or she uniquely knows as a mechanism, in ways that players don't, or (2) something that should intrigue him or her on the same basis that it intrigues the players?

It seems to me that both sorts of approaches are viable in role-playing terms, but that differing views will prevent either approach's arguments to be satisfying to the other.

Best,
Ron

Greetings Simon,

No time like the present, now where'd I put my fork.

Quote from: simon_hibbs

Quote from: Kester PelagiusYes, I realize that is what you quoted and were responding to.  But the key phrase is GAME PRODUCT.  Real world philosophies, while perhaps good for source material, have no place in a game.  A game is meant to be an entertainment, not a soap box platform to ram ideologicial truisms down peoples throat.

Let us imagine two different fantasy worlds, Unitia and Freethinkia.

In Unitia there is a single obviously, and provably true religion which all rational beings must accept as the one true religion. Dissent is not possible, because the natural laws of the universe show that the religion is infalibly correct.

In Freethinkia, the full range of human philosophies exist, and it's cultures display a huge variety of modes of thought and cultural values. No one ideology can absolutely prove itself to the detriment of the others, indead individuals must decide for themselves what is important in their lives.

Which setting is ramming ideological truisms down people's throats, and which is offering the players (and their characters) the most freedom of expression?

This is a fallacious argument.

Why?

Because what you have posited are world cultures.  Within the world cultures both would provide the players with a full range of playability.

How?

Lack of knowledge that there is any other (better or worse) way to do things.

Now, had you posited Freethinkia and Unitia as diverse cultures, perhaps on the same or adjacent continents, my answer would be thus:

The freedom would come from the dynamic interaction of characters playing roles based upon each distinct culture, yet the freedom would not stem from the cultures, per se, but rather the game itself.

Let us say this is a fantasy game and Freethinkia and Unitia are (located on the world of Urantia?) seperated by a mountain range.  They are located on the same continent.  There are no other cultures of note extant, save of course for those pesky "NPC" and "monster" races, but do they really count as cultures?

Now then here we have two diverse and divergent cultures seperated by a figurative and literal divide.

How might a game be set up to best establish a game world in which the players must interact in such cultures?

What genre would be best for this?

(Of course if you make this sci-fi and place both planets in a single solar system we can use the same analogy.  Just turn the mountains into a asteroid belt or some such.)


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisAnother angle, so I can respond to Kester:

QuoteSorry, Gordon, but that's just not true. Especially not in something as complex as the environment of a role-playing game. By definition the rules of play *have* to govern the basic and essential questions of what is or is not possible within the context of a game

OK - my claim is that (e.g.) details about the FINAL, TRUE, and REAL source of various mystical powers are not basic and essential concepts.  They can be, if you want them to be.  And if you don't make them that way, you'll need to keep the issues around that decison in mind.  But in the big, shared, imagined reality that is an RPG, a lack of ultimate explanation (managed appropriately) is (IME) actually often an asset.  Rarely is it a liability - again, except for reasons of taste.

There is some validity to this, of that there is no doubt.

However let us consider magic systems.  Some use "Manna".  No ephmeral "spell points" but "Manna" that require the mages to make use of "ley lines" or "vortices" or "conduits" or (insert other catchy phrase here) to "channel" or "focus" magical energies.

Thus, in such systems, the source of what is "mystical powers" has become a basic and essential concept of game play.  Not only that it established a premise, a truism, a meta game mechanic, et al.

Yes, I know, this is not the case is every system.  But it is for some, and perhaps it should be for more?

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisBoiling it all down - how things work in the RPG world needs to be well described, I'll agree to that.  Why they work that way, I'll STRONGLY claim, need only be described as personal taste dictates.  Yes, why can have a big influence on how - and it's fun playing with why, in lots of different ways.  Why often/always comes up as an issue.  But it need not be dealt with head-on.  "No one knows why."  Those words can be your friend.

Which is why AD&D is so popular.  The AD&D family of games are generic, yet the system isn't a generic ("universal") game per se.  And thus it continues to be playable for many.

This despite the fact its basic underlying rules mechanics have been used in upwards of hundreds of systems.

Why aren't those system more popular?

For precisely the reasons you outlined.  Both Palladium and Chaosium locked their systems into very specific world archetypes with set and establish world mechanics.  Sure, Chaosium's BRPS was used as the "game engine" under the hood for most of their games but, truth be told, there is only so much that can be done with Elf Quest, Stormbringer, Hawkmoon, Sanctuary (or whatever they called their Theives World game), before it gets boring.

AD&D, and game systems like it, allows just the sort of freedom which you are looking for.  If a bit clunkily.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisMUCH longer than I thought - but as this thread progreses, I become more and more certain that we ARE talking about the exact issues I've gone round and round with various game groups on.  And as a result of those rounds, I've formed a pretty strong opinion.  Appologies if it comes across as TOO strong - I'm honestly mystified that folks would think there's an absolute need for an ultimate explanation of, say, MYTH in an RPG game world.

Or maybe it's just confusion about the basic myths themselves, and what they are "meant" to mean.

Remember most who get into RPGs have probably not even read Bulfinch's or Hamilton's mythology, and those books are the first ones most will read to learn more.

Few will move on to Grave's works or even take the trouble to track down copies of the originals to read.  Then again some translations are a bit difficult to read, which may explain why more of us don't read them all.

And there are those who believe that life here began out there...  Sitchin, Daniken, to name but a few (great way to cover for not knowing any others to mention, eh?) and *their* interpretations of mythology.

Plenty enough to confuse and scare, no?

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

OK, a little more - while myth, Glorantha and the rest are fascinating things, the issue I've been meaning to tackle head-on is whether it is always a good idea to have a known-to(at least)-the-GM ultimate explanation behind (most) everything on in the game world.  I don't think it is, always - e.g., if we explain what happens (at an entirely practical level) when the conflicting priests interact with their conflicting sun-images, that can be enough.  Apollo's chariot looses a wheel, we have a drought.  The dung beetle is fed the corpse of a Pharoh's son - all is normal again.

Kester's ley lines and vortices for mana  . . .  We know that if you cast a spell at a particular vortex, it has x effect mechanically in the game system.  That's real - vortices have x effect.  Why do they?  Do we need to know?  Why would we need to know?

MJ concentrated on a question just like this from an earlier post of mine - let me quote him a bit:

QuoteThat, really, is the rub. The game creator can't answer every question. He hands the ball off to the game referee, who continues writing the background as it's needed. But the game creator has to explain to the referee what he's thinking, and in sufficient detail that the that the referee can pick up the task and continue in a way which is consistent with what already appears.

Gareth and I are not arguing that it can't be subjective; we're arguing that even if it is subjective, the reality has to be explained.

Taken out of context, I can agree with this 100% (ignoring the highly privledged GM/referee question Ron points out).  But the context is that there are only these two choices - explained objectivity, and explained subjectivity (objective/subjective are often lousy words/concepts, really, but I think they're close enough for what people are trying to say here).  And that's just wrong, IMO - I think one of the BEST options is to say it could be subjective, or it could be objective in any one of these many ways.  Or some combination.  That IS an explanation, often sufficient for a game world. In my experience, often PREFERABLE for a game world.  It's EASIER to be consistent (in terms of satisying play, if not in "rigorous world construction") if many ultimates are left uncertain.

A particular fully explained objectivity and an acknowledged as TRUE subjectivity can be done, but IMO they are actually really, really hard.  And often - for me -  not fun.  ESPECIALLY as a GM.

Gordon

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisWhat simon just said, mostly.  Faith is a particular subcase that I'm not personally interested in using as an example, but essentially - if it's unprovable within the game world, no reason it has to be provable within the game system.  

I completely agree.  My only disconnect appears when it IS "provable" in the game world through the mechanics.  If this is not the case, I don't care (in a number of senses).

Quote
Let's take demons in Sorcerer. What are they, REALLY? Do you need to establish what they are, REALLY, to play Sorcerer? No.

IMO, yes.  Or more accurately, I do not lay upon the published product the need to explain what demons are, because it makes it explicitly clear its up to me.  It also provides a number of "thought experiments" into what they might be, for my edification.  From this position, I know at the outset that it is my responsibility, as GM of this group at this table, to define what demons - and hence humanity (or vice versa) - are.

Ron said:

Quote
Ultimately, its quality as a game-world (even at the most basic philosophical level) is not controversial.

I just wanted to remark that I too think this.  I routinely reccomend HW; in fact it... irks, annoys disapoints, I dunno.. me to criticise it publicly.

Hi Guys,

You sure light up the internet with these discussions.  There's just one problem:

Am I the only one who sees that this is absolutely an insoluble argument?

I mean, what we're really, really, really talking about here is the Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object.  I'm referring to that old philosophical trick question, "What if the Unstoppable Force hits the Immovable Object?"  It's a trick question; by definition if there is an "Unstoppable Force," it means that there is no such thing as an "Immovable Object."  And vice versa.  Taken as a thought experiment, the presence of one in the imagined universe rules out the existence of the other, therefore they do not meet, ever.

How does that apply here?  Simple, if there's an "Unified Truth," then there cannot be valid "Diverse Religions."  If there are valid "Diverse Religions," there cannot be a single "Unified Truth."  Very simple, case closed.

This big hole was started back at the beginning of this thread.  M. J. Young practically explained it right off:

Quote from: When M. J. YoungAnd as the referee, I have to know how the sun really moves across the sky, just so that I've got that answer when the players attempt to determine it for real; unless I'm prepared to railroad them by thwarting their every effort to make that determination.

That said, I think that there are a lot of solutions to this.... ...Yet in the end, something has to be the reality of the situation, or else the world has to be such that all reality is subjective.

I'm not comfortable with "all the reality is subjective".

...I feel I, as referee, would need to know why it works and how it works if I am going to have to present the outcome of its efforts.

He's pretty much saying he doesn't like to run games that don't have an "Unified Truth."  Therefore, in his games, there can be no more than one "Diverse Religion" that 'has the right answer,' by definition (and probably none).

A few people have ghosted around this fact, talking about 'unknowable truths' and 'myths that don't really describe things;' these are both examples of handling the concept of having no valid "Diverse Religions."  Likewise arguments like 'each works differently on a different world' or 'everyone sees the ultimate truth differently,' are simply ways to get around having an "Unified Truth."  Each of these attempts to make one case look like the other in some attempt to create a situation that seems to satisfy the patently impossible.

It's like saying, "Here's a Force Unstopped by any object (so far)" or "The Immovable Object cannot be found" and "Unstoppable Forces flow around the Immovable Object" or "This Object is Immovable to Forces of this specific kind."  All we're doing is creating lies to cover up the fact that either you can have an Unstoppable Force or you can have an Immovable Object, but not both.  Which brings us to the simplest of solutions:

PICK ONE!

If you want an "Unified Truth," let the game mechanisms reflect it; treat each application of diverse religion gently, like a confused child, or better ask why the characters are so concerned with rooting out myths.  Treat the "Unified Truth" as a singular incontrovertible fact, often misunderstood, but never wrong.  (That's what unification means, don't it?)  This works great with systems that use concrete mechanisms with specific results and not so great with systems open to broad interpretation ('highly flexible') or giving only cursory (meaning they require interpretation) results.

If you want "Diverse Religions," realize that each has diverse ways of revealing truth.  If the Greek wants to see Apollo on that chariot, he isn't going to fly into space, he's going to that road (that's right it'd be a road), the one that leaves Apollo's stable and he's going to be there early in the morning; where is that road?  That stable?  Not on the physical plane, that's for sure.  The same is true of the home of that dung beetle or any other purveyor of sunshine.  Each will be reached differently and found in different places.  (And let's not forget that some days they don't go out at all; all you modern types seem to think that everyone back then felt the sun was all what lit up the day.  Sometimes clouds rule the sky and the sun is not welcome.)

Not only that, but let's not forget to question why these characters of "Diverse Religions" are haring off together to see their deities in the first place; did you forget to ask why?

Let's stop a moment and mention the 'smaller miracles.'  They just happen, see?  Why?  Because that's how the rules handle it, isn't that obvious?  Why does it matter about ley lines, vortices and such?  Is the game you're running really about the nature and scientific approach to the magic being done?  If so, I hope the game is designed for 'scientifically' modeled magic, because that's the only game where that type of play will work.  If not, shouldn't the players have something else to do?

Or, turned on its head, okay the players are trying to determine the nature of magic within a system that is not 'built that way.'  What do they find?  Whatever they want or whatever you want.  Since the system was never geared to be so rigorously tested, this play is 'wrong' by its standards; you're on your own then, have fun.  (Id est, PICK ONE!)  Otherwise point out that 'this is not what the game is about' and get back to something more interesting and less controversial.

Sheesh, you'd think we were discussing real religion here.  We're not, this is gaming; magic works 'by the rules,' not by some Universally Acceptable Paradigm.  It's different for each game and for each taste.

There is no One Right Answer™

Fang Langford

Hey Fang,

Pick One is perfectly good advice.  But my posting in this thread has been all about "Don't Pick One."  Don't answer the Immoveable Object/Irresistable force question - it almost never comes up, and in fact CAN'T come up if the issue about whether either can even exist in the first place is established as unknowable.  As Gareth says, don't let it be proveable in your game world, and you're cool.

Maybe I've got an irrational bias against this whole irreconcilable dualities thing, but really, I've found "don't pick one" the very best answer in Magic/Myth/Religion related gaming situations.  Doesn't work for me in SciFi, though.  Well - as applied to religon it does.  Not to anything else.

Gordon, apparently Mr. "The only winning move is not to play" is this debate

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisPick One is perfectly good advice.  But my posting in this thread has been all about "Don't Pick One."  Don't answer the Immoveable Object/Irresistable Force question - it almost never comes up, and in fact CAN'T come up if the issue about whether either can even exist in the first place is established as unknowable.  As Gareth says, don't let it be proveable in your game world, and you're cool.

Maybe I've got an irrational bias against this whole irreconcilable dualities thing, but really, I've found "don't pick one" the very best answer in Magic/Myth/Religion related gaming situations.  Doesn't work for me in SciFi, though.  Well - as applied to religon it does.  Not to anything else.

Sorry, choosing 'not to choose' is picking one.  Like I said, "talking about 'unknowable truths' [is an example] of handling the concept of having no valid 'Diverse Religions.'"  The "Unified Truth" is that nobody can know.  Any single solution is clearly a "Unified Truth."

And you're right, "the only winning move is not to play"...any role-playing games (the obvious application of that truism).  Thanks for helping clarify that point (to win an argument about religion you must 'not argue').

Fang Langford

Quote from: Le JoueurSorry, choosing 'not to choose' is picking one.  Like I said, "talking about 'unknowable truths' [is an example] of handling the concept of having no valid 'Diverse Religions.'"  The "Unified Truth" is that nobody can know.  Any single solution is clearly a "Unified Truth."

Hmm . . . I think it's time (for me, anyway) to just let this one go.  I disagree very strongly that Not Picking in any way means, by neccesity, there are no valid Diverse Religions, at least in terms of RPG play (I'm really trying NOT to pull too much real world philosophy in here).  Not Picking between your two choices is, of course, a choice, and no one can stop you from insisting that as such it MUST fit into one of your categories.

But (again, RPG play is all I'm applying this to here) my experience is that making the "Don't Pick One" choice is entirely different than making the Unified Truth Choice, and very different from the Valid Diverse Religions choice.  And often results in better (for me) play - easier to manage, more rewarding.

But like you say, it's different for each game and taste.

Gordon

Hi.  (Warning --- LONG again!)

Ron started a new "challenge," if you will:

QuoteLet's consider as well this issue: what is the role of a GM relative to the game-world? Does its issues/metaphysics represent (1) something that he or she uniquely knows as a mechanism, in ways that players don't, or (2) something that should intrigue him or her on the same basis that it intrigues the players?

As he notes, both are possible, but he also wonders whether "differing views will prevent either approach's arguments to be satisfying to the other."  Let me see if I can unpack that last question a bit, and use that to open up the challenge.

In version (1), the GM has made a final decision about some basic metaphysical question; in version (2) she hasn't.  Tied to this, as Ron describes it, you have the point that in (1) the GM knows the truth and the players do not, and in (2) whatever interest the players have in the truth is parallel to the GM's own interest in exploring that question.

Now from this way of putting it, I think it might well be that version (2) as stated is fairly strongly in line with a Simulationist approach, in that exploration of the setting is a central issue for all players (including GM).  But before this turns into a GNS fight, let me point out that Ron has to some degree collapsed several different possibilities in this description.

Suppose we lay it out as a series of binaries:

A. Truth: known / not known
B. GM privilege: exclusive / open
C. Interest (in metaphysics): significant / insignificant

There are probably more, but with just these we can describe most of the positions represented in the course of the present debate.

Start with C.  Much of the current debate has centered around whether it is important that the GM (or anyone else) know the Truth.  But what I think has come out is that it is a vital issue whether it makes a bit of difference.  For example, we could run a two-fisted 30s-pulp campaign in which there was magic, but in which the focus of all players (including GM) was such that there was absolutely no interest in discovering why there is magic, or whether God exists, or whatever.  So here the GM does not necessarily need to know the Truth (although she might), and certainly it would be something of a waste of time to put huge effort into detailing the metaphysical underpinnings of the Setting.

Now there's B.  Suppose we've decided that metaphysical issues (in the loose sense, not the technical) will be important in our campaign, and everyone is cool with this.  Okay, now does the group mutually compose the Truth (at the outset or over the course of play), or is it secret knowledge for the GM to know and the players to find out (or fail to find out)?  Take Call of Cthulhu, for example.  The characters do not, as a rule, know the Truth, but finding it out is a major component of play.  The players actually do know the Truth, because if they didn't they would not likely sign up for a CoC game.  The more specific Truth in this particular campaign they of course do not know, and they will work hard at finding it out (although this will kill their characters).  And the GM really does have to know the Truth here, because it's a mystery in the detective-fiction sort of way, and it breaks the CoC-type contract to say, "Here's a mystery I'm challenging you to solve, but actually I'm making it up as I go along" (unless you admit this at the outset, and are doing an experimental game or whatever).

Only now can we get to A.  We can now determine several points:
- are the players interested in these sorts of questions?
- are the PCs interested likewise (not at all the same thing)?
- will the answers be group-determined or exclusive to the GM?
- can the answers be found by the PCs?
- can the answers be found by the players?

Okay, NOW we can ask whether it is important for the GM to know the Truth, or to set conditions upon what sort of Truth it is.  As noted before, if players and PCs don't give a damn, it's hardly worth the time coming up with a lot of detail about this, unless that's your thing.  

If group exploration of Setting to determine Truth is going to be a big part of play, you may want to think twice about predetermining the conclusions: if you do, you're setting up a mystery (Actor and Author play will be central); if you don't, you're setting up a group construction thing, in which Directorial stance will probably be added to the mix.  

And finally, if the PCs can't get there from here, i.e. they can never really know the answers (as in ordinary reality), then you need to think about the ramifications of having the players able to figure out what you had in mind, and interested in doing so.

So I think that Ron's supposition - - that different design choices about these issues will strongly affect whether other styles or approaches are workable - - seems to be accurate.  Thus it's not a question of whether one should or should not, as a rule, know the Truth; rather, one must make a series of choices about the type of game in question, and that will tell you whether knowing the Truth is (1) required, (2) optional but possibly helpful, (3) a waste of time, or (4) damaging.

Let me conclude by pointing out that you can do all this backwards.  That is, you can make a decision about the status of Truth as the first part of Premise and/or Setting, and then build up the rest of the campaign from there.  Of course, this already determines that epistemology will be in some sense or other an important issue in the campaign.

Okay, that's long enough.  Just wanted to make a stab at responding directly to Ron's challenge.

Quote from: Gordon C. Landis

Quote from: Le JoueurSorry, choosing 'not to choose' is picking one.  Like I said, "talking about 'unknowable truths' [is an example] of handling the concept of having no valid 'Diverse Religions.'"  The "Unified Truth" is that nobody can know.  Any single solution is clearly an "Unified Truth."

Hmm . . . I think it's time (for me, anyway) to just let this one go.  I disagree very strongly that Not Picking in any way means, by necessity, there are no valid Diverse Religions, at least in terms of RPG play (I'm really trying NOT to pull too much real world philosophy in here).  Not Picking between your two choices is, of course, a choice, and no one can stop you from insisting that as such it MUST fit into one of your categories.

But (again, RPG play is all I'm applying this to here) my experience is that making the "Don't Pick One" choice is entirely different than making the Unified Truth Choice,

Here's where our opinions differ.  I'm pretty sure you're thinking that the "Unified Truth" is a 'Unified metaphysical Truth.'  What I've been trying to do is get people to look a little higher than in-game metaphysics.  If we don't, we're literally just arguing about religion; you know what they say about that.

I'm saying that ultimately, 'arguing about religion' is a poor ruse; it's meaningless because these aren't real religions, they're fiction.  None is more 'real' than any other and trying to compare different relationships of "Diverse Religions" or different 'Unified metaphysical Truth' approaches is a hopeless diatribe of people shouting their opinions.

Once you rise above the 'metaphysical level,' and see that we're just talking about different game systems, it becomes nothing more than a discussion of different approaches to emulation; a much easier conversation.  This is then much like discussing the difference between weapon comparison in a detailed system and one that calls upon the users to interpret the resolutions to differentiate between the effects of two similar weapons.

Quote from: Gordon C. Landismaking the "Don't Pick One" choice is entirely different than making the Unified Truth choice, and very different from the Valid Diverse Religions choice.  And often results in better (for me) play - easier to manage, more rewarding.

Y'see the separation I'm suggesting is "Don't Pick One" is an "Unified Truth" ("nobody can know") from a 'Game Designer Perspective' and both an "Unified metaphysical Truth" and multi-"Valid Diverse Religions" are in-game and thus pretty much a unified antipode to it.  People have been confusing the "Unified Truth" solution with the "Unified metaphysical Truth" solution.  (Kind like the old "It's just a TV show!" solution.)

The problem I've been underscoring is that getting tangled up in the proposed "Irreconcilable Duality," is succumbing to the idea that these religions are real to the designer (Apollo, Glorantha, and Dung Beetles don't count unless you know how you want to 'dignify' religion with the overall design).  They aren't, they're just fiction, just system.  Treated as such, and recognizing the "Irreconcilability" should let us end this thread cleanly, clearly, and with no one 'losing.'

The only real concern I could see discussed is 'how to dignify' either multiple "Diverse Religions" or an "Unified metaphysical Truth," because you clearly can't have both.  (And at this level, the specifics, chariots, beetles, or extant systems, don't matter, only preferences of "Diverse" or "Unified.")  Thanks for identifying 'the higher level' of discussion; it really helps a lot to clarify what can and cannot be discussed here.

Fang Langford

1 points/ 1 question.
1)An RPG has a unified truth, as it has a system. Thus, anything in the 'system' is a fact.

2)Ron's question bears repeating, which is : How much of the world does the GM have to know for the game to be playable?
Obviously, every question that can be asked in the game has to have an answer, even if it is 'you don't know'.
As Fang mentioned, sometimes they GM may have to extend the system, this is ok because:
        If we assume a 'finished' system(i.e. people play it, ect), then this extention is not that important, i.e. that fact that this info isn't in th system doesn't affect peoples ability to play it.. Now the GM's extention could be important, depending on what it is, but taking care when doing this can solve the problem.

         The only important thing is enought truth exist to resolve things.  
I'd agree with Fang that the real question is how to dignify one or the other. Of course, there is the additional problem that to dignify multiple diverse religions, they can't contradict each other. (I.e. you can't have multiple religions that say 'our God is the only one', and they all have similard definitions of God).
If there is one, unified true, the answere is simple. The religion replaces
'physical reality' in the game world in the apropriate places.
For multiple diverse religions the solutions I see are:
1)All relgions ackoledge the others, to a degree. Thus the differences between them may be in interpreation or ritual, rather than truth. Alll share a common frame of truth though. Example:Chritianity.

2)They don't overlap. I.e. each valid religion is completely seperate, and
doesn't prevent the existance of others.  DnD works in this way.


3)Each religion only tries to explain a 'part' of reality.  This is similart to #2, but instead of having multiple overlapping explanations, each explains a part of the whole and ignores the rest.

Just some ideas.

This is a response to MJ's initial post, and a continuation of my own interest in the subject, specifically regarding the following idea:

1) An imaginary game world.
2) This world maintains a mythic reality.
3) This world has numerous, sometimes conflicting, myths.
4) All these myths are none-the-less true.

It is ideas #3 and #4, in conjunction, which are bothersome to Gareth and MJ in their role as the referee of any particular game.

Thus far, a number of individuals have completely missed the point of the discussion, instead bringing up real-world metaphysical theory, faith of the believer, moral validity and so forth. But most of this has ignored #4, that the myths are true and real in an actual, physical, empirical sense.

While Gareth has maintained that this causes problems if myths are also subjective, MJ has finally given me what I'm looking for: a feasible and simple situation where two mutually exclusive subjective-but-true truths are tested. The event given appears irreconcilable: one of the myths must necessarily be false.

Let us, however, look at idea #2. The idea of a mythic reality.

A mythic reality, by nature, is vaguely inconsistent; it changes to suit the whim and necessity of the storyteller without necessarily becoming internally inconsistent.

An example of a mythic reality are the various Star Trek television series: the base setting for each series (ie: Voyager, Next Generation, etc) is always the same from episode to episode within that particular series, sometimes new facts are added to this base.

More often the solution or discovery of the week is forgotten in the weeks to follow, and rarely is it followed to its logical conclusion unless the series base is due a major change or addition. It is left such because the story the solution was an essential element of has already been told, and thus the element is no longer important.

In contrast to this, Gareth and MJ are talking about creating an objective, experienced reality -- a secondary world that functions exactly as does ours, which changes, grows and alters based on the forces of real-world history and invention, instead of the more television-like world of Star Trek and its necessities, which need only maintain its base and can discard everything else.

The world exists as a base set of principles in a specific time-snapshot that does not change, despite having the illusion of doing so during a story and from week-to-week for the viewer.

This might be called "stagnating," if you will, as the world can be left intact, as-is, throughout the series if the writers so wish, without invention or history altering anything about the show's base (such a method is very prominent in the original Star Trek series).

However, this is not actual stagnation, because its purpose is not to exist as a reality in its own right, but a stage upon which plays and stories are told.

Obviously, this is not our world.

Likewise, a mythic reality need only maintain its own base, perhaps adding small parts to that base episode-to-episode, but remaining otherwise unchanged by "prior" events.

Once the base is known, the rest of the series can be enjoyably experienced out-of-sequence, as a one-time experience, or in bits and pieces without the loss of comprehension of the specific episode(s) being viewed.

In much the same way, a mythic reality's physical nature is non-real. Distance and time are malleable, as is location, and even state-of-being. Many modern authors, particularly RE Howard and the early Michael Moorcock, use this method to write their stories.

In this fashion, one answer to the problem posed by MJ in regards to the issue of the reality of the myths of Apollo and Ra is thus:

Consider that the world does not exist independent of the authors (the play group) and has no life or necessary existance outside of the premises and stories the authors are using it to tell.

I believe this is a GNS issue, in that MJ and Gareth are approaching the idea of a game world from a mindset of having another physical place to explore or experience, one where it is important to know the facts ahead of time.

But let us approach it from a different angle, one not so rooted in traditional methods and structures of campaign worlds. I'm taking my cue from Sorcerer, here, which used the same paradigm in its overall design philosophy: the elements are not important until the authors give them meaning.

The facts are developed in play. The world itself and ultimate reality doesn't matter, the ultimate truths derived from it are illusory. Only the characters exist, only what they do matters, only what they believe matters...or simply, story first. The protagonists are not reactions to the world, but the moving forces in it, the world exists for the protagonists, solely for the story being told.

So your players, containing among them a priest of Ra and a priest of Apollo, want to decide once and for all between the two of them which myth is true. In this manner, the premise is established and play begins.

Here, we are developing a myth, or examining a myth, as the narrative structure in which all other things take place. That is, the myth itself serves as the premise, including a contested myth.

The authors may have decided beforehand who is right, establishing the premises: How far will you go to prove you are right? and What would you do if you found everything you believed was false?

Or they may allow the correct answer to be arrived at in play, via some previously established method: who goes the furthest, who survives the journey, etc.

The reason none have before attempted this sort of contest is because of the nature of the characters as protagonists -- the world only exists to create their story. This is both adequate and probable considering the nature of adventure gaming, and particularly myth: none have done it before, even if it seems easy, because the story is not about the world, but about the characters.

To continue from this, we have found the priests have gone to the heavens, experienced what they experienced, and both return to the earthly plane -- one having been right, one having been wrong.

Yet the initial question remains unanswered for the populace at large...except for that individual.

The forsaken priest returns to his village, bereft of his faith only to find that his people still worship his people's chosen god despite the issue now being decided. He attempts to convert the populace by telling them of his experience...the populous simply does not believe him and continue to believe precisely what they have always believed.

A brother to this priest confronts his clerical opposite and travels with him to the heavens, discovering that his brother is wrong, that his conversion attempts are based on false notions.

In this case, if the attempt is merely to visit as it is above, not interfere, then fewer difficulties are created for the gamemaster. However, if the players do interfere with the mythic order they discover, the gamemaster must determine if the natural order is affected.

Think in terms of the mythic reality of the situation, and of the story itself -- of what importance is the answer to the characters and the players? Of what importance is the answer to the premise?

Thus cease thinking of the world as a planet, or even as a world, with defined physical characteristics and locations and realities. There is one sun. No, there is no sun. There are the myths of Apollo and Ra.

You do not attach the myths to an object that can be tested, but make the myths themselves the objects. The problem with Gareth and MJ's interpretation of the problem is that they are thinking in terms of physical objects rather than myths. They are positing travel to the heavens to an object called "the sun" -- whether a ball of gas or a flaming chariot, or something else entirely.

Consider that the metaphysical plane, in this case, reality itself, is large enough that both facts are true. There is no sun, there is either Apollo's Chariot or Ra's dung-beetle. Or rather, it is not either but both.

The question then becomes how to handle such a world. If Apollo's chariot is stolen, how does this affect the sun across the rest of the world?

Stealing Apollo's chariot brings the sun down over the whole world, though it is only a local myth; or perhaps it only brings the sun down in specific areas, wherever Apollo's influence is important; or instead, the theft and darkness only affects the characters of the story itself and we ignore the rest of the world until it becomes important that the event have affected it -- that is, how does the event matter to the story, to the premise and the characters/players?

Further, you haven't affected the sun at all, you've affected the myth. Apollo's chariot is gone (and hence the sun is gone). The sun is gone, but should you visit Ra, you find nothing has happened to the sun, in the mythic reality of Ra...or perhaps you find something has happened to the sun, but the explanation is not that Apollo's chariot was stolen.

You see, the objects are illusory, and only relevant to play when play is relevant to them.

Suppose each priest journeying to the sun sees precisely what they expect. One steals Apollo's chariot to prove that the sun is in Apollo's domain, the other does not interfere with Ra or his dung-beetle.

Yet darkness falls across the land...and Ra speaks to his people of the serpent who has swallowed the sun, whom the authors and writers (players) can then go slay, returning the sun to its glory even while retaining Apollo's chariot.
In this manner, myth is made.

It is inconsistent, episodic, malleable.

Post Deleted by Author to start a new, shiny thread.

No geryorm, "mythic reality" is not enough.

If you say there is no causality, the only purpose of the world is to be as if a stage, then what is the conflict?  This is game world as held in the mind of the game designer; a game world whose identity is examined AS a game world.  But then, none of the conlficts in it can be any more important than the conflict between tokens, or pawns.

If its all "aubjective" and happening only to the characters, thebn I sitting around in one room, playing a game about being a character sitting around in another room, imagining themselves to be doing heroic and magical things.

Quote
Here, we are developing a myth, or examining a myth, as the narrative structure in which all other things take place. That is, the myth itself serves as the premise, including a contested myth.

This is a dodge; you have no made the mythology the subject of the story, instead of backdrop to it.  Of course, anything which is the story will be defined through play; but mythology/religion are making claims to world comprehension.  These are true or not, as characters and players will use them as information on which to base decisions.

Quote
Yet the initial question remains unanswered for the populace at large...except for that individual.

Oh no - only if what is True is that it is a subjective world.  If its disproved, its disproved, unless once again, proof means something other than proof.  

Quote
Stealing Apollo's chariot brings the sun down over the whole world, though it is only a local myth; or perhaps it only brings the sun down in specific areas, wherever Apollo's influence is important; or instead, the theft and darkness only affects the characters of the story itself and we ignore the rest of the world until it becomes important that the event have affected it -- that is, how does the event matter to the story, to the premise and the characters/players?

Who cares?  Why should the CHARACTERS in the gam,e ghive a flying fig about the "story impact" of their world.  Why should the CHARACTERS ignore the fact that their fundamental myths have either been proved or falsified?  Once again I can only say that this produces exactly the opposite of its intended goal: it produces play in which the mythology is unimportant, irrelevant, inconsisntentm unreliable and hence ignored.  

Quote
Suppose each priest journeying to the sun sees precisely what they expect. One steals Apollo's chariot to prove that the sun is in Apollo's domain, the other does not interfere with Ra or his dung-beetle.

Then we know the Truth; what matters is what they expect and they are psionic, they just don;t have a thought-mode to articulate that.  One day they'll stop using their psychic powers through the metaphor of elves and pixies and start using as sctiinific discipline, at which time it will substantiall more useful.

Quote
Yet darkness falls across the land...and Ra speaks to his people of the serpent who has swallowed the sun, whom the authors and writers (players) can then go slay, returning the sun to its glory even while retaining Apollo's chariot.

Why?  These are two different realities - please explain how you reconcile them.  I will say again, sometiems I think that this is really just the anthropological model.  The Truth is that there was an eclipse, and there are two conflicting lies explaining it.  In both cases, the local priests make up some further lies, and the problem goes away.  Conclusion?  Both mythologoes are lies and useless for making decisions about the game world.  In neither case it is Actually True, in any sense whatsoever, that either myth correctly describes the world.

If you structure such play, you will not make myths; quite the converse, the only thing you will make them is irrelevant.  There will be no point in mknowing them; mythiology is not Information and has no usefgul function.  While this may be a valid model of a game, I would find it a waste of time to construct such a system that used so much mythological colour and then DIDN'T make the mythology actually true.

Greetings Damion,

My shortest post ever?

Quote from: damion1 points/ 1 question.
1)An RPG has a unified truth, as it has a system. Thus, anything in the 'system' is a fact.

2)Ron's question bears repeating, which is : How much of the world does the GM have to know for the game to be playable?

...

         The only important thing is enought truth exist to resolve things.  

Sorry for mangling and terribly condensing your post but, you just answered the question.

All a GM needs to know at the most basic level is enough of the core mechanics as presented in the rules to referee the game and "resolve
things".  Beyond that all else is padding, fluff, and stage dressing mixed in amidst the bells and whistles the GM has at their disposal.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Greetings greyorm,

Methodist?

Quote from: greyormSo your players, containing among them a priest of Ra and a priest of Apollo, want to decide once and for all between the two of them which myth is true. In this manner, the premise is established and play begins.

Here, we are developing a myth, or examining a myth, as the narrative structure in which all other things take place. That is, the myth itself serves as the premise, including a contested myth.

The authors may have decided beforehand who is right, establishing the premises: How far will you go to prove you are right? and What would you do if you found everything you believed was false?

Or they may allow the correct answer to be arrived at in play, via some previously established method: who goes the furthest, who survives the journey, etc.

The reason none have before attempted this sort of contest is because of the nature of the characters as protagonists -- the world only exists to create their story. This is both adequate and probable considering the nature of adventure gaming, and particularly myth: none have done it before, even if it seems easy, because the story is not about the world, but about the characters.

I got to this point and was struck by a odd though, or good example, pending your POV.

Xena.

Yes, Xena, the television series.  In the last couple of seasons they went completely off the deep end with their portrayal of mythological characters, yet did it really matter?

Probably not to most who watched the show.  Why?

For just what greyorm said, it's not about the myths, but the characters, and their intereaction in the larger world.

As for Apollo and Ra... anyone wondering what happened to Helios?




Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Greetings contracycle,

Hmm...

Quote from: contracycle

Quote
Yet darkness falls across the land...and Ra speaks to his people of the serpent who has swallowed the sun, whom the authors and writers (players) can then go slay, returning the sun to its glory even while retaining Apollo's chariot.

Why?  These are two different realities - please explain how you reconcile them.  I will say again, sometiems I think that this is really just the anthropological model.  The Truth is that there was an eclipse, and there are two conflicting lies explaining it.  In both cases, the local priests make up some further lies, and the problem goes away.  Conclusion?  Both mythologoes are lies and useless for making decisions about the game world.  In neither case it is Actually True, in any sense whatsoever, that either myth correctly describes the world.

If you structure such play, you will not make myths; quite the converse, the only thing you will make them is irrelevant.  There will be no point in mknowing them; mythiology is not Information and has no usefgul function.  While this may be a valid model of a game, I would find it a waste of time to construct such a system that used so much mythological colour and then DIDN'T make the mythology actually true.

As I see there are two POV warring with each other.

Myth as a "game mechanic" and myth as a "background setting".

As a background setting myth can fuel political machinations and intrique.

As a game mechanic myth, by definition, will *have* to be the supporting explanation for how things are... and why.

But can myth be used as both game mechanic and background setting (which thus may be altered) in a RPG?

I am tempted to say no, because to change the myth would change reality, and thus the game world... then again in a fantasy milieu where wishes and magic is allowed I'd have to say yes, with qualifications.

I am not sure what those qualifications are, save that they would depend upon the system and established world setting being used.

What do the rest of you think?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Just to clarify my possition, I'd like to reply to a few comments
on the Freethinkia/Unitia examples, where it seems to me I may
not have been very well understood.


damion :

>I don't think 'idealogical' truism must reduce the freedom
>of expression.

I am not arguing that it necesserily does, I am challenging the
assertion that _not_ having ideological truism reduces freedom
of expression. I don't think it does. I can't see how enabling multiple
valid religious philosophies in a game reduces freedom, hence my
attempt at a 'reductio ad absurdum' example.


Kester Pelagius :

>This is a fallacious argument.

No it isn't. You are ignoring the issue of provability, which is at the
crux of this discussion.

>Why?
>
>Because what you have posited are world cultures. Within
>the world cultures both would provide the players with a full
>range of playability.

That is _exactly_ how I see it. Note that the culture of
Unitia could perfectly well exist in Freethinkia, with the
caveat that it's religious philosophy would not be provably
the only valid one. I am simply arguing that such provability
is not necessery or desirable.

Why don't we split off a sub-thread, starting with Ron's
question about the role of the GM relative to the game world? It
seems like a god question.


Simon Hibbs

Quote
I can't see how enabling multiple
valid religious philosophies in a game reduces freedom,

...because their "validities" are mutually exclusive; they are all equally invalid, and therefore nobody is free to express themselves on the given framework.

This specific question has been bugging me a lot lately. It strikes me, in a way, like when someone posts "Give me an idea for an RPG" which I equate to "Think of something for me to invent."

We have an interesting problem, mutually exclusive mythologies which are to be equally true in the described game. Now, the problem that some people seem to have is that you cannot have this because the difernt religious views cannot be explicitly true or else there will be reprocussions through the game world that makes the one myth more true(?) than the others.

My gut instinct is to ask "reprocussion like what?" not really understanding what is being worried about here and then we get bogged down into the details of the hypethetical and forget about the main point here.

The main point here, it seems to me, is we have an interesting problem before the table, reconciling conflicting religious/mythological views in the same game world, but it is the task of individual games and players to answer this question, not any thread on an RPG theory forum. This problem has too many possible solutions to really discuss here or to ever hope to arrive at an answer. There is no one true way.

Let take the Apollo/dung beetle example again for a moment. These are two very different possible realities. How can you reconcil them?

• You could have only one be true. Either Apollo drives the sun or he does not.
  
• You could have neither be true, like in the real world where Great and Mighty Oogok throws his solar frisbee across the sky.
  
• or you could find a way for both to be true
  [/list:u]
  We seem to be talking about the last option here for the most part and how to do it. Well, that's your problem if you're running such a game, I'm afraid. RPGs are a form of artistic expression and if you wish to make conflicting mythologies real at the same time, then that is the problem that you have decided to tackle. How you solve it is a matter of your own talent, artistry, and taste and it will not be solved here.
  
  Now, we could give you possible solutions and suggestions and whether you like them or not is, again, a matter of taste. For instance, you could have Apollo and the dung beetles "shooting for it" to see who has to take the sun across the sky.
  
  Apollo: "...and shoot! Evens! Ha ha, beetle! You have to take the sun across the sky today!"
  
  Beetle: "Crrkt Crrkt Crrkt"
  
  Apollo: "No grumbling. It was fair and square. You want to use my chariot?"
  
  Beetle: "Crrkt Cree Crrkt"
  
  Apollo: "Suit yourself."
  
  Don't like that one? Then you could borrow a page from the movie Erik the Viking where the vikings went to Valhalla and the Christian in their group could not see it. He did not believe in Valhalla or the Norse gods so they weren't there to him or real at all. He could walk right through the walls he couldn't see and the gods could not harm him. However, the walls of Valhalla and the gods were very real to Erik and the rest and very real danger to them.
  
  Or come up with something different, if you like. Or only play games where these things are addressed to your liking. Either or. My point is that it really isn't within the scope on this forum to answer this question and is more up to individual designers and player to do so within individual games, perhaps answering the same question differently in different games or not at all. Just my view of it.

Jack,

Yes.

And in the telling of the tale, in defining mythological reality on the fly, the players and GM state in narrative what they think the world to be like, what matters, and even, on occassion, find themself contradicting what they might have thought before play, having entered imaginitively into a tale and discovered a new "treasure" to bring out into the real world having participated in the story's creation.

Christopher

QuoteThe Truth is that there was an eclipse, and there are two conflicting lies explaining it. In both cases, the local priests make up some further lies, and the problem goes away. Conclusion? Both mythologoes are lies and useless for making decisions about the game world. In neither case it is Actually True, in any sense whatsoever, that either myth correctly describes the world.

OK, let me map this onto the way I've seen this kind of thing handled in fantasy games with a couple different game groups.  What actually happens is the light in the sky goes dark and then comes back (I'll label it an eclipse, but I'm just naming an event, not implying a "real" orbital-mechanics explanation is what caused the effect).  There are two (or more) conflicting explanations for an eclipse in varied mythologies - say, the dung beetle is unfed, or the chariot breaks down.  These mythologies are both in some way "hooked up" to the effect that is an eclipse.

By interacting with either of those mythologies, the PCs are able to influence whether or not the eclipse happens, or how long it is, and etc.  They can interact with the beetle one time, and the chariot the next.  Even at the same time, if the GM/group are good at juggling such things.  If the dung beetle is unfed, must the chariot also be broken down?  Maybe, or maybe the unfed beetle is just "trumping" the normal-state chariot.  And if you boost the chariot (add a horse to the team, maybe), that now trumps the beetle.  Or temporarily trumps the beetle.

Neither myth can lay sole claim to correctly (in a complete and total sense) describing the world.  Both myths can lay claim to being useful when applied to particular problems.  That can be defined to whatever degree the group desires - complex cosmologies where each god controls a local reality, or where there are "area's of responsibility" in the universe and gods have more power within their area than without - lots of options.

What is the Truth about an eclipse (again, as an event, not an explanation) within the game world?  The truth about an eclipse is that it can be predicted and/or changed and/or influenced by interacting with various myths.  There is no problem with the myths contradicting - they're all just means to cause an effect, anyway.

But what happens when THOSE conflict - when some people are feeding the beetle, and others are harrassing the chariot?  Ultimately, at least in a particular area, the eclipse is going to either happen or not - how do you determine which when varied myths are being used to cause DIFFERENT effects on the event?  The game, or at least the social contract, should provide guidance here.  But resolving that question doesn't make one myth valid in all ways and the other invalid in all ways - it just means that one of 'em corresponded more with the effect than the other.  The other might "fade away," if that's how you want your myths to work.

Hmm . . . I thought after reading Gareth's post, I had a new way to respond to his concerns  . . . but now I'm not sure any of this is new.  Is any of it helping?  By which I mean, am I illustrating how diverse truths can exist without it having to be a "it's all subjective" world?  I could call it the difference between a truth (aiding the chariot aids the sun) and "The Truth" (the sun is a chariot).  Lots of those "a truths" (aiding the chariot aids the sun - aiding the beetle also aids the sun) can play together just fine - it's just the "The Truths" where contradiction is a problem.  So I tend to avoid having much to do with "The Truth" in a fantasy game world.  
Maybe that's my "advice" on M.J.'s original issue - avoid The Truth (in a practical sense), and here's one way how.  I also think this is where Fang's points about level and perspective are important, but I'm at a loss as to where to go from there . . . I think I'll move on to the other threads in case they provide a focus for another comment.

Gordon

edit: post (response to Gareth) moved to private message

Quote from: contracycle

Quote
I can't see how enabling multiple
valid religious philosophies in a game reduces freedom,

...because their "validities" are mutually exclusive;

You still haven't demonstrated this, only asserted it.

Quotethey are all equally invalid, and therefore nobody is free to express themselves on the given framework.

More ex-cathedra pronouncement without any actual reasoning to back it up.

How on earth you can accept that a fantasy world might have 'The Law of Similarity' as a cosmic law, and yet deny that similarities inmythical alegory with the real world can give power? This seems to me to be elementary.


Simon Hibbs

Quote from: simon_hibbs

Quote from: contracycle

Quote
I can't see how enabling multiple
valid religious philosophies in a game reduces freedom,

...because their "validities" are mutually exclusive;

You still haven't demonstrated this, only asserted it.

Quote
I didn't need to demonstrate it, greyorm demonstrated it for me.  We would present a scenario in which myth was to be taken as Literally True, but in actual resolution, the GM-behaviour was to declare it symbolic.  Thus, a character identity premised on the mythology being true had been violated; that character cannot carry out what they were selected by the player to carry out.  The myth has been falsified in actual play at the table.  That has appeared in every sample to date.

Quote
How on earth you can accept that a fantasy world might have 'The Law of Similarity' as a cosmic law, and yet deny that similarities inmythical alegory with the real world can give power? This seems to me to be elementary.

I don't; I merely require that the game ASSERT that the Law of Similarity IS a cosmic law and is empowered in manner X.  A game which does not make such an assertion gives me no reason to think that Law of Similarity either exists in the game world or is empowered in the game world.

The Law of Similarity per se does not explain effect.  It merely explains, more or less, why human beings FALSELY attribute cause and effect to things that are only superficially similar.  It is an argument to anthropology, not an argument to game design.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: simon_hibbs
I can't see how enabling multiple
valid religious philosophies in a game reduces freedom,

...because their "validities" are mutually exclusive;

You still haven't demonstrated this, only asserted it.;

Quote
I didn't need to demonstrate it, greyorm demonstrated it for me.  We would present a scenario in which myth was to be taken as Literally True, but in actual resolution, the GM-behaviour was to declare it symbolic.

So your argument is to ignore what the GM and game designer have said about the nature of the world, and assert yourselves how it has to work according to your own rules, then use that in your proof?

QuoteThus, a character identity premised on the mythology being true had been violated; that character cannot carry out what they were selected by the player to carry out.

Are we talking baout the beliefs of a character in the game world, or your assertions about what can't be true in my game world? You seem very vague and ambiguous on this point, but it's crucial. I have not said, and have never said that in this game world it's impossible to hold false beliefs. Several times I have made it clear that I do not accept the pure subjectivist possition. The issue is if is possible to have multiple religions in a game world that are contradictory yet equaly true.

QuoteThe myth has been falsified in actual play at the table.  That has appeared in every sample to date.

Not in mine. You have refused to debate the example of a game world in which I have determined (as game designer) the way the world works, instead asserting that it _has_ to work the way you say. Why?

Quote

Quote
How on earth you can accept that a fantasy world might have 'The Law of Similarity' as a cosmic law, and yet deny that similarities inmythical alegory with the real world can give power? This seems to me to be elementary.

I don't; I merely require that the game ASSERT that the Law of Similarity IS a cosmic law and is empowered in manner X.  A game which does not make such an assertion gives me no reason to think that Law of Similarity either exists in the game world or is empowered in the game world.

I have made that assertion by the way of example many times, and you apparently refuse to debate based on it - see below.

QuoteThe Law of Similarity per se does not explain effect.  It merely explains, more or less, why human beings FALSELY attribute cause and effect to things that are only superficially similar.  It is an argument to anthropology, not an argument to game design.

Falsely perhaps in our world (that's a seperate issue), but not necesserily falsely in a fantasy world where the game designer states that it is the case, or more generaly that the laws of magic accepted by magicians and religious philosophers in the real world operate. Again, you refuse to allow me as game designer to choose the operating principles of my game world, and refuse to consider situations in that game world based on those principles. Why?


Simon Hibbs

Quote
So your argument is to ignore what the GM and game designer have said about the nature of the world, and assert yourselves how it has to work according to your own rules, then use that in your proof?

Eh?  The game designer said, "in this game, mythology is true".  That is the topic for discussion, I understand, true mythologies.

Quote
Are we talking baout the beliefs of a character in the game world, or your assertions about what can't be true in my game world?

The character is a vehicle for the player; character beliefs are a large part of the data that the player will be processing to solve problems, take actions etc.  Therefore, character beliefs feed back to player action.  It is the player I have to persuade, not the character - but if the characters beliefs are prima facie insane, then players have a tough job identifying with characters.

Quote
Not in mine. You have refused to debate the example of a game world in which I have determined (as game designer) the way the world works, instead asserting that it _has_ to work the way you say. Why?

I'm not sure what you are getting at; in every example to date, the actual play resolution of contradictory myths invalidated the truth of one or more of the other myths.  And furthermore, your determination as game designer is only relevant if you communicate this fact, by word or deed, to the GM so the GM knows to do what you expect them to do.

Quote
Falsely perhaps in our world (that's a seperate issue), but not necesserily falsely in a fantasy world where the game designer states that it is the case, or more generaly that the laws of magic accepted by magicians and religious philosophers in the real world operate. Again, you refuse to allow me as game designer to choose the operating principles of my game world, and refuse to consider situations in that game world based on those principles. Why?

I am not doing so at all; I am asking, begging you to do exactly this.  IF it is your intent that the law of similarity should operate as True in your game, then tell me THAT; don;t tell me that the literal truth is that the sun is ball of dung and expect me the reader to obtain psychic insight that what you really meant was "its all symbolic, but symbolism has real power in this world".

Remember the objection is that a game which contains mechanically generated contradictions has, IMO, an obligation to explain for resolution purposes how those contradictions are to be solved.  If your answer is "by changing the myth on the fly 'cos its all symbolic rather than literally true", then that is an acceptable answer - but there does have to be an answer, IMO.

And furthermore, I also think that if I tell a player "in this game, mythology is True", then they will NOT be expecting me to trim and edit the myths on the fly in actual play; this would surely be a major challenge to the social contract.

Quote from: SimonThe issue is if is possible to have multiple religions in a game world that are contradictory yet equaly true.

Allow me to resolve this, in a way, by re-introducing the notion of unfalsifiability. (It's been mentioned before on at least one of these threads by others, but apparently not picked up on.)

It's not possible for any two propositions to be true and contradictory. If they're both true they're not contradictory. If they're contradictory they cannot both be true. That's what "contradictory" means.

It's possible for two sets of propositions (such as religions) to each be partially true, that is, contain propositions some of which are true and others false. Where they contradict, at least one must be false. But this kind of mixed truth-and-falsehood doesn't appear to be what Simon means by "both equally true," because that's not what his examples show.

What the examples show is two religions both being unfalsifiable. That is, so stated that no conceivable observation (not just no practical observation, but no conceivable one) could ever disprove their assertions.

GM: Standing at the gates of dawn and quinting into the brilliant light, you can barely make out the outlines of fiery horses drawing a great glowing chariot.

Player 1: You see? I was right all along.

Player 2: Can you really be so vain as to think mortal eyes can see the divine truth? Do you doubt that a dung beetle powerful enough to push the sun would have the ability to appear to our limited senses as horses and a chariot if it wanted to?

It's quite possible and not at all unusual for many contradictory assertions to all be equally unfalsifiable. But "equally unfalsifiable" doesn't equate to "equally true" (or partially true, or false, or any other truth value).

In the real world it's the nature of the assertion itself that determines whether or not it's falsifiable. But in a game world represented by a GM, any assertion can be rendered unfalsifiable by the GM resolving to never allow falsifying evidence to be perceived. This can be done by narrating different perceptions to different characters ("You see a chariot, and you see a dung beetle"), by providing only vague information consistent with all possibilities ("You see a blinding light, and you hear a low drumming sound that could be hooves or could be the footfalls of a giant dung beetle"), or by preventing any decisive testing or using of the information in the first place. Of course, even if the GM does nothing of the kind, it's still possible and likely for the beliefs themselves to be unfalsifiable, as in the dialog above.

I should also point out that in a sufficiently magic-rich world, just about everything becomes unfalsifiable. Yes, magic allows more tests to be made (such as flying into the sky to examine the vault of the sky for hoofprints or dung beetle tracks) but it also provides alternative unfalsifiable explanations for anything that is perceived. If I go to an underground land of the dead and win my dead lover back from Hades, will that convince the believers in a celestial heaven that they're wrong? Of course not, why would they change their minds just because I encountered what could easily be explained as a high-level cleric-necromancer-illusionist living in a cave, lording over a population of noncorporial undead, and on very rare occasions, when forced to, casting a resurrection spell?

So in short, contradictory and equally true? Impossible. Contradictory and mutually unfalsifiable? Not only possible, but commonplace.

- Walt

Quote from: wfreitagI should also point out that in a sufficiently magic-rich world, just about everything becomes unfalsifiable. Yes, magic allows more tests to be made (such as flying into the sky to examine the vault of the sky for hoofprints or dung beetle tracks) but it also provides alternative unfalsifiable explanations for anything that is perceived.

This depends wildly upon your system of magic.  Some systems of magic may allow for infinite levels of illusion upon illusion -- but others have absolute beliefs.  For example, there are systems that have infallible prophecies.  

For example, my current campaign is like this.  I am using a form of spirit magic which mixes medieval Icelandic and Algonquin indian beliefs.  In it, magicians (Icelandic volva or Algonquin buowin) can directly see the process of what happens when someone dies, and what happens afterwards.  Indeed, they are often integrally involved in the process.  This is not unfalsifiable unless you stretch the meaning of the term to the point that everything is unfalsifiable (i.e. all of your life might just be a dream, etc.).  I also feel that the absoluteness of magic is an important part of the flavor of my game, and the role of the PC magician Silksif.  

In any case -- yes, you can have multiple religions in your game which are contradictory by making sure they are unfalsifiable on the right points.  Heck, this is trivially possible by just setting the game in the real world.  I don't think there is anything wrong with this.  However, I also think that this misses something compared to  games with absolutes like my present campaign (although there are certainly going to be comparable strengths, I'm sure).

Quote from: contracycle

Quote
So your argument is to ignore what the GM and game designer have said about the nature of the world, and assert yourselves how it has to work according to your own rules, then use that in your proof?

Eh?  The game designer said, "in this game, mythology is true".  That is the topic for discussion, I understand, true mythologies.

But you will only accept your own definition of true, i.e. physicaly true however you have already accepted yourself that this is not necessery when you accepted the validity of the Law of Similarity. If it is true that a myth is similar to the subject of the myth, then the law demands that the myth have magical power. The application of that power in the game world to do real magic proves it´s truth. QED.

Quote

Quote
Are we talking about the beliefs of a character in the game world, or your assertions about what can't be true in my game world?

The character is a vehicle for the player; character beliefs are a large part of the data that the player will be processing to solve problems, take actions etc.  Therefore, character beliefs feed back to player action.  It is the player I have to persuade, not the character - but if the characters beliefs are prima facie insane, then players have a tough job identifying with characters.

Who said anything about insane characters? In the real world people of different religions are capable of accepting the validity of each other´s beliefs. Therefore I don´t see what´s so crazy about positing a fantasy world in which that is also true. However asserting that more than one belief can be true, according to the cosmic laws of that universe, doesn´t mean that all beliefs must be true. If they don´t comply with our chosen cosmic laws for that universe (in this case ther Law of Similarity), then of course they´re not true.


Simon Hibbs

Quote from: simon_hibbs
But you will only accept your own definition of true, i.e. physicaly true however you have already accepted yourself that this is not necessery when you accepted the validity of the Law of Similarity.

Eh again - I set out RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING that when mythology is addressed, "true" usuallu means something other than True, and "proof" is used in a sense in which it would not be used by science.  That was my starting claim, which you have been attacking!!  I am happy to see you concede this point at last; perhaps you could now give as an explanation of what this "validity" is to be used for.

Quote
Who said anything about insane characters? In the real world people of different religions are capable of accepting the validity of each other´s beliefs.

What do you mean by "validity"?  No, they don't accept the LITERAL truths of other faiths, and nor are they usually comofortable with the conflict, hence all the violence.

Quote
Therefore I don´t see what´s so crazy about positing a fantasy world in which that is also true. However asserting that more than one belief can be true, according to the cosmic laws of that universe, doesn´t mean that all beliefs must be true. If they don´t comply with our chosen cosmic laws for that universe (in this case ther Law of Similarity), then of course they´re not true.

If there are cosmic laws, yes.  If you explain how your metaphysics works, yes.  If you have a structure of nested truth, yes.  But you cannot simply claim that NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY just becuase of the existance of conflicting mythology - which all too often carries allusions to unsubstantiated claims as to RW religion.