Gaming as initiation ritual, mysticism as accessed by gaming

[Renard d'eau]

This is a sub-thread of "Mystical Role Play : Myth Or Reality ?" in the same forum.

So, Simon mentioned the Merriam-Webster. I'll quote it, so everybody has it and we can't use these meanings for this thread:

Main Entry: mys•ti•cal
Pronunciation: 'mis-ti-k&l
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 a : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence <the mystical food of the sacrament> b : involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality <the mystical experience of the Inner Light>

I'll also want to quickly clarify two points as an answer to Jack Spencer Jr and Daredevil (btw thank both of you for your very interesting posts). I did not read everything in the Forge, but I did read quite a bit on the excellent GNS. I wouldn't dare speak of initiation without knowing the basics of the community. On the matter of "the people of today not having systems of mystical teaching", I do not mean that nobody does. I mean that some of us don't. During the Dark Ages for instance, everybody received the same catholic initiation. Today, we are offered various beliefs to choose (sometimes as adult) an initiation from. We are even able to access several initiation paradigms and create a paradigm for ourselves. Like for instance, one can say, I believe Jesus Christ existed and was the Son of God, but I also believe in a kind of Buddhist reincarnation. I'm sure most of us have met people with this kind of 'individual mystical syncretism'. And most of all, I mean that, probably since the nineteenth century, a non-negligible part of us receive no mystical teaching at all. Anyway, I'm not here to discuss religion or mysticism, but "gaming as initiation rituals and mysticism as accessed by gaming". So I apologize if I did hurt anyone's feeling in any way. Just remember I don't intend to, and am writing in English which is a foreign language to me. :)

The three questions were :
Has RPG been, can it be and should it be used as an initiation mean.

On the 'has it', it seems that some of us did and still do try to use it so. I know a few outside the Forge myself.
The 'can it' and 'should it', seem to be a matter of point of view.

I'm very interested in the 'can it' question.

On the matter of engagement, I don't think that being a mystic is disengaging from reality. I do agree with Le Joueur (and that's not because of the French name!) on the fact that mysticism is 'additional relevance to the experiential world'. In fact, I'll even go as far as saying that RPG is much more withdrawal from reality than mysticism.
It is perfectly correct that RPG carries a sense of artificiality, yet, again, you can become the friend of another player during a game campaign (I can guarantee that), because you liked what you saw of his true nature through his character imaginary self.  So you could probably discover a religion in the game and come to like it...

Has anyone been changed in his beliefs and behaviors by RPG? I think I have, as much and perhaps even more than I was changed by reading, for instance. All these paladins I played... or was it that I had a natural inclination to that kind of character? There must be at least a positive feedback: I am inclined to playing Clinton Nixon's Paladin, and if I do, it will reinforce me in the belief it's great to be an honest and brave servant of the light.

That's one of the reasons I'm interested in these questions: if we can be changed by RPG, it means that RPG writers have a moral responsibility. I understand the idea of RPG as initiation method is dangerous. Only I think it is not the substance that is the poison, it is the amount of said substance you take. They say you can die of drinking too much water! Just saying one does not to care of a moral responsibility does not mean one doesn't have it. We entertainers do have a responsibility, whether we like or not.

Having a responsibility is not necessarily a problem. Most people agree that the movie industry can change things. A movie like 'Philadelphia' for instance was probably useful in the fight against AIDS, wasn't it? Anyway, just saying it's dangerous is not a reason not to discuss it. It might be a reason not to do it.

To think in GNS terms, simulating an initiation ritual would be an interesting experience. Of course, I do not think it should be tried by anyone psychologically unsure of himself (true of RPG generally speaking). But if anyone does try such a simulation, I'm very interested in the results. It would mean to actually design rules to check the effects of the initiation. Simulation is not just recreating the acts... it is designing a model that represents reality. So it could be interactive. Rituals are scripted, but it is probably what the wannabe initiate feels that should be simulated?

In narrativist terms, we can have a good paradigm fight, check Mage: The Ascension or Nobilis. I love that kind of stuff, it could be pushed much farther probably on focusing on the narrativist aspect. The Mage rules are really tough...
I think the experience could turn in a theological 'Once Upon A Time' (http://www.atlas-games.com/ouat_index.html). Perhaps something like a RPG version of Credo (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/viewitem.php3?gameid=1304)?

In gamist terms, it's just a game, so there is probably no way it's going to be an initiation... ;)

[C. Edwards]

*Just a disclaimer that I'm not trying to insult anybody, the following is laced heavily with my personal opinion... of course.

In my opinion, organized religions and mystical practices suffer from the RPG equivalent of rules bloat.  They nest some very basic concepts in a morass of jibber-jabber and ritual.  Just like in RPGs, many people get lost in the minutiae and fail to embrace the basic concepts that are the backbone of their religious "system".  That said, I see no reason why  an RPG couldn't be used as a means of initiation.  The whole issue seems to boil down to belief.

When I was a teenager I attended church a few times with a friend.  He was Pentecostal and at various points during the service people would start speaking in tongues and running around the church as if possessed.  Now, as I understand the term, this was a mystical experience for those involved.  The only qualifier is that they actually believed that they were filled with the Holy Spirit.  It doesn't matter whether or not there is a God or if their whole religion is bogus.  The people who believed were undergoing a mystical experience.  So if you actually believe, or possibly even experience just a moment of belief, that your RPG initiation is the "real deal" then for all intents and purposes it is the real thing.  There is no difference between the dunk in the river and the simulated dunk in the river as long as the belief is there.

As for moral responsibility associated with RPG authors, well, I don't think they are or should be carrying a bigger cross than the rest of us.  You are, ultimately, responsible for yourself and your own actions.

-Chris

[clehrich]

Hi, Renard.

Before I get to the meat of the issue:
C. Edwards wrote:

In my opinion, organized religions and mystical practices suffer from the RPG equivalent of rules bloat. They nest some very basic concepts in a morass of jibber-jabber and ritual.

I think this is precisely the sort of commentary that Renard was trying to avoid.  If you don't want to discuss religion evenhandedly, in RPG terms, start another thread called "Let's all bash religion."  Have fun.  Sorry to be so blunt, but this statement is a blanket attack on a great many people's beliefs, and doesn't belong here.  <rant off>

All right, back to the thread.

Renard, you bring up the question of moral responsibility.  It's a legitimate point, but a rather subtle thing to deal with in RPGs as a medium.  Films, for example, are necessarily constrained to a single structure; that is, any one film can only have one plot (barring the odd experiment which doesn't usually work well).  So Philadelphia can't end differently with a different set of viewers.

At the same time, any film does indeed "come out" differently for different viewers, because they will interpret the "text" of the film idiosyncratically.  This means that the people who make a film have a certain moral responsibility to the public, but at the same time can legitimately claim the freedom of art.

With RPGs, an easy dismissal of this responsibility would go something like this:

1. The plot is significantly controlled by you, the player, so nobody's forcing you as a character to act a particular way or deal with moral issues a particular way.  [Cf. "You're not forced to interpret the film any particular way."]

2. The disjuncture between player and character means that you don't have to take your character's problems personally. [Cf. "It's only a movie, it's not about you."]

3. If you don't like the game, you can stop playing it.  [Cf. "If you don't like it, don't watch it."]

I think you're suggesting that this logic is facile, and you're right.  In the discussions of ritual structures and so forth in RPGs, one point that kept coming up was that RPGs could lend themselves to disturbing manipulation of people.  That being the case, the entire logic above collapses: if you can be manipulated through an RPG, then the fact that not everyone has been so manipulated has nothing whatever to do with the moral responsibility of gamers in general.  To put it differently, let's bear in mind that RPGs can be and have been used as valuable pedagogical tools, teaching students of whatever age about things like creative thinking, basic mathematics, history, social skills, and so forth; if you can teach "good things" you can teach bad ones as well.

But there is a further distinction I think should be made: game designer vs. GM (or otherwise dominant player).  Let's suppose you sat down and wrote a Catholic RPG, where the game was structured to guide players into facing moral dilemmas from within a Catholic perspective, and thus deepen their appreciation for and recognition of Catholicism.  Provided you stated this explicitly at the outset, I think it would be hard to argue that you had not behaved responsibly; you might also get support from theologians for your game as a pedagogical tool.

Now suppose you run a game, of whatever system, and decide to make it serve the same Catholic purposes.  Again, you'd need to be explicit about this with your players.  But is that sufficient?  My impression is that in gaming groups which always have the same GM, it is often the case that this person is (1) a bit older, and/or (2) fairly charismatic.  So if a strong dominance has been established, there is the danger that the GM can say, "We're now going to do this thing," and that some players will go along with it because of social pressure.  Now you have a serious moral problem.  In short, the fact that an RPG in action is a small-group social phenomenon, not a discrete work of art, entails a greater and not lesser moral responsibility on the part of its participants.

Those are pretty simple examples, but perhaps establish a discursive field.  What do the rest of you think about moral responsibility (partcularly with respect to religion) in gaming?

[Emily Care]

Fascinating threads. Thanks for initiating them, Renaud. (Renard D'eau=Water Fox, yes?)  When I began participating in ritual (neopagan mystical) I had been doing a lot of character immersive role-playing that focused on exploration of world, and experience of character emotions, so my first reaction to magical rites was: that's what I do when I'm roleplaying.   I've moderated that opinion somewhat since then, but for me there are very similar techniques involved in each.

In roleplaying, you use visualization, creative imagination and engage your interest in a way that some people call "suspension of disbelief". This mind-state can be similar to the suggestible state that is conducive to ritual.  The way I'd look at it, if I wanted to really bring role-playing and magic together, would be to use the forms of roleplaying to engage in ritual, not vice versa.  That may sound semantic, but if the group's expectation was to play a game, and someone introduced elements of ritual into it, then that could really violate some participant's understanding of the group contract.  

--Emily Care

[C. Edwards]

Hmmm, well, I thought giving a little background for my opinion would help to show where I was coming from.  I wasn't rude, I wasn't nasty, and I explicitly stated that I wasn't trying to attack anybody.  It is simply how I see the issue, what I believe.  I'm sorry, but this really smacks of "discuss all you want, as long as we agree with you."


-Chris

[M. J. Young]

Renard, I'm going to agree with you that there is a certain moral responsibility in RPG design; although I think Chris is right (despite his unnecessary and shocking off-topic swipe at organized religion) that it shouldn't be overstated.

Perhaps it could be put simply thus: our responsibility is equal to our influence.

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

My question is, Initiation to what?

For instance, "games" in the sense that you use, Renard, which is to say, leisure-time competitive activities, are often central to initiation in the sense of young people learning to be members of society. That's why "it's a game," in English, can alternately mean "not very important" and "utterly crucial" depending on the inflection.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

Renard, before we go on, let me ask if I've got this right.

You're asking whether RPGs can be used as initiations into mystical approaches to religion.

You're further asking whether RPG gamers have a moral responsibility to use their games responsibly with respect to religion in general.

Have I got that right?

[simon_hibbs]

So think RPGs. If you think purely alchemically, the game is the crucible, and your character is the lead. By effecting a transmutation of the PC, you effect a transmutation of your own soul. I very much think Campbell would support this, and probably Jung, and the advantage of looking at it their way is that you don't have to have God involved: the transmutation is psychic or psychological, rather than a process of divine intervention.

This is beautifuly argued and a joy to read. However (there had to be a 'however', didn't there?) there is some argument that the heoretical basis of mystical alchemy is flawed. While the analogy (even alegory?) of transmutation is apt, actualy trying to turn base metals into gold is focusing on material concerns rather than the mystical message and hence is in error (not to mention being more than slightly hubristic). Similary, focusing on the mystical awakening of your character perforce requires neglecting that of yourself. In the words of Mulana Rumi "I can point to the moon, but to see it yourself you must stop looking at my finger". The mystical experiences of your character might point the way, but is not the same as actualy walking the path yourself.

Nevertheless, many pro-alchemy mystics would disagree with this critique, and I accept the parallel you draw between the transformation of base matter and the transformation of the character in roleplaying is compelling.

On the matter of "the people of today not having systems of mystical teaching", I do not mean that nobody does. I mean that some of us don't. During the Dark Ages for instance, everybody received the same catholic initiation. Today, we are offered various beliefs to choose (sometimes as adult) an initiation from. We are even able to access several initiation paradigms and create a paradigm for ourselves. Like for instance, one can say, I believe Jesus Christ existed and was the Son of God, but I also believe in a kind of Buddhist reincarnation.

So first you say many of us don't have a system for mystical teaching, then go on to say how many varied systems of mystical teching we have available to us. I'm afraid I realy don't see much difference between the present day and most periods in history in this regard. There have always been many different mystical and religious traditions in europe, hence the Inquisition, witch trials, the crusade against the Cathars (who borrowed from the Bogomils, who borrowed from the Manicheans, etc), Templar deviant practices, etc, etc. The fact is that the harder the medieval church tightened it's grip, the more rebbel ideologies slipped through their fingers (to coin a phrase ;). Mixing and matching religious concepts to create new custom ideologies is hardly new. Christianity itself arrose from just such a melting pot of philosophies and religions in the Middle East 2000 years ago, possibly melding the graeco-roman concept of incarnate divinity with Judeism and possibly some Stoic philosophy.


Simon Hibbs

[Renard d'eau]

Hello all,

To answer you, Simon, I don't know! I wasn't there during Dark Ages so I can't really compare to what I see today. And what's more, even today's reality I know very partially. What I meant is I think it is very different to be baptized, as a child, to the religion 90% of the local population follows, and to be confronted, as an adult, to various religions and belief systems, including the materialist system which denies the existence of anything else than matter. Anyway, again I did not mean to discuss religion but gaming. Let's not make this a controversy on the origins of Christianity. If you want to discuss that, send me a pm please. I'm interested :)


Hum, hum, initiation to what? That's a tough one :)
Honestly, I don't pretend to be able to answer that, as clehrich said this thread is just a thought experiment. To try exploring it a bit:

I guess my answer would be, "to whatever you want to initiate people to". So it depends on the game. It's the game's author choice first, game master second and finally, it is the game players' choice. It is an agreement of the author who weaves mystical themes in his game, the game master who puts the focus on said themes, and the players who choose to explore it.

To answer clehrich, yes, I would have said perhaps "Can RPG be used as initiations into approaches to mystical paradigms". Just to make it more general, since religion would imply a mystical paradigm that a lot of people share. Without a only a few adepts, it's a sect. With only me as adept, it's my paradigm :) (the part on the moral responsibility is a side aspect of the question imho. I fully agree with M.J. Young's answer higher).

To come back to the what:

In White Wolf's Mage, to use Daredevil's example, I think it is the players' choice.
(For those who don't know Mage: your character is defined by characteristics, abilities, spheres, tradition and a few other things. Spheres are what define the magic you wield in terms of level of power and domains of application; tradition is the occult group that taught you).
By choosing a tradition for your character, you choose the truth you want to self-initiate to. If I choose a Euthanatos, for instance, I'm given the opportunity to meditate on the fact that death is necessary, part of the great cycle, and so on. Of course, you don't have to take a mystical approach to play the game; you can just have fun playing it like a super-hero game. But it's an option to explore the mystical aspects of the game. I think this option is supported by the game design: the characters sphere level is limited by the score called "arête" which means virtue, understanding of the world... Of course, in the game rules, it is merely a matter of XPs to reach a higher arête. But as the game master and players, you can change that to being able to explain your characters point of view on life.
This site http://hem.bredband.net/arenamontanus/Mage/arete_philosofi.html is one of the many examples of exploration of the concepts of Mage. I find the part on "arête in the game" interesting: it works for every tradition in the game, and it bears a philosophy with it. In this view, enlightened mages leave their tradition and retreat into the spiritual world. What does it mean? Well, I guess that's what we would explore if we played with the website's author.
Another example of work in that direction can be found here http://www.nightcraft.com/reference/mage/paradigm3.php .

In Clinton's Paladin you play a servant of light. I think one can use that to explore different ways of initiation. You could play a Christian-like paladin and explore the Knight Templar's values. The Star Wars game can explore the mysteries of the Force. Basically, I have always considered the Force is really, in RW terms, the Tao. Only saying it is the Force makes it more consensual. Plus you get to have the very glamorous light-saber! So here, it is more the author's choice, and the game master's in Paladin. In Paladin, you can create your own dogma very easily by formulating the laws of the order.

In some games, it is the author's choice almost only. Almost, because the game master and players always have the opportunity to modify the game or to play it in another way that the one intended. But if you play Shaan (or Kult perhaps, but I've never played it) there is a secret reality in the game, a message that the author intends the gm and players to understand.


I think we always use existing paradigms to create our virtual religions, mysticisms and so on. Like the Force is the Tao, the Euthanatos way is twisted Buddhism, D&D's paladin is the Knight Templar. There's also RuneQuest, heavy with various mythoi: Celtic for the sartarite, Roman for the lunars, Resurrected Sun God for the Yelmi, etc.

So when we initiate to this virtual religions or magic, we are at least partly connecting to RW ones, aren't we?


Daredevil, I was very interested by your post on Mage, where you said you had the feeling the only thing you could get out of it was pale "fortune cookie philosophy". I know that you said you were wondering about that, but can you try to describe it a bit more? Is it because of the game itself? Or because the players aren't true mystics? Or something else? I'd also like to read about the Star Wars and Karma, L5R unity of mankind you mentioned. Does the fact of playing in the games change the players? But maybe all this is more actual play than RPG theory.

Still on the difference with the real thing, Mike Holmes, you've got a point when you say that RPG mysticism lacks the physically and the social recognition (also mentioned by JB Bell). I also agree with the fact that the driving license lacks the mythic dimension. We should do it differently :) , btw, like saying to the driver apprentice: "thou art now to drive, as your father, and his father before him, and recreate on earth the spiritual journey of our fathers, the First Drivers, who now drive in the Great Highway in The Sky". (just kidding). Seriously, the RPG lacks the physically and social recognition, yet it has the emotional, psychological and sometimes symbolic dimensions of initiation. So perhaps, rather of initiation, one should speak of awakening? Also on that subject, isn't it because RPG lacks the physicality that it lacks the social recognition? I've seen a show of the Shaolin monks recently. Most people come to agree they have wisdom because they're able to do extraordinary physical feats.


Emily, your French is correct ;)

[Matt Gwinn]

Ok, I may be a bit confused about what we're really talking about here, but I'm going to bite the bullet and give my two cents whether I'm on the right path or not.

When I fist started playing D&D back in the 80's I heard and read a lot about how it was satanic.  I was once informed that summoning a demon in an RPG was equivalent to doing it in real life with the same consequences and even a chance of an actual demonic entity manifesting in the real world.  The common fear at the time was that D&D would drive otherwise innocent teens to satanism.  I think this theory has pretty much fallen to the wayside, though there was at least one fundamentalist in Milwaukee trying to save our souls at GENCON.

I enjoy playing religious characters in RPGs, despite the fact that I am atheist and I honestly don't think it has effected my belief structure.  In nearly two decades I have never considered joining a religion because of a roleplaying game.  I think what your asking is whether or not a roleplaying game can be used as a tool to intiate someone into a particular faith or belief structure and I think, under the right circumstances, the answer is yes.  However, a RPG in and of itself can not.  Any social activity when properly influenced by its participants can invoke a desired response over time.  If it's the intent of the GM to convert his players to a particular faith through roleplaying I think it is possible to do so.  Though I think it has more to do with the tenasity of the GM and the will of the player than the game itself.

So, the question remains, can a game like Paladin initiate someone into the Christian faith?  Or can a game like Kayfabe drive someone to want to be a wrestler?  Hard to say.

What I'm more interested in knowing is whether or not anyone on the Forge has experienced a change in their own belief structure as a result of an RPG experience?  

,Matt G.

[simon_hibbs]

If it's the intent of the GM to convert his players to a particular faith through roleplaying I think it is possible to do so.  Though I think it has more to do with the tenasity of the GM and the will of the player than the game itself.

So, the question remains, can a game like Paladin initiate someone into the Christian faith?  Or can a game like Kayfabe drive someone to want to be a wrestler?  Hard to say.

The roleplaying game might be used as a proselytising vehicle, or as a learning tool, but while you might convince someone to join a religion in this way, to actualy do so they have to stop roleplaying. There is a lot of conflation going on here with regard to learning about something and doing that thing. they are different. I might learn to respect Roman Catholicism through playing a RC character's road to redemption in a game on wednesday nights, while also gaining a profound insight into north american shamanism in another game I play on friday nights. Neither of these games makes me a Roman Catholic or a Shaman, I have to come to that decission myself outside the games.

My comment about the Driving Test was just a throwaway line. Not all initiations are mystical, some of them are social rituals with no religious content or meaning. Initiation into adulthood does not have to have a religious context, in fact mysticism doesn't necesserily have to have a religious context either and vice versa, some religious practices are explicily non-mystical (sacrificial worship, for example).


Simon Hibbs

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Simon,

That was exceptionally well stated and reflects my general concerns about this thread.

Three things:

1. Initiation into role-playing as a social, subcultural activity.

2. Initiation into a mystical/Vitalist mind-set and associated subculture, itself concerning reality, not role-playing.

3. Initiation into adult or subadult status, generally socially speaking, not just subculturally.

These are vastly different phenomena. It's all very well for cultural anthropology to enthuse about how #2 and #3 might be perceived as one thing in a given culture (usually a non-diverse, small, isolated one), but they are different things, and I can't imagine continuing this conversation until I know which one we're talking about.

Best,
Ron

[Renard d'eau]

hey, why not make those into sub-threads? LOL

ok thread's over for me, bye and thank you very much all of you :) keep up the good work!