The Mechanic of "Religion" in Role-Playing Games

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings All,

So I was reading threads.  Something about the quote below struck me like a two-by-four upside the head on a bright day when a cold wind blows down your shirt raising goose pimples up and down your too sensitive to the cold front moving in downgrade in temperature.

The Problem of Religion

So, I was re-reading the current thread on http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4419">"Christian gaming," when I slowly realized that there are very few, if any, roleplaying games that really treat religion in a way that is both mature and respectful.

Think about it.  How do you normally see religion depicted in roleplaying

To begin with I should probably say that I never really thought that there was a "problem", per se, and yet it is true that the "religion" portion of most of my "home brew" games has probably been lacking.  Create a "cult" for use in a game?  No problem.

Ah, but the mechanics, the rules of play, that's the sticky wicket.  As the British say.

Course the main "problem" here, I think, is the belief that role-playing games are supposed to "treat religion in a way" that is anything other than a *game* scenario.  Viz. in a Fantasy game you have a Cleric, who uses "magic" with the "deity" whose tenents they must obey being the justification for the "how and why" that they are able to cast spells.

Actually that pretty much sums up Priests and Clerics.  They are merely magic users who must obey strict rules.  That is what alignment was really for.  It had no real bearing on other characters, except for Holy Warrior-Paladins and games based on a Moorcockian universe.

I really don't see what the fuss is about.  Unless we are talking about the treatment of real world religions within the context of a role-playing game.  In which case I would say they shouldn't, be treated in any *game* context, period.  To do so can only be seen as a trivialization of modern belief systems.  Whether the author intends it or not, someone, somewhere, will make a loud noise to this effect.

Also it effectively removes the *game* aspect from role-playing.  Rather what you have is either a encyclopdeia in disguise or a proselytizing tool, viz. Dragonraid (Dragonraid.net I think, for those interested) and so-called "games" of its ilk.

Yet, reading some of the posts in the assorted threads on this touchy topic, I wonder.  Why is the question really being asked?

I've never heard religion brought up in relation to playing Monopoly, Life, Parchesii, Snakes and Ladders (and that IS a religious game), Dominoes, Go, Chess, Checkers, Backgammon, and etcetera.

True, few of these boardgames portray religions.  But we don't ask why religion isn't represented in, say, Monopoly.  I mean, Monopoly!  If *any* game could portray the intricacies of a religion...  But then that's the point, isn't it.  Games aren't meant or intended to portray the intricacies of a religion.

Not even Snakes and Ladders attempts that, and the end goal is to reach the final square and Nirvana.  More or less.

Yet, as to how I've seen religion portray in role-playing, I'd have to say I've seen it portrayed in intricate depth and as a superficial ends to a character's "ability" to cast spells.  Then again I've also seen games writtin in obvious "styles" that identify the author as... well... you've seen them yourlseves I am sure.

The books with actual alchemical ingredients, listed in drahms, and recipes for mixtures... these, IMO, should be of far more concern than how someone portrays religion in a game.  To the uninitiated such texts can become such recipes for danger, pure and simple.  But that is neither here nor there.

So how do I think religion should be portrayed?

In a justified manner to the game background.  The rules should be concise and straightforward.  In a fantasy setting the deities should be well defined, their "spheres of influence" or what have you clearly defined.  As is their "alignment" and "powers" gifted to their adherents.
If you must take that approach.... Ah, but then in order to really know how to answer the probing questions being asked, I think, we need to ask ourselves what  the "approach" and "intent" of having religion represented within the context of a RPG (world setting) is.

Don't you?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Eric J.]

I think that since you made a split from a thread; you should probably have declared why, but I won't continue and be declared a hypocrite.  Anyway-

I agree on most of your points, except on how RPGs aren't special in terms of how they are used to portrey religions.  And I don't think that people have brought up how hisorical RPGs actually treat religion correctly, or modern day RPGs for that matter.  Or if they don't, they could.  The truth is that either:

A): The GM doesn't want to tought the topic with a... 39 and 1/2 foot pole.

B): The GM doesn't feel like simulating a particular religion due to setting ect.

Any one can portrey then correctly, but it isn't really the designer's responsability.  Besides, most people don't even know how religion has been treated historically.  If you won't admit that all religion (which I don't neccicarilly do)  you must admit that it did in ancient times.  It was once said that the only difference between a cult and a church was the political power the organization held.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Pyron,

Hope all is snug and cozy in your part of the world.  If not, and the snow is piling up, then I have just one thing to say...

Why aren't you out building armies of snowmen!??  *smirk*

I think that since you made a split from a thread; you should probably have declared why...

Mainly because I was reading threads at random, that post struck me, and I didn't want to "hi-jack" or "inpose" what might be considered a rant on the thread in question.

Apologies for not stating that up front.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

I agree on most of your points, except on how RPGs aren't special in terms of how they are used to portray religions.  And I don't think that people have brought up how historical RPGs actually treat religion correctly, or modern day RPGs for that matter.  Or if they don't, they could.  The truth is that either:

A): The GM doesn't want to touch the topic with a... 39 and 1/2 foot pole.

B): The GM doesn't feel like simulating a particular religion due to setting ect.

I'd also add it's usually easier to just play Mages, or treat Clerics as mages with an extra "package" of "must follow this duty/rules" in order to be able to cast spells.

Since that is really how most games portray the Priest class, as just another 'spell user', having extra rules for them never really made much sense to me.  At least not as the class was usually presented.

Then again I could say the same of Elementalists or Witches.  Aside from giving them the name, in most systems they were just 'spell users', albeit specialicists.  Though no system I had really did more than create seperate spell lists fromt he same core spells.

To me a "Elementalist" Fireball spell would not and should not be the same as a "Wizard" Fireball spell.  Of course this would mean having to create seperate spell stats for every spell.

From a design standpoint that would be a nightmare.

I mean can you imagine having to actually come up with individual stats for the same spell, but as applies to every slightly different spell caster?

*shudders at the thought*

Any one can portrey then correctly, but it isn't really the designer's responsability.  Besides, most people don't even know how religion has been treated historically.  If you won't admit that all religion (which I don't neccicarilly do)  you must admit that it did in ancient times.  It was once said that the only difference between a cult and a church was the political power the organization held.

Don't I know it.  Once, in the long long ago of my squandered youth, when I was GM, I asked a player during the pre-game character creation: "Is your cleric from a cloistered order or..." and got this glazed looked and a answer that was basically "she's just a cleric".

That's a fine example of a GM doing too much background work (I had established a in-game signifigance between belonging to a cloistered vs. non-cloistered order) and the average player just wanting to play the game and not care about minutia, like details.  *shrug*

Of course I also had a player who knew all about the differences.  They even tried to explain things, bless them.  Alas, as I recall, the discussion got sidetrekked by that bane of RPGs everywhere.  Player Knowledge.

To sum up the conversation got turned around to the Mage's Guild, it's magical gate, the demon that inhabited it and... well you know how it goes.  One sidetrek leads to another, which led to the player in question wanting to create a Wizard instead and blah blah, bleh.  *laughing*

Of course if not for the role-playing game I bet most of us here probably never would have learned words like cloistered, eh?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[wyrdlyng]

To me a "Elementalist" Fireball spell would not and should not be the same as a "Wizard" Fireball spell. Of course this would mean having to create seperate spell stats for every spell.

But would you really need to do that? Wouldn't the difference be solely in description and visualization? Wouldn't the end result (things burn and take damage) be the same?

Perhaps all that would be needed is different descriptives for the different spell-casting types.

As to Cleric/Priests I still think that it relies heavily upon Player Commitment and level of Simulation you're going for.

One thing that I did like about 3rd Ed D&D is the domains for Dieties. This allowed us to more easily make splinter sects of the same "religion" by changing primary domains. For example, my priest followed the Vengeful Judge aspect of St. Cuthbert as opposed to most other priests who followed the Good Protector aspect. This also led to my priest being constantly at odds with the mainstream church of St. Cuthbert, and other dieties, as he kept converting people to his sect and establishing small shrines wherever he went. :)

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings wyrdlyng,

To me a "Elementalist" Fireball spell would not and should not be the same as a "Wizard" Fireball spell. Of course this would mean having to create seperate spell stats for every spell.

But would you really need to do that? Wouldn't the difference be solely in description and visualization? Wouldn't the end result (things burn and take damage) be the same?

Yes, and no.

Obviously the basic spell description would be different, if only because the effects are achieved through different means.  However, just because a Fireball is a Fireball doesn't mean it *has* to do identical damage.

As I recall, the system I started to work on, had damage scales which were linked to various things.  For instance a Wizard would get a *flat* damage rating whereas a Elementalist, being about to directly call upon and manipulate the elements, woudl hvae a *dynamic* damage rating.

Of course there is a obvious reason why we don't see such systems.  It is easier to do generic spell systems of the type found in D&D games, though I think some noble efforts were made here and there over the years in trying to create dynamic spell systms.  Alas their very complexity seemed to be a turn off for most gamers.

Perhaps all that would be needed is different descriptives for the different spell-casting types.

As to Cleric/Priests I still think that it relies heavily upon Player Commitment and level of Simulation you're going for.

True.

Basically, as I ran the priestly classes, the character creation process included the player choosing a Deity.  The Deity came as a "packaged unit" which gave the character their Alignment, world view, a set of "advantages and disadvantages" in addition to groups which they were not to associate with et al.

That is really how the Cleric/Priest should be set up, with a list of Deities that the player chooses for their character which thus imparts a basic template to overlay upon the character.

When was the last time you saw a system like that?

One thing that I did like about 3rd Ed D&D is the domains for Dieties. This allowed us to more easily make splinter sects of the same "religion" by changing primary domains. For example, my priest followed the Vengeful Judge aspect of St. Cuthbert as opposed to most other priests who followed the Good Protector aspect. This also led to my priest being constantly at odds with the mainstream church of St. Cuthbert, and other dieties, as he kept converting people to his sect and establishing small shrines wherever he went. :)

That sort of thing would be integrated into the "package" template I outlined above.  Splinter sects, however, I must admit I did not really put into the character creation process.  Can't say they didn't exist, as I had players who insisted on wanting to play certain character types (Holy Cavalier comes to mind) which technically didn't exist in my world milieu.

Course I also allowed for the "ok, if you have a basic idea write it up and now try to *create* the class within the game" sort of thing.  Alas not everyone grasps that subtlety of role-play.  Most just want to take a class out of a book and play it as is.

What's been your experience?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[simon_hibbs]

Course the main "problem" here, I think, is the belief that role-playing games are supposed to "treat religion in a way" that is anything other than a *game* scenario.  Viz. in a Fantasy game you have a Cleric, who uses "magic" with the "deity" whose tenents they must obey being the justification for the "how and why" that they are able to cast spells.

Actually that pretty much sums up Priests and Clerics.  They are merely magic users who must obey strict rules.  That is what alignment was really for.  It had no real bearing on other characters, except for Holy Warrior-Paladins and games based on a Moorcockian universe.

Given the very close relationship, to the point of common orrigin, between religious beliefs and magical theory in the real world I think you have this back to front. Magicians are merely lay people using theological lore outside the context of a religious institution.

Regarding you point on religion in Monopoly. If you play roleplaying games from a purely gamist stance, treating your characters as simple playing pieces with no characterised personality beyond your own, then that's a perfectly fair point. What you're missing is that many of us at least occasionaly explore the personality and motivations of our
characters.

A gamist approach to playing a game based on Lord of the Rings might
be to have Gandalf take the ring to mount doom on the back of
Throdor (the giant eagle) and risk failing the saving thows to avoid
temptation by the ring along the way. A roleplaying approach taking into
account the character's personality almost certainly wouldn't choose
this approach, as it's contrary to the kindly old wizard's ethical
beliefs. If the ethical choices of our characters have a place in gaming,
then so do the religious convictions of our characters, just as much as
their political ideals might.


Simon Hibbs

[John Wick]

I've always treated religion respectfully in all my writing. In my head, it is the core to designing a fantastic culture. What holds a culture together? What the people believe.

In L5R, I tried presenting a fantastic version of Buddhism and Taoism, one that was accessable to a Western reader and familiar enough to someone familiar with the ideas to say, "Oh. It's a simple (but respectful) version of 'blah.'"

In 7th Sea, it was all about presenting a gnostic alternative to the Catholic church. Yes, the church was corrupt, but the faith was pure.

Orkworld was my most whole-hearted attempt to present not just a religion, but a philosophy of life, as dictated by a primitive, migratory people.

And, to cap it all off, I still don't see any reason for "clerics" and "wizards." Every magic system in the history of man has been based on faith in a supernatural power (there has never been an "athiest magic system"). In my mind, wizards and clerics are one and the same.

[Mike Holmes]

there has never been an "athiest magic system"

Interesting. I'd say that's because magic does not demonstrably exist. If it did, you can bet that there would be a scientific/atheist description of it.

But then some people would say that this would not be magic. Still, it would be something, so that would be belaboring the point. Which is to say that John has just tautologically explained why in real life magic is religious. But not why it must be in games.

Mike

[John Wick]

there has never been an "athiest magic system"

Interesting. I'd say that's because magic does not demonstrably exist. If it did, you can bet that there would be a scientific/atheist description of it.

But then some people would say that this would not be magic. Still, it would be something, so that would be belaboring the point. Which is to say that John has just tautologically explained why in real life magic is religious. But not why it must be in games.

Mike

In 7th Sea, we had a "Faith" Advantage that cost 5 Points. Problem was, the players' description was "You don't know what this does. It could do nothing at all."

In the GM Guide, we had 5 different Faith mechanics, all of which took place behind the GM screen, so the player never knew when his "Faith" was working. Oh, and one of the 5 mechanics was: "Faith does nothing at all."

That's the closest thing, I think, I've ever come as a game designer to properly "representing" religion in an RPG. And to think, I had to fight tooth and nail to get it in there.

[John Wick]

there has never been an "athiest magic system"

Interesting. I'd say that's because magic does not demonstrably exist.Mike

I'd say that's because you've never seen it. ;)

[Blake Hutchins]

Hi Mike,

My dilettante's understanding of Hermetic philosophy suggests that even this tradition, commonly depicted in RPGs as bringing a "scientific" take to magic, has a rich spiritual component with its own theological dimension and cosmology.  Where it diverts from "religion" is in its humanocentric focus, e.g., the potential of the magus to learn and master the mysteries as part of his/her own spiritual evolution to a higher state of being.  I think the key distinction between magic and science is that magic - all magic in folklore - consists of a personal, subjectively managed, frequently capricious force arising from gods, angels, demons, spirits, and human knowledge thereof.  Even alchemy, about the nearest thing I can think of regarding a scientific approach to magic, has a great number of these elements, and medieval alchemy has at least as much to do with the purification of the soul of the practicioner as with the application of the lore itself.

If magic were discovered to be an impersonal force observable through experiment to achieve repeatable quantified results regardless of the practicioner, then yeah, you could make a case for atheist magic.

In turning to the core question of this thread, I've always found religion in RPGs to fall into one of two categories: (1) gods exist objectively as powerful spiritual patrons who embody broad archetypes and use their followers as pawns in a cosmic conflict (DnD, Hero Wars, Stormbringer, arguably Fading Suns, Ars Magica, and almost every other fantasy game out there), or (2) the gods are silent and belief is a matter of faith (I dunno, maybe Prince Valiant).  In the latter case, so-called clerical magic is either no more than "regular" magic as practiced by priests, or it is miraculous coincidence correlated with prayer by one of the faithful.  Either way, there are no "objective" manifestations of deity beyond textual claims such as "our sacred book says X pulled off this miracle 1,000 years ago."

In the majority of games, godly interaction ranges from Gods as cosmic politicians (DnD) without IMO much Mystery, to Stormbringer's Cosmic Fuckers in an Eternal Knife Fight, Ars Magica's "God is Out There," and the complex and layered mythologies of Hero Wars.

The DnD depiction of clerics does strike me as pretty secular, lacking much of anything in the way of Mystery.

Best,

Blake

[John Wick]

In our Thursday Ravenloft game, one of the characters is a "humanist cleric." His holy symbol is an abacus (or something like that) and he turns undead because "they have no place in the rational world of men!"

He's the coolest thing ever.

[Uncle Dark]

John,

Much Chaos Magick and certain forms of Magickal Qabalah and Ceremonial Magic are athiest.  They generally posit either:

Magick is a non-sentient force, and the "spirits" and "gods" are a psychological prop magicians use to manipulate that force.

or:

Magick is a discipline by which unconscious talents and aspects of personality are brought out in the magician, in ways that can be used consciously.

Your friendly, neighborhood occultist,
Lon

[John Wick]

John,
Magick is a non-sentient force, and the "spirits" and "gods" are a psychological prop magicians use to manipulate that force.

You are still making an appeal to a supernatural force seperate from mankind. Call it what you want, it's bigger than you and you have to appease it in some way to draw its energy. That's prayer. And how can you "tap in" to a force that isn't sentient and can't hear you or doesn't even know that you exist? Ur. Post-modern magic doesn't make any sense to me. (Although, honestly, that's probably because I've never read a coherant explanation of why it works.)

Magick is a discipline by which unconscious talents and aspects of personality are brought out in the magician, in ways that can be used consciously.

Do you mean, "summoning the will?" Using willpower in a specialized way that most folks can't tap into?

If you do, that isn't magic(k). It's exercising the human will.

Boy, looking back at this post, it sure sounds confrontational. It's not intended to be. After all, I'm the guy who insists on spelling "ork" with a "k." :)