The Mechanic of "Religion" in Role-Playing Games

[Mike Holmes]

We have a resident Theologist?

I refer to MJ Young. IIRC, he has at least one and maybe more degrees in the subject.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

I refer to MJ Young. IIRC, he has at least one and maybe more degrees in the subject.

Yes indeed, two degrees and experience teaching at the undergraduate level, before pursuing my juris doctore. Not an expert, by any means, but with a certain amount of gnosis in the field.

It actually depends largely upon how you look at the developmental stages of religion (organized) verses religion (primitive practice). Once you get into the realm of institutions there are rules laid down for how things are done. Of course most of us, and perhaps even the clergy, have no idea why things are how they are.

Clerics are really the epitomy of the medeival (read post Roman Catholic Church) archetype of what a medieval Priest should be. Pious, subservient to their deity, et al. The Wizard is a throwback, someone with the *esoteric* knowledge of the "before time". They know... things and stuff. Whereas the Priest doesn't need to know anything, save how to call upon the aide of their Deity (or a representative thereof). At least as presented in many a old FRPG, yes?

In my efforts to defend the use of magic in RPG's to the more conservative branches of the Christian community, I've concluded that this idea of "magicians" predating "priests" doesn't have support.

The most liberal critics of the Old Testament would place the bulk of its authorship in the early Persian empire; the bases for that dating have been crumbling as archaeology confirms more and more of older and older stories, such that there is genuine credibility for dates a thousand years earlier for those sections claiming such origins.

Within the earliest of those texts, as most of you are aware, there are prohibitions against the use of magic; these are the texts cited by those rather narrow objectors to the games, that they contain or portray "magic" and therefore must be evil. But if you analyze the texts (several have done it besides me) you find no evidence for the sort of gnostic magic suggested in this thread and in many games. What you find is that the magic exists on both sides. Priests and prophets are commanded and empowered to perform the same kinds of things that are forbidden as magical practices. The magical practices aren't forbidden based on what they do, but based on the fact that they are calling on spirits other than The Lord, and Israel is not to have any contact with such spirits.

If you look at the story of the Exodus, when Moses led Israel out of Egypt, it pits Moses against the "magicians" of Egypt. But if you examine the miracles Moses works in detail, you perceive within them that each impinges on the area of power of one of the major Egyptian gods. The magicians of Egypt were those who exercised the power granted by their gods; the entire point of the plagues and signs was to state that The Lord was able to defeat the gods of Egypt in their own spheres of influence. (Note: whether you believe the miracles as miracles, or believe as many do in some complex chain of scientifically verifiable events, or think the entire thing a fictional myth, the literary significance remains the same. The point of the story is still that The Lord defeated the power of the gods of Egypt, and the story only makes sense if the power of the magicians is equated with the power of their gods.)

Magic was generally viewed as religious expression long before there were Catholics to object to it. Oh, and most clergy understand the reasons for most things done in their churches.

I wonder why religion isn't a issue in Super Hero games. Most, if not all, create the exact sort of preternatural affects which Wizards and Clerics are able to perform, within a game environment. Yet, somehow, such games remain all but divorced for the sorts of debates which rage about Wizards and Clerics in relation to religion.

Why is that?

(No atheist magic indeed! *wink*)

Games like Gamma World also managed to all but skirt this issue by making their Mutants seem more like superheros in a post-holocaust setting. Again, funny how using the word superhero seems to diffuse these questions before they really get sparked.

There are several answers to this. Perhaps not all are obvious.
[list=1][*]There are those who object to Superman, the X-Men, and other superheroes precisely because they see these powers as thinly-veiled magic. They don't get so much press, as these things are culturally accepted and no one listens to them. However, just this past week I received a letter warning me against psionic abilities as just another form of magic (I disagree, and see no reason why fiction can't imagine an increase in our mental powers without it having to assume some sort of spiritual connection--my article http://www.geocities.com/christian_gamers_guild/chaplain/faga016.html">Faith and Gaming: Mind Powers argues that such increases in mental ability can be documented historically).
[*]The very point of magic is about the source of the power. No one complains about the "technological magic" of Star Trek or Buck Rogers precisely because it is tacitly assumed that there is a natural explanation for it. The objection is not that a person would dematerialize in one place and materialize in another, but that he would use supernatural power to do so. It's not that he would be able to know something bad is about to happen, but that some spiritual being has told him this. It's not that he can throw fire, but that the explanation invokes something essentially religious.
[*]That, ultimately, is the objection to magic: whatever explanation you use for it ultimately proves to be a religious explanation. Even if you say that magic is just a natural force within the universe, the objection is raised that this suggests there is no supernatural world and thus no God. If you use pantheistic or polytheistic or dualistic explanations, again you are challenging religious ideas with contrary religious ideas. But if you merely say, it's not magic, it's not supposed to be magic or to be like magic, but it's supposed to be a natural non-magical thing which the characters all understand because it's part of their reality even though it's beyond anything we know, suddenly there is no religious implication because it is not about supernatural powers.
[/list:o]
One of the challenges of the Harry Potter books is its seemingly non-religious magic. Christians can't agree whether it's really witchcraft; Wiccans can't agree whether it's really witchcraft.

It seems to me that religion plays three roles in a game:

1) a source of supernatural power
2) a way to link a character to a society, via contacts, special skills, advantages/disadvantages and so on
3) to give context and motivation to a character's actions

I agree with this completely. I also agree that the third is oft overlooked. Multiverser suggests that referees should bonus or penalize the use of holy magic in relation to the character's adherence to his faith, whether through conduct or goals or something else; but I wish we could have done more. Personally, my characters are often motivated by their religious beliefs in some sense. But perhaps the question is whether there is a practical way to motivate generally irreligious gamers to take the beliefs of their characters seriously. The majority of "practicing" anythings in this age don't take their beliefs terribly seriously, and it's difficult for them to grasp the idea that the content of faith matters, often terribly, to characters of the sort they are pretending to be.

First, magick is not seen as supernatural by its practitioners. Magick is the natural ability of the mind (the Will) to affect the world at large.
Second, no studied practitioners will claim magick is a "force" or a "thing" or an "energy" as magick is a non-entity. Magick is a verb like run, swim, think, pee.

Raven makes several excellent points, including the religious influences of the texts and that magicians and priests were once the same thing. But the quoted statement strikes me as a religious belief itself. That is, what it tells me is that those he knows who practice magic believe it works in these ways. I don't think that the magicians of Egypt thought they were using their will to change reality--they thought they were calling on their gods to do so. Now, they would not have used words like "force" or "thing" or "energy" to describe it; they would just say that the god did it, and leave it at that.

So, magick itself is not a religious act...that is, one of faith, because it is not perceived or performed as such (ie: you don't know what you're going to get).

I completely disagree with this definition of faith. Faith is what causes me to put my feet on the floor of my bedroom without first turning on the light to be sure it's still there. Faith is seen when I flip the wall switch without wondering whether the light will come on--despite the fact that I fully understand how electricity works. Faith is how I know that an atom can be split releasing a nearly inconceivable amount of energy. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Faith is that facility we have that enables us to believe what we don't know, not in some "maybe or maybe not" sense, but in the sense of not having the experience already. I don't know that the floor is there; I believe it is there, because it's always been there before. I don't know that the light will come on--indeed, sometimes it doesn't, and I have to replace a bulb or reset a breaker (in which case, my faith was ill-placed--I still had faith, but was proved wrong)--but I believe it will come on because it usually does. Similarly but different, I don't know that atomic bombs work by splitting atoms; I don't know that they work at all--I have never seen one, never built one and detonated it. I believe that they work because I trust the information given me by people who I think would know and would not intentionally deceive me. In the same sense, I believe that God is there, because I have sufficient evidence to convince me (whether or not it is sufficient to convince anyone else). If Reverend Daegmorgan believes that he will be able to walk before he walks, that is faith; and if he believes that his ritual will bring about specific results before they happen, that is also faith. It is only religious faith if it also involves a belief about the supernatural, even if (a la Mike's comment on atheist faith) that belief is that the supernatural is irrelevant or non-existent and that the power ultimately comes from within himself.

Magic is essentially a religious issue, even if you state that there is no magic.

--M. J. Young

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings M. J. Young,

Quite a bit of thought provoking posts here.

Magic was generally viewed as religious expression long before there were Catholics to object to it. Oh, and most clergy understand the reasons for most things done in their churches.

Sadly *most* usually means they might have a explanatuion for many of the more recent instituted traditions, but few answers for what many would consider the *deeper* questions about the religious organisation.  I don't mean questions about faith, life, the universe, and all the other sundries which organized religions work so hard to establish stock answers for.

In real life these are the sorts of answers found in pamphlets and the like (think *sunday school syllabus* type thing) about common subjects.  Which, oddly enough, is often far more information that most game designers thing to include in their section on religion.

That's even including many tomes of short story compilations masquerading as game resource material.  (Popular as that may be for some.)  Odd.  But is it anymore odd in trying to figure out what it is that isn't asked, which probably should be, about a religion?

It's a difficult question to tackle since most of us can only come at it from our own religious experiance.  Yet many of us, if asked to examine a religion other than our own, might think ourselves far more capable of answering such a question.  Which, IMO, is perhaps why so may gamers are disaffected with the portray of Priest and Cleric characters in most role-playing games.  They can't relate to them based upon their own experiances, at least that seems to be the arguement most often stated.

Yet I have to wonder if the point of the game mechanic hasn't somehow been lost in all this?

Why is a religion the way that it is?

Why do they build their temples in a certain way?

Why... why... why...  There are a lot of questions which we could ask of our real world religions.   Of course the big question is why would we want to, right?

Simple.  Because where else can you find living resource material than in your parish priest, temple rabbi, or coven priestess?

And why don't more game designer's approach such persons while researching their game religion?  (Have you?)

For example, there is an edge to the world, beyond which lies the shores of the afterlife, you only have to sail westward long enough. There is no eastern edge of the world, it is a desert that goes on forever, over which the sun rises each morning (no, it can't be logically explained, and that's the point).   The sea is literally a vicious goddess, the shadow of a once-slain god.   The stars are servants and children of the sun, which can be called down to the world to serve wise magicians.

In terms of game mechanics the above would be great for inclusion in a resource book.  But how does this impact play beyond being a interesting creation myth for the players to read?

How many reading this would like to see more background detail like this in their games?  Less?

Within the earliest of those texts, as most of you are aware, there are prohibitions against the use of magic; these are the texts cited by those rather narrow objectors to the games, that they contain or portray "magic" and therefore must be evil. But if you analyze the texts (several have done it besides me) you find no evidence for the sort of gnostic magic suggested in this thread and in many games. What you find is that the magic exists on both sides. Priests and prophets are commanded and empowered to perform the same kinds of things that are forbidden as magical practices. The magical practices aren't forbidden based on what they do, but based on the fact that they are calling on spirits other than The Lord, and Israel is not to have any contact with such spirits.

That's a difficult statement.  It's sort of a "yes and no" kinda thing.  (Not commenting on the moral underpinnings.)  It's not so much about "magic" as it is about a "prohibition" against those practices of 'divination' that are not sanctioned by, or for approved for, the priestly caste.  viz. The Urim and Thummim.  A Divinitory device if ever there was one.

Of course, as we are speaking about how some interpret the text, there are those who would flatly state that all divinitory devices are proscribed for everyone.  Which isn't exactly right, nor is it exactly wrong.  Just as using the term "magic" will invoke a certain preconception (mostly derived from the early Spiritualism and Neopaganism movements) that, I think, does not wholly apply here.  Can it trully be said that it absolutely does not apply?

No.  Because language is a dynamic.

Of course without going into detail about the various words actually used that really isn't saying much since the same thing can be said of the usage of the word "witch" and "witchcraft" in biblical context.  The words are applied using a wholly different meaning from what the words have since obtained.

So what does that have to do with how silver pieces should be exhanged for a gold piece?

Something most of us probably don't even realize, when commenting on actual real-life still active religions, or reading commentary about them, is the religions of the past are viewed through a modern prism.  We think, erroneously, that because religion is one way today that that must also be how it was yesterday.  Yet, just looking at recent spirtual movements, I think most would say that Neo-Paganism is no more related to Cabalism than Cablism is related to Spiritualism or...  Yet, in most games I can recall, cults are lumped together into Pantheons.  It is sometimes assumed that a character can almost freely pick and choose their deity, if deity is even a consideration.  Which, I know in the earlier RPGs, it really wasn't.

Clerics were just magic-users with a Holy Symbol instead of a Spellbook.

Of course that was AD&D.  Other systems introduced Piety, Faith, and various similar alignment replacement traits.  Still, for most of the systems I recall, these were just Spell Points.  Which, oddly enough, are usually called Manna Points.  Why is that?

Manna.  How many realize where that word originates from?

Ok, so everyone here is exceptionally bright.  What about the average junior high or high school gamer?

Which brings me to my next big question...

When writing about your game's (or game world's) religion should you, as a game designer, take into account that people may not really know where the terms you use originate?  How much of a explanation should be offered beyond in-game related story?

In short:  How much responsibility for educating the game about the sorts of real world religion topics discussed here should a game designer have, if any at all?

Ok that's probably a bit too long so I'll sign off now.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Uncle Dark]

Kester,

You asked a lot of questions.  Most of them I've asked myself in creating religions for a campaign, but the answers don't matter so much to anyone who's not playing a game with me, so I'll leave them out.

Incidentally, did you mean "manna," as in divinly-created food (from Exodus), or "mana," as in the Polynesian word for the mystical force places, objects, and beings contain?

As to the responsibility of a game designer to educate: none at all.  I think the responsibility should, rather, fall to treating religions with respect.  Sure, if the game is using real-world terms or concepts, it would be nice if the designers let you know where they got them and what they mean in the real world.  Still, a gaming manual is not a theology textbook.  A designer can treat his/her source material with respect, and treatments of actual religion can be respectful, without going out of their way to educate the players.

Lon

[greyorm]

I'd like to keep this from becoming a theological debate, much as I fear it is going to have to drift into that territory somewhat. So please, moderators and gentle reader, view this presentation as an alternative viewpoint and supporting explanation for the inclusion of a unique and non-traditional design of religious philosophy in the game world.

Mostly this is all relevant, and not just argument or counter-point to MJ because it does showcase an entirely different philosophy and belief structure than that generally supported by Western designers -- who can't help but be influenced by their own beliefs in their designs.

No offense to Mike or MJ, but they're products of Western thinking...two distinct branches, but Western thought none-the-less. This will hopefully bring a non-standard belief-set to the table, a different set of standard assumptions to work from than those provided by both Mike and MJ in regards to the meaning of various words, the nature of various items (be they real or fictional) and the obvious conclusions of such logic.

As I have really grown weary of designs that echo Western sentiment and underlying structures of culture and belief without clearly stating they do so, the following is presented. I dare say that once digested and stripped of the included rationale for explanation, it is a more traditional view of the world as would exist in an ancient, magical society and culture.

(The reason I say "stripped of the included rationale" is because much as with our own Western, modern set of beliefs, we believe them without having a rationale -- we are simply immersed in them as a culture and take them at face value as "true"...much the same for an individual who grew up under the following set of beliefs, the end result of the beliefs are considered true without the supporting arguments)

As well, anyone can feel free to argue the theological or logical grounds of the following with me in private, but not here (don't hijack the thread). This is not an attempt to say to anyone, "Hey, your viewpoint is wrong and here's why" (except in the specific case of judging the beliefs outlined earlier specifically). This is an attempt to clarify the logic and rationale such beliefs so they can be understood on their own terms, with their proper support, rather than viewed in the context of a foreign mindset, as well as open it up to designers who would wish to utilize such material in their own designs of fantasy religions.

That, ultimately, is the objection to magic: whatever explanation you use for it ultimately proves to be a religious explanation. Even if you say that magic is just a natural force within the universe, the objection is raised that this suggests there is no supernatural world and thus no God...
...If Reverend Daegmorgan believes that he will be able to walk before he walks, that is faith; and if he believes that his ritual will bring about specific results before they happen, that is also faith. It is only religious faith if it also involves a belief about the supernatural...

MJ's above statement plays an important role in the following responses, and is the main reason I have serious disagreement with him on this issue.

You see, I don't believe in the supernatural.

Neither I, nor most pagans, hold the Gods, spirits, magic and various ecetera to be supernatural in any way, to exist as seperate from nature.

"Supernatural" is a word that is thrown around quite a bit, in fact, without clear definition. So let's take a look at what it means before we go on:

According to my trusty copy of Merriam-Webster, super- means above, over, surpassing, superior, more than. Natural means being in accordance with or determined by nature (and nature is, of course, the external world in its entirety.

Something which is not supernatural is said to be occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature and existing in or produced by nature: not artificial.

Here, however, is where "supernatural" breaks down: either it means, "anything that occurs which is unexpected" (which opens up a huge and obvious can of worms), or it means "anything that occurs which is not understood" (which opens up another huge can of worms).

In the latter case, especially, what is natural today is supernatural yesterday...a radio communication from Asia to Europe would be supernatural in the Middle Ages.

There are events in quantum science today which are yet ill understood which were, when first concieved and not yet observed, proposed to be impossible because they defied logic and explanation of them appeared to be supernatural hoo-ha.

This is the problem of limited human perception...what IS the natural flow of events? What is expected in one age is not in the next, what is believed to occur in one century is overturned as the expected and understood order in the next.

Let us take the given example of technology and what it produces.
Is technology natural or artificial? (Wait before you answer!)

Does technology conform to the expected flow of events?

If not, science and technology are supernatural because they do not conform to the expected flow of events. Thus man long ago mastered the supernatural in his use of science and technology...mere wizardry and sorcery of the age!

Yet, since mankind is the result of natural creation, and his technology is the result of natural genetic wiring that enables intellect and the desire to create tools, and the cause-and-effect of his natural history is such that technology had to occur (on some level)...

Then man's technology is occuring within the ordinary course of nature...he creates technology because nature "intended" him to do so, or (to use a less loaded phrasing) the natural skill and desire to do so developed in him.

A specific example: "That building or city wouldn't be there naturally because nature would not have created it," is the expected response to the above. This logic makes nature only that which is-not-man or which is-not-of-man, since no tool would exist without man's interference in the course of events.

The belief examined is that man's interference in things results in unnatural things occuring, like buildings being erected. If so, then man is in some way supernatural or unnatural, even though he and his technology are only the result of a natural, expected evolution.

Taking this "interference" idea further, that antelope would still be alive if the hunters hadn't slain it, and that plant would still have berries if the gatherers hadn't stripped it bare. The "natural" flow of events has been interrupted and interfered with.

But what is the natural flow of events?

Taking the analogy even further, that antelope wouldn't be dead if that lion hadn't eaten it. Since the lion does make a choice, it could have decided not to hunt and kill that specific antelope. Is the event natural or unnatural?

"Natural" we cry, as though animals are robots following some grand, mindless, genetic plan which makes their actions somehow a part of a "natural" course of programmed events that, for some reason, man has no place in.

This view places man outside of nature, proclaims his actions -- for some reason -- are unnatural, despite being the result of natural events. (Hubris!)

Yet, even if animals were mindless, choiceless genetic machines behaving according to a programmed nature, how and why is man different?

To become supernatural or unnatural, at some point in his history or evolution, something would have had to occur to mankind that was the result of unnatural or supernatural circumstances -- some event that simply could not occur within nature. Anything brought up as abnormal, such as pointing out factors such as mankind's societal and cultural groupings or his intellect, must be shown to be the result of an unnatural occurrence in order to be considered unnatural.

If not, is not man following his own grand, mindless, genetic plan of tool-making and technology?

The result here is always that any course of events which causes changes to the world could be considered supernatural; ie: the building or city being built over there. Yet the "natural" world changes itself constantly.

So what then is not a part of nature?
Ultimately, what is nature? What is a part of nature?

Most people will answer, "You know, grass and trees and stuff."
Right, then, and where does it end...this "nature" thing, and "not nature" begin?

Simple answer: biological matter is natural, rocks are natural...tools (items created with conscious intent) aren't. This is the third explantion of supernatural, that of the artificial, the not naturally created.

Yet, this is precisely my point, tools are the result of the natural evolution of a species. If nature intends things, then tools are intended, if nature is simply a mindless, programmed machine, then tools did not come about without the preceeding input of the machine...they are the natural effect of a natural cause in any case.

How, in any way, does man or his works defy the laws of nature?
Simple, he and they don't. Man works within them, man's works all rely on natural, physical principles. Man uses knowledge as any beast will to advance its own agenda, an agenda arising from natural instinct overlain with the ability to express that instinct to others (the language of intellect).

It may not seem like it, but I am talking about divinity above as well, hopefully you'll see how.
So to get back to the question of divinity, the divine, if supernatural, would be defined as something which exists outside the ordinary course of nature and is not a part of its structure, whose actions and being supercede nature.

Is God is not part of the ordinary course of the natural world?

I have always find the notion that he is not bizzare, to say the least, especially coming from Christians. Ggiven the view of God as the Creator of All and as the Architect of History, God should, logically, be the ordinary course of the natural world. In other words, if God or his actions are supernatural, then God's Will is...artifical!

(Quite the blasphemy, as I recall. God's Will for Creation is THE Will for Creation, Creation exists for His Will, so they are inseperate.)

However, I know many Christians are prone to take the supernatural view of God, because God is held to be apart from the natural world, existing apart from his Creation and being able to influence it to do things it "shouldn't," hence God is supernatural.

This is a stark contrast to the pagan view that Creation and Creator are one and the same. The Gods are the natural world; the Gods are nature or nature is the Gods -- the natural flow of events are the Gods in action. For pagans, there is nothing for the Gods to be apart from, and their acts cannot be artificial or supercede nature, since their acts are the acts of the natural world -- explainable or unexplainable.

So, again, I quite simply don't believe in the supernatural, and thus the logic give above by MJ: that a view of magic as natural must lead to a denial of the divine is only true if you hold there to be a supernatural world the divine must be a part of. However, if you believe anything that exists is a priori natural, then the divine is no more supernatural than you or I, trees, grass or rocks (in fact, the divine IS trees, grass and rocks (note this is different from saying that the trees, grass and rocks are divine by themselves...I'm not talking about animism here)). It is impossible, in fact, for anything to be supernatural or unnatural.

(In fact, I will note at this point most people will confuse natural and unnatural with discussions of right and wrong, and this confusion is where the majority of hesitation lies in accepting the above.)

Hence, is my faith religious or non-religious, given that I don't believe in any sort of supernatural entity? (just natural ones) Given that I can point to a rock and say "There is God." I can prove the rock exists. I can prove the universe exists (certain interesting branches of philosophy dealing with perception not withstanding). This is God.

What all this tells me is an age-old wisdom about judging the actions or beliefs of others based on your own beliefs -- that is, judging the pagan mindset or belief-structure based on a Christian understanding of the world. Such a method leads to error and false conclusions. That is, your logic about natural magic, supernatural = religious, and so forth don't hold up for me because the underlying assumptions are all wrong, in my view and experience.

In fact, I note here, out of interest and in conjunction with the above in regards to both pagan and Christian thought about the divine, another definition of nature is a creative and controlling force in the universe.

In this, I think, beyond the interesting implications that has for either a pagan or a Christian exploring their faith, I find another way to portray natural and supernatural in a game: that which is supernatural is that which defies the will of nature...that is, goes directly against the wishes and intents of the creative, controlling force of the universe, whatever those might be.

This certainly allows for things which defy the order set by the Gods, or which go against the will of the Creator, depending on which diretion you take it, without leading to moral or logical problems like the undead being "natural." Particularly useful in epic and high fantasy, as things such as the undead, sorcery or necromancy could be displayed as definite and without question unnatural or supernatural.

In the case of of Tolkien's works these are that which defies the known and REAL natural order as defined by Eru or which supercedes it in order to cause an effect (interestingly, this means Gandalf's magic is natural, part of the natural magic of Middle-Earth).

One of the challenges of the Harry Potter books is its seemingly non-religious magic. Christians can't agree whether it's really witchcraft; Wiccans can't agree whether it's really witchcraft.

I don't know a witch worth their salt (haha, funny, Raven) who would consider the magic in the Harry Potter books to be remotely similar to the actual practice of witchcraft (because it isn't). This (ie: is it? isn't it?) may be an issue in the Christian community, but not among Wiccans. Hence I'm curious whom or what gave you the notion, or where you have seen such a debate occuring in the Wiccan, pagan or magickal communities?

(ie: you don't know what you're going to get).

I completely disagree with this definition of faith. Faith is what causes me to put my feet on the floor of my bedroom without first turning on the light to be sure it's still there.

I believe what we have here is my not being clear enough, and boorishly so.

MJ, your more wordy answer as to what faith is is dead-on in-line with my own. I can see how you read my statement in reading your response to it, but know my simply and quite poorly phrased statement was meant to convey your infinitely clearer statements about the idea.

Simply, "you don't know what you're going to get when you get out of bed in the morning, but you expect the floor to be there without proof that it is" is precisely the same to me as your given definition "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." I don't necessarily agonize about getting out of bed in the morning, I have faith that my floor remains intact without even thinking about it.

That is, faith to me is (uneloquently) "surety without proof."

However, I'm not big on faith as the center-point of my spirituality...I'm far too much the scientist to do or believe anything without proof. As well, this was attractive about Bhuddism, which teaches that direct experience is the only key to true knowledge...you can only know precisely the events you experience in context, not as they are told to you or what you deduce. The most easily expressed form of this being, "If a man tells you about his neighbor, all you really know is what that man thinks of his neighbor, you know nothing about the neighbor."

Whether someone believes me or is convinced of the same evidence as I am isn't my concern. I am, and I'm a great questioner and doubter of the unproven. And of course, a key tenet of Wicca is that religion and spirituality are experential, so I'm sure you can see how that ties in with this.

Finally, again, anyone can feel free to argue the theological or logical grounds of the above with me in private, but not here, please. The above is not an attempt to argue a point or convince anyone of any specific thing being true. Its purposes here, in the context of a Forge post, are idea fodder for the portrayal of religions and their cultures (or vice-versa) in a game world...it is not up for off-topic debate.

[greyorm]

In terms of game mechanics the above would be great for inclusion in a resource book. But how does this impact play beyond being a interesting creation myth for the players to read?

Mechanically, it doesn't.

Play-wise, it does.
That is, the players respond and react differently to the world when they realize it isn't Earth-with-a-funny-hat...oh-and-magic. The fact that the world is flat, that the sun really is a God, that you can literally sail to the shores of death, changes everything.

They stop thinking in terms of the modern world, in terms of physics, chemistry, and rational, scientific views. They more easily immerse into the world of the game...in other worlds, they play their roles better, acting more like an inhabitant of that world and less like an inhabitant of modern Earth thrust into an alternate universe.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Uncle Dark,

You asked a lot of questions.  Most of them I've asked myself in creating religions for a campaign, but the answers don't matter so much to anyone who's not playing a game with me, so I'll leave them out.

Actually that is very telling answer in and of itself. (see below)

As to the responsibility of a game designer to educate: none at all.  I think the responsibility should, rather, fall to treating religions with respect.  Sure, if the game is using real-world terms or concepts, it would be nice if the designers let you know where they got them and what they mean in the real world.  Still, a gaming manual is not a theology textbook.  A designer can treat his/her source material with respect, and treatments of actual religion can be respectful, without going out of their way to educate the players.

Exactly.

A game book is just that, a game book.  It is intended to provide for the rules of play.  Now resource books can go into details, and often do, but in so far as providing information above and beyond that directly pertinent to the game world they, as you say, are not a textbook.

Now I know many will probably say no FRP game should ever present a real-world religion in any sort of context.  Yet there are many that should, but don't.  For instance does anyone remember anything about religion in old FRP games like Top Secret, James Bond, Gang Busters, or any of the many period games prior to the upsurge in the use of angels and demons in games?  (And what about those games, how do they portray religion?)

As many have noted religion plays a very large part in our actual lives, whether we consider ourselves to be religious or not.  I don't just mean the philosophical question about life after death and the soul, but the fact of the religious institution, and the power and influece which they represent.  I know that in the early days of gaming Rogue's and Wizard's guilds had lots of information published about them, but I really can't recally much put out about religious institutions.

Not even the stuff that was put out about Druids really addressed the pre-Roman Druidic councils or Druid colleges.

Deficiency or oversight?

I'm thinking it has far more to do with the mechnics used to represent religion.  Though, from reading this thread, I am assuming that has changed in recent years.  At least with some games.

Incidentally, did you mean "manna," as in divinly-created food (from Exodus), or "mana," as in the Polynesian word for the mystical force places, objects, and beings contain?

Yep, smart people.

Still I can't help but recall comment made, years and years ago now, about one certain resource book I happened to rescue from the used gaems bin.  It was about alchemy and alchemists, provided lots of "detail" in herb lists and recipes for things.  (Looked like someone might have just copied, or made up based upon, medival lists of stuff.)  What I recall rather vividly is a player asking if they could "borrow" the book because they, of all things, wanted to try some of the formulaes to see if they worked.

Yep, lots of smart people here, but it's the others roaming around out there that I worry about.

Which is why I sometimes think that the "fluff" should be limited to little more than thumbnail descriptions keyed to support of the game mechanics.  I have learned, as a general rule, people are dumb.  Me included.  We do dumb things, not because we are stupid, but because our intentions are too good for our own good.

And, no, I most certainly did *not* let the player borrow the book.  In fact I shelved it and didn't use it, mostly because of that incident.

So, what do you think, was it irresponsible to include such detailed lists or was that just a bit of *flavor* that someone took the wrong way?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings greyorm,

In terms of game mechanics the above would be great for inclusion in a resource book. But how does this impact play beyond being a interesting creation myth for the players to read?

Mechanically, it doesn't.

Play-wise, it does.

I would humbly beg to differ.  The world you describe would (and in my opinion should) have a very different form of physics and native reality, just by the very nature of the construct.  That *does* impact mechanics of play.

Once you define the reality that becomes part of the rules of play.

Yet, you seem to indicate you don't think this is case.  Which makes me wonder why not.  After all if the world is flat, yet continues on in both directions...

In games I have run players character's have adventured to various alternate planes of existence.  Not always the same way.  In fact, as part of the rules of play, the methods of travel were clearly delineated.  I remember this well.  In one game we had "world gates" (just big stonehenge like arches) in another they were sort of swirling vortices of charged energy (very unstable, and NO world gates) in yet another...

Well I wont bore you.  But obviously that does establish, through the background, rules of play.  Thus it impacts game mechanics.

How?

Think about those "hold portal" or "open portal" types spells in the old AD&D games.  They might take on new meaning when applied to a dimension hyper-portal, or not.  The DMs call affects the mechanics of play.

In a Greco-Roman world the Underworld may literally be under your feet, accessed through subterrenean passages.  While in a Aegyptian styled campain the Otherworld of the Tuat may, quite literally, be an other world.
To say nothing of the Realm of Fairy, which is also known as the Otherworld, et al.

Or might one posit my above statements to be more a aspect of interpretation and gaming style?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[lumpley]

And, no, I most certainly did *not* let the player borrow the book. In fact I shelved it and didn't use it, mostly because of that incident.

How come?  Weren't you curious whether it worked?

Personally, I think that RPGs are as reliable and valid a source for real-world magic and religion as any other.

Well, okay, I don't actually think that.  But pretty close.  Magical systems and theologies are ideas.  They're just as accessible to gamers and RPGs as they are to novelists and filmmakers, and it's appropriate for gamers to address religion in just the way it's appropriate for novelists to.  The Name of the Rose, the RPG? Tex and Molly in the Afterlife, the RPG?  The Chosen, the RPG?  Bring 'em on.

(Also, treating religion with respect and circumspection is only one option.  I'm critical of religion and I think it shows in my games, even some of the ones that aren't about puppies.)

-Vincent

[contracycle]

I would humbly beg to differ.  The world you describe would (and in my opinion should) have a very different form of physics and native reality, just by the very nature of the construct.  That *does* impact mechanics of play.

It can, but it need not IMO.  Worlds with physically accessable underworlds could be represented as mechanically in GURPS as a custom-built system which represents aspects of its cosmology (like FVLMINATA's use of social rank for initiative, IIRC).  But the uses to which the mechanics are put will differ perhaps due to the different plausible options available in-game to the characters.

Not even the stuff that was put out about Druids really addressed the pre-Roman Druidic councils or Druid colleges.

Deficiency or oversight?

Lack of data, rather, I believe.

[M. J. Young]

First, in respect for his request that we not hijack the thread, I will limit any further theological debate about the definition of magic and supernatural; this is to answer one question and one issue.

One of the challenges of the Harry Potter books is its seemingly non-religious magic. Christians can't agree whether it's really witchcraft; Wiccans can't agree whether it's really witchcraft.

I don't know a witch worth their salt (haha, funny, Raven) who would consider the magic in the Harry Potter books to be remotely similar to the actual practice of witchcraft (because it isn't). This (ie: is it? isn't it?) may be an issue in the Christian community, but not among Wiccans. Hence I'm curious whom or what gave you the notion, or where you have seen such a debate occuring in the Wiccan, pagan or magickal communities?

My information is second-hand. There was a debate recently on a forum at Belief Net in which several prominent Christian authors were invited to discuss whether Harry Potter was positive or negative from a Christian perspective. Both sides cited quotes, published and privately obtained, from Wiccans and other self-defined witches. One prominent writer who thinks that the Potter books glorify witchcraft and should be avoided by Christians cited several who claimed that Harry Potter was a great promotional boon for their beliefs (not an accurate representation, perhaps, but similar enough that they could see themselves in the stories). Several others cited comments by people whose opinion jives with yours, that this is nothing like the religion or practice they know, and does nothing positive for witchcraft but paint a distorted caricature thereof.

I tried to access and link the threads recently, but it appears that they have been archived for members only (I am not a member, and don't have the time to become involved) with only minor excerpts posted to the main site which did not include comments from some significant contributors.

I have always find the notion that he is not bizzare, to say the least, especially coming from Christians. Ggiven the view of God as the Creator of All and as the Architect of History, God should, logically, be the ordinary course of the natural world. In other words, if God or his actions are supernatural, then God's Will is...artifical!

What Christians (and, I believe, Jews) believe is that God exists independent of the physical universe, and that He created something separate from himself--in much the same way that you create games that are separate from yourself. The universe thus contains and expresses much of God and His nature, and in a sense God is constantly active within it, but He is not it and it is not He.

"Supernatural" in this context means anything which has its primary existence outside the physical universe, that which we tend to call "creation". It does not mean "unnatural", nor does it necessarily mean contrary to nature. Great theological treatises have been written examining how the miracles of Christ all reflect God's ordinary work in nature but at a different rate or distance or something (e.g., God multiplies grain and fish constantly in fields and rivers; Jesus multiplied cooked bread and dead fish instantly to feed the multitudes). The argument is that even in this "disruption" of the natural order, the concepts of the natural order are still seen, as the disruptor is the creator, the author using the same theme in a different context. Thus a "supernatural intervention" doesn't necessarily mean making nature do that which is contrary to nature, but rather may mean no more than inserting an uncaused cause such that course of events might change--in much the same sense that a scientific experiment cannot demonstrate how likely it is that the lab assistant will interfere with the experiment.

--M. J. Young

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings contracycle,

To think all I intended to do was log in to clear out my e-mail.  Yet, here I sit, typing away.  When I could reading a book.   *snickers*

I would humbly beg to differ.  The world you describe would (and in my opinion should) have a very different form of physics and native reality, just by the very nature of the construct.  That *does* impact mechanics of play.

It can, but it need not IMO.  Worlds with physically accessable underworlds could be represented as mechanically in GURPS as a custom-built system which represents aspects of its cosmology (like FVLMINATA's use of social rank for initiative, IIRC).  But the uses to which the mechanics are put will differ perhaps due to the different plausible options available in-game to the characters.

Ah, what you say is true.  In so far as it relates to a game's core system.  However, would you not agree, that once a author outlined a world, begins to establish what does and does not exist, that, in a manner of speaking, they are establishing the mechanics of the game world?

As I see it there are the core rules mechanics, the mechanics of the game world, and a number of minor variable mechanics that should, though rarely ever really seem to, be able to plug into a setting.

Such as is the case with Religions and Magic.  Of course some systems are, shall we say, more user friendly than others.  For instannce AD&D has it's magic system pretty well integrated into the core rule mechanics, not only that but the underlying core rule mechnics actually go part way to definining not only the milieu but the sort of game world one is likely to play in.

Other systems, like Chaosium's in-house BRPS, seemed to aim at having a core rules mechanic which worked with a seperate world mechanic (namely the campaign setting).  Certainly that is what made its variety of product lines possible.  Of course I really only can speak to Stormbringer, but I know there was a Hawkmoon, Call of Cthulhu, Elfquest, and a game based on Theive's World all of which used the same BRPS system.

Not a "universal" or "generic" system, at least not as most seem to define such systems (meaning a single system that tried to do everytying, including washing windows) but rather a more modular plug and play kinda system.  Sort of.

That may sound a bit confusing but, nest as I can state it, is that RPG rules systems are of three basic types:

1.  The Integrated Rule System
2.  The Core Rule System
3.  The Generic/Universal Rle System

Obviously AD&D would fall into category 1, since much of it's setting material is pretty well integrated into the rules.  Though games like MERP and probably's Trollbabe (based upon what little I know of it) would probably be better examples since they are a game designed wholey and soley to represent a type of world setting.

Games with a good core rule system of category 2 would, IMO, be of the BRPS type.  Meaning they allow quick, easy, and adaptable plug and play.

GURPS would probably be category 3, since it tries to do everything, yet it really isn't.  Every source book, from what I recall, at least attempted to stand on its own, thus it is sort of a hybrid category 2.... hmm.

Maybe I need to rethink my categories, any thoughts?

Not even the stuff that was put out about Druids really addressed the pre-Roman Druidic councils or Druid colleges.

Deficiency or oversight?

Lack of data, rather, I believe.

Yet authors allowed their imaginations to wander freely to fill in the gaps in many other fantasy world settings, some of which actually *had* accessbile material.  But which few seemed to make use of.

Though I wonder what other systems treated Druids with depth, besides AD&D (which did, after a fashion).  Anyone have any good examples?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings lumpley,

And, no, I most certainly did *not* let the player borrow the book. In fact I shelved it and didn't use it, mostly because of that incident.

How come?  Weren't you curious whether it worked?

There were formulas for elixirs, poisons, herbal remedies, ungents, potions, and (if memory serves) the philosophers stone.

I s**t you not!

Now do you see the reason for my reticence to let someone "borrow" such a book?  (Especially after they expressed a desire to "experiment".)  

Of course the Internet makes trying to keep such information out of the hands of the, shall we say, explorative minded a bit moot.  Not that I have looked, but from the things I have stumbled on... *whistles*

So, knowing a little more about the book, do you still think such formulaes should have been included?  Or should there just have been charts and tables detailing the name, type, and effects of the supposed elixers and such?

Personally, I think that RPGs are as reliable and valid a source for real-world magic and religion as any other.

Well, okay, I don't actually think that.  But pretty close.  Magical systems and theologies are ideas.  They're just as accessible to gamers and RPGs as they are to novelists and filmmakers, and it's appropriate for gamers to address religion in just the way it's appropriate for novelists to.  The Name of the Rose, the RPG? Tex and Molly in the Afterlife, the RPG?  The Chosen, the RPG?  Bring 'em on.

The Name of the Rose was good movie, I've give you that.  Better even than Cadfael, then that was a BBS series.

What you say if very true.  However I would not attribute RPG material as being a good source of information about religion, of any kind.  Yet, I can tell you honestly, I did know one or two gamers who had a copy of Legends & Lore and treated it with an almot religious reverence.  Even though their faces went blank if asked about Hamilton's or Bulfinch's Mythology.

Of course that was many long years ago, they were much younger, as was I.

Hmm.  I must have been one strange teenager, reading Hamilton's and Bulfinch's mythology as a RPG resource and not as part of a class.  'Splains a lot!   *insert favorite comic expression here*


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Andrew Martin]

And, no, I most certainly did *not* let the player borrow the book. In fact I shelved it and didn't use it, mostly because of that incident.

How come?  Weren't you curious whether it worked?

I read a book back in the 90's, that described the works of a real life wizard and the various herb and minerals that he combined and burned to contact "demons" with. After reading the descriptions, and checking with a medical reference, I discovered that these herbs and minerals were hallucinogenic when burned! There was the source of the "demon", a hallucination, a manifestation of one's own mind.

I experimented with dowsing in the 80's with two "L" shaped metal rods (it was a technique used at my work place for finding buried cables), and with dowsing with pendulums and found that they worked for me. With more experimentation, I found that real trick to making dowsing work was to "listen" to one's subconscious. The rods and pendulum were responding to subconscious movements in my own body, produced by my own mind. I could control the movements of the device just by my willing it to be so, and so causing my muscles to move the device. No magic, just subconscious (or conscious) perception through one's own mind.

[greyorm]

Kester, don't make me slap you with a mackerel.

You ask me a question about how a world of mythic reality influences the mechanics of play, I answer that it does not influence mechanics or need to, and you come back with an analysis of how the physics of the world would be different so the mechanics have to be different?!

Alright, then, I give. You explain to me, please, how the facts that the world is flat, has one edge beyond which lies the afterworld, and so forth will alter the following mechanic: roll D20 + your skill + your ability modifier.

No convoluted bullshit about the world impacting play and maybe adding this modifier here or there, either, please. Direct, clear examples of how the nature of this different reality fundamentally alters the mechanics of the game.

I'm sorry to come off so harsh, but you've been here long enough to know better.

So, simple answer to the above question: it doesn't.
The game mechanics are no different than they would be in a plain old regular D&D campaign where the world is spherical and surrounded by a void.

In the world we're talking about, the physics can remain the same, the laws can remain the same, they don't have the same explanation, perhaps...and why go creating seperate physics?

There is no need. We are telling a human story in a world that behaves is usually expected on the grossly physical level of common experience. We are playing in a world that is like the one we know, or as our ancestors knew it.

Your problem, perhaps, is that you're still thinking like a 20th-century native of modern Earth. Rational thought and the scientific method have clogged your thought-processes with their fingerprints, so that you believe everything must have a natural explanation, one that is logical and discernable (protests expected but ignored).

Here, however, is a world where science is not reality, where such thinking is, in fact, ultimately wrong. For example, the wind doesn't blow because of differing air pressure cells, it blows because the Lady of Breezes breathes upon the world...and there is no air pressure, the Lady of Breezes is not an explanation for air pressure, or the force behind air pressure..."air pressure" simply doesn't exist.

"Wait, then!" the modern mind says, "If air pressure doesn't exist, then this can't happen, this can't happen, this can't happen, and how then did this happen?"

Exactly my point. Modern mind, shut-up. Air pressure doesn't exist, but that can happen, so can that, and the thing that did happen, too. No, you can't explain it with air pressure or its lack. The reason it works or doesn't is because the Gods say it does.

With enough of this unsolvable mystery, the modern mind eventually shuts down and the mind starts processing things according to the established reality of the game world.

Hence, what I am trying to do, to tie the religious reality of the game world directly to the game world by making the religious reality the physical reality.

In this, the Gods aren't a seperate thing from the game reality, off in "outer planes" and above an explainable nature and so on, they ARE reality, they are the Prime Cause. When this is realized, suddenly religion becomes a whole lot more important in-game, because the player can see where the character is really coming from.

And all this is why the usual methods of promoting and establishing religion in-game have fallen flat for me, as well as arguments about it not being something that actually can be established unless the player is willing to go the extra mile and play it up.

They never really addressed the basic issue and the basic problem: players never really have a logical incentive for doing so...a motivating character-reason, because "Yeah, he believes because this happened to him" or whatever explanation of faith is given falls flat for everyone, since it is only the character that can see that viewpoint, and the character doesn't count.

Actually, this should be a "Why Gamers Suck" column. I despise "Science Nerd Gamers," the guys who sit and poke holes in fantasy and science-fiction games, or make up scientific rules to cover the percieved problems, like "dragons are too big to fly!" or "the jump-gates in Babylon 5 could never work!" or "Here's my spell-point system based on quantum-energy physics."

Folks like that remind me of that episode of "the Simpsons" when Homer was fielding questions about the cartoon character Poochy, and the snorting nerds in the front row were pestering him with observations about how unreal it was that the cartoon cat didn't have enough rib-bones.

For fantasy games, and alot of other types of games, such conditioned thinking completely misses the point.