Unified Truth and Diverse Religions in Game Worlds

[damion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[clehrich]

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

Here's an example:

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Martin]

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

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

[simon_hibbs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

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

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

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

This statment, for example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[simon_hibbs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Valamir]

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

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

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

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

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

[damion]

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

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

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

[simon_hibbs]

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

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

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


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

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

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

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

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

[contracycle]

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

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

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

[clehrich]

Re contra's comment,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry it's long, too.

[Valamir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gordon C. Landis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gordon