Unified Truth and Diverse Religions in Game Worlds

[contracycle]

jhgjhg

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).  

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

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

To explore.

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

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

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

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

[contracycle]

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

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

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

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

[damion]

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

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

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


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

[simon_hibbs]

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

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

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

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


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[contracycle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[simon_hibbs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/quote]

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


Simon Hibbs

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

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

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

Best,
Ron

[Gordon C. Landis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that's interesting,

Gordon

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings All,

Nice evening.

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Case in point:

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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




Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[M. J. Young]

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

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

Gordon tried to resolve some of this

Do we *have* to know for sure what it derives from? Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[clehrich]

Hi again,

This is a bit long; sorry.

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

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

Kester gives us two takes on this:

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

And

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kester Pelagius]

Howdy clehrich,


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

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

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

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

Ah, but that's just myth, right?

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

But they're not.

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

Atlas = Gravity.

Grimoires = (Medieval) Text Books

Ab = Father = Pater

Ra = Life = Light (Lucifer = Morning Star)

Rah = Evil (Rahab = Father of Evil)

IR = that which sees/sight/to see

Grigori = The Watchers = Ir

G.RI..GO.RI  = ?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

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

[clehrich]

Howdy, Kester

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

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

Where do I sign?

[simon_hibbs]

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

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

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

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

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


Simon Hibbs