Unified Truth and Diverse Religions in Game Worlds

[damion]

1 points/ 1 question.
1)An RPG has a unified truth, as it has a system. Thus, anything in the 'system' is a fact.

2)Ron's question bears repeating, which is : How much of the world does the GM have to know for the game to be playable?
Obviously, every question that can be asked in the game has to have an answer, even if it is 'you don't know'.
As Fang mentioned, sometimes they GM may have to extend the system, this is ok because:
        If we assume a 'finished' system(i.e. people play it, ect), then this extention is not that important, i.e. that fact that this info isn't in th system doesn't affect peoples ability to play it.. Now the GM's extention could be important, depending on what it is, but taking care when doing this can solve the problem.

         The only important thing is enought truth exist to resolve things.  
I'd agree with Fang that the real question is how to dignify one or the other. Of course, there is the additional problem that to dignify multiple diverse religions, they can't contradict each other. (I.e. you can't have multiple religions that say 'our God is the only one', and they all have similard definitions of God).
If there is one, unified true, the answere is simple. The religion replaces
'physical reality' in the game world in the apropriate places.
For multiple diverse religions the solutions I see are:
1)All relgions ackoledge the others, to a degree. Thus the differences between them may be in interpreation or ritual, rather than truth. Alll share a common frame of truth though. Example:Chritianity.

2)They don't overlap. I.e. each valid religion is completely seperate, and
doesn't prevent the existance of others.  DnD works in this way.


3)Each religion only tries to explain a 'part' of reality.  This is similart to #2, but instead of having multiple overlapping explanations, each explains a part of the whole and ignores the rest.

Just some ideas.

[greyorm]

This is a response to MJ's initial post, and a continuation of my own interest in the subject, specifically regarding the following idea:

1) An imaginary game world.
2) This world maintains a mythic reality.
3) This world has numerous, sometimes conflicting, myths.
4) All these myths are none-the-less true.

It is ideas #3 and #4, in conjunction, which are bothersome to Gareth and MJ in their role as the referee of any particular game.

Thus far, a number of individuals have completely missed the point of the discussion, instead bringing up real-world metaphysical theory, faith of the believer, moral validity and so forth. But most of this has ignored #4, that the myths are true and real in an actual, physical, empirical sense.

While Gareth has maintained that this causes problems if myths are also subjective, MJ has finally given me what I'm looking for: a feasible and simple situation where two mutually exclusive subjective-but-true truths are tested. The event given appears irreconcilable: one of the myths must necessarily be false.

Let us, however, look at idea #2. The idea of a mythic reality.

A mythic reality, by nature, is vaguely inconsistent; it changes to suit the whim and necessity of the storyteller without necessarily becoming internally inconsistent.

An example of a mythic reality are the various Star Trek television series: the base setting for each series (ie: Voyager, Next Generation, etc) is always the same from episode to episode within that particular series, sometimes new facts are added to this base.

More often the solution or discovery of the week is forgotten in the weeks to follow, and rarely is it followed to its logical conclusion unless the series base is due a major change or addition. It is left such because the story the solution was an essential element of has already been told, and thus the element is no longer important.

In contrast to this, Gareth and MJ are talking about creating an objective, experienced reality -- a secondary world that functions exactly as does ours, which changes, grows and alters based on the forces of real-world history and invention, instead of the more television-like world of Star Trek and its necessities, which need only maintain its base and can discard everything else.

The world exists as a base set of principles in a specific time-snapshot that does not change, despite having the illusion of doing so during a story and from week-to-week for the viewer.

This might be called "stagnating," if you will, as the world can be left intact, as-is, throughout the series if the writers so wish, without invention or history altering anything about the show's base (such a method is very prominent in the original Star Trek series).

However, this is not actual stagnation, because its purpose is not to exist as a reality in its own right, but a stage upon which plays and stories are told.

Obviously, this is not our world.

Likewise, a mythic reality need only maintain its own base, perhaps adding small parts to that base episode-to-episode, but remaining otherwise unchanged by "prior" events.

Once the base is known, the rest of the series can be enjoyably experienced out-of-sequence, as a one-time experience, or in bits and pieces without the loss of comprehension of the specific episode(s) being viewed.

In much the same way, a mythic reality's physical nature is non-real. Distance and time are malleable, as is location, and even state-of-being. Many modern authors, particularly RE Howard and the early Michael Moorcock, use this method to write their stories.

In this fashion, one answer to the problem posed by MJ in regards to the issue of the reality of the myths of Apollo and Ra is thus:

Consider that the world does not exist independent of the authors (the play group) and has no life or necessary existance outside of the premises and stories the authors are using it to tell.

I believe this is a GNS issue, in that MJ and Gareth are approaching the idea of a game world from a mindset of having another physical place to explore or experience, one where it is important to know the facts ahead of time.

But let us approach it from a different angle, one not so rooted in traditional methods and structures of campaign worlds. I'm taking my cue from Sorcerer, here, which used the same paradigm in its overall design philosophy: the elements are not important until the authors give them meaning.

The facts are developed in play. The world itself and ultimate reality doesn't matter, the ultimate truths derived from it are illusory. Only the characters exist, only what they do matters, only what they believe matters...or simply, story first. The protagonists are not reactions to the world, but the moving forces in it, the world exists for the protagonists, solely for the story being told.

So your players, containing among them a priest of Ra and a priest of Apollo, want to decide once and for all between the two of them which myth is true. In this manner, the premise is established and play begins.

Here, we are developing a myth, or examining a myth, as the narrative structure in which all other things take place. That is, the myth itself serves as the premise, including a contested myth.

The authors may have decided beforehand who is right, establishing the premises: How far will you go to prove you are right? and What would you do if you found everything you believed was false?

Or they may allow the correct answer to be arrived at in play, via some previously established method: who goes the furthest, who survives the journey, etc.

The reason none have before attempted this sort of contest is because of the nature of the characters as protagonists -- the world only exists to create their story. This is both adequate and probable considering the nature of adventure gaming, and particularly myth: none have done it before, even if it seems easy, because the story is not about the world, but about the characters.

To continue from this, we have found the priests have gone to the heavens, experienced what they experienced, and both return to the earthly plane -- one having been right, one having been wrong.

Yet the initial question remains unanswered for the populace at large...except for that individual.

The forsaken priest returns to his village, bereft of his faith only to find that his people still worship his people's chosen god despite the issue now being decided. He attempts to convert the populace by telling them of his experience...the populous simply does not believe him and continue to believe precisely what they have always believed.

A brother to this priest confronts his clerical opposite and travels with him to the heavens, discovering that his brother is wrong, that his conversion attempts are based on false notions.

In this case, if the attempt is merely to visit as it is above, not interfere, then fewer difficulties are created for the gamemaster. However, if the players do interfere with the mythic order they discover, the gamemaster must determine if the natural order is affected.

Think in terms of the mythic reality of the situation, and of the story itself -- of what importance is the answer to the characters and the players? Of what importance is the answer to the premise?

Thus cease thinking of the world as a planet, or even as a world, with defined physical characteristics and locations and realities. There is one sun. No, there is no sun. There are the myths of Apollo and Ra.

You do not attach the myths to an object that can be tested, but make the myths themselves the objects. The problem with Gareth and MJ's interpretation of the problem is that they are thinking in terms of physical objects rather than myths. They are positing travel to the heavens to an object called "the sun" -- whether a ball of gas or a flaming chariot, or something else entirely.

Consider that the metaphysical plane, in this case, reality itself, is large enough that both facts are true. There is no sun, there is either Apollo's Chariot or Ra's dung-beetle. Or rather, it is not either but both.

The question then becomes how to handle such a world. If Apollo's chariot is stolen, how does this affect the sun across the rest of the world?

Stealing Apollo's chariot brings the sun down over the whole world, though it is only a local myth; or perhaps it only brings the sun down in specific areas, wherever Apollo's influence is important; or instead, the theft and darkness only affects the characters of the story itself and we ignore the rest of the world until it becomes important that the event have affected it -- that is, how does the event matter to the story, to the premise and the characters/players?

Further, you haven't affected the sun at all, you've affected the myth. Apollo's chariot is gone (and hence the sun is gone). The sun is gone, but should you visit Ra, you find nothing has happened to the sun, in the mythic reality of Ra...or perhaps you find something has happened to the sun, but the explanation is not that Apollo's chariot was stolen.

You see, the objects are illusory, and only relevant to play when play is relevant to them.

Suppose each priest journeying to the sun sees precisely what they expect. One steals Apollo's chariot to prove that the sun is in Apollo's domain, the other does not interfere with Ra or his dung-beetle.

Yet darkness falls across the land...and Ra speaks to his people of the serpent who has swallowed the sun, whom the authors and writers (players) can then go slay, returning the sun to its glory even while retaining Apollo's chariot.
In this manner, myth is made.

It is inconsistent, episodic, malleable.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Post Deleted by Author to start a new, shiny thread.

[contracycle]

No geryorm, "mythic reality" is not enough.

If you say there is no causality, the only purpose of the world is to be as if a stage, then what is the conflict?  This is game world as held in the mind of the game designer; a game world whose identity is examined AS a game world.  But then, none of the conlficts in it can be any more important than the conflict between tokens, or pawns.

If its all "aubjective" and happening only to the characters, thebn I sitting around in one room, playing a game about being a character sitting around in another room, imagining themselves to be doing heroic and magical things.

Here, we are developing a myth, or examining a myth, as the narrative structure in which all other things take place. That is, the myth itself serves as the premise, including a contested myth.

This is a dodge; you have no made the mythology the subject of the story, instead of backdrop to it.  Of course, anything which is the story will be defined through play; but mythology/religion are making claims to world comprehension.  These are true or not, as characters and players will use them as information on which to base decisions.

Yet the initial question remains unanswered for the populace at large...except for that individual.

Oh no - only if what is True is that it is a subjective world.  If its disproved, its disproved, unless once again, proof means something other than proof.  

Stealing Apollo's chariot brings the sun down over the whole world, though it is only a local myth; or perhaps it only brings the sun down in specific areas, wherever Apollo's influence is important; or instead, the theft and darkness only affects the characters of the story itself and we ignore the rest of the world until it becomes important that the event have affected it -- that is, how does the event matter to the story, to the premise and the characters/players?

Who cares?  Why should the CHARACTERS in the gam,e ghive a flying fig about the "story impact" of their world.  Why should the CHARACTERS ignore the fact that their fundamental myths have either been proved or falsified?  Once again I can only say that this produces exactly the opposite of its intended goal: it produces play in which the mythology is unimportant, irrelevant, inconsisntentm unreliable and hence ignored.  

Suppose each priest journeying to the sun sees precisely what they expect. One steals Apollo's chariot to prove that the sun is in Apollo's domain, the other does not interfere with Ra or his dung-beetle.

Then we know the Truth; what matters is what they expect and they are psionic, they just don;t have a thought-mode to articulate that.  One day they'll stop using their psychic powers through the metaphor of elves and pixies and start using as sctiinific discipline, at which time it will substantiall more useful.

Yet darkness falls across the land...and Ra speaks to his people of the serpent who has swallowed the sun, whom the authors and writers (players) can then go slay, returning the sun to its glory even while retaining Apollo's chariot.

Why?  These are two different realities - please explain how you reconcile them.  I will say again, sometiems I think that this is really just the anthropological model.  The Truth is that there was an eclipse, and there are two conflicting lies explaining it.  In both cases, the local priests make up some further lies, and the problem goes away.  Conclusion?  Both mythologoes are lies and useless for making decisions about the game world.  In neither case it is Actually True, in any sense whatsoever, that either myth correctly describes the world.

If you structure such play, you will not make myths; quite the converse, the only thing you will make them is irrelevant.  There will be no point in mknowing them; mythiology is not Information and has no usefgul function.  While this may be a valid model of a game, I would find it a waste of time to construct such a system that used so much mythological colour and then DIDN'T make the mythology actually true.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Damion,

My shortest post ever?

1 points/ 1 question.
1)An RPG has a unified truth, as it has a system. Thus, anything in the 'system' is a fact.

2)Ron's question bears repeating, which is : How much of the world does the GM have to know for the game to be playable?

...

         The only important thing is enought truth exist to resolve things.  

Sorry for mangling and terribly condensing your post but, you just answered the question.

All a GM needs to know at the most basic level is enough of the core mechanics as presented in the rules to referee the game and "resolve
things".  Beyond that all else is padding, fluff, and stage dressing mixed in amidst the bells and whistles the GM has at their disposal.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings greyorm,

Methodist?

So your players, containing among them a priest of Ra and a priest of Apollo, want to decide once and for all between the two of them which myth is true. In this manner, the premise is established and play begins.

Here, we are developing a myth, or examining a myth, as the narrative structure in which all other things take place. That is, the myth itself serves as the premise, including a contested myth.

The authors may have decided beforehand who is right, establishing the premises: How far will you go to prove you are right? and What would you do if you found everything you believed was false?

Or they may allow the correct answer to be arrived at in play, via some previously established method: who goes the furthest, who survives the journey, etc.

The reason none have before attempted this sort of contest is because of the nature of the characters as protagonists -- the world only exists to create their story. This is both adequate and probable considering the nature of adventure gaming, and particularly myth: none have done it before, even if it seems easy, because the story is not about the world, but about the characters.

I got to this point and was struck by a odd though, or good example, pending your POV.

Xena.

Yes, Xena, the television series.  In the last couple of seasons they went completely off the deep end with their portrayal of mythological characters, yet did it really matter?

Probably not to most who watched the show.  Why?

For just what greyorm said, it's not about the myths, but the characters, and their intereaction in the larger world.

As for Apollo and Ra... anyone wondering what happened to Helios?




Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings contracycle,

Hmm...

Yet darkness falls across the land...and Ra speaks to his people of the serpent who has swallowed the sun, whom the authors and writers (players) can then go slay, returning the sun to its glory even while retaining Apollo's chariot.

Why?  These are two different realities - please explain how you reconcile them.  I will say again, sometiems I think that this is really just the anthropological model.  The Truth is that there was an eclipse, and there are two conflicting lies explaining it.  In both cases, the local priests make up some further lies, and the problem goes away.  Conclusion?  Both mythologoes are lies and useless for making decisions about the game world.  In neither case it is Actually True, in any sense whatsoever, that either myth correctly describes the world.

If you structure such play, you will not make myths; quite the converse, the only thing you will make them is irrelevant.  There will be no point in mknowing them; mythiology is not Information and has no usefgul function.  While this may be a valid model of a game, I would find it a waste of time to construct such a system that used so much mythological colour and then DIDN'T make the mythology actually true.

As I see there are two POV warring with each other.

Myth as a "game mechanic" and myth as a "background setting".

As a background setting myth can fuel political machinations and intrique.

As a game mechanic myth, by definition, will *have* to be the supporting explanation for how things are... and why.

But can myth be used as both game mechanic and background setting (which thus may be altered) in a RPG?

I am tempted to say no, because to change the myth would change reality, and thus the game world... then again in a fantasy milieu where wishes and magic is allowed I'd have to say yes, with qualifications.

I am not sure what those qualifications are, save that they would depend upon the system and established world setting being used.

What do the rest of you think?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[simon_hibbs]

Just to clarify my possition, I'd like to reply to a few comments
on the Freethinkia/Unitia examples, where it seems to me I may
not have been very well understood.


damion :

>I don't think 'idealogical' truism must reduce the freedom
>of expression.

I am not arguing that it necesserily does, I am challenging the
assertion that _not_ having ideological truism reduces freedom
of expression. I don't think it does. I can't see how enabling multiple
valid religious philosophies in a game reduces freedom, hence my
attempt at a 'reductio ad absurdum' example.


Kester Pelagius :

>This is a fallacious argument.

No it isn't. You are ignoring the issue of provability, which is at the
crux of this discussion.

>Why?
>
>Because what you have posited are world cultures. Within
>the world cultures both would provide the players with a full
>range of playability.

That is _exactly_ how I see it. Note that the culture of
Unitia could perfectly well exist in Freethinkia, with the
caveat that it's religious philosophy would not be provably
the only valid one. I am simply arguing that such provability
is not necessery or desirable.

Why don't we split off a sub-thread, starting with Ron's
question about the role of the GM relative to the game world? It
seems like a god question.


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

I can't see how enabling multiple
valid religious philosophies in a game reduces freedom,

...because their "validities" are mutually exclusive; they are all equally invalid, and therefore nobody is free to express themselves on the given framework.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

This specific question has been bugging me a lot lately. It strikes me, in a way, like when someone posts "Give me an idea for an RPG" which I equate to "Think of something for me to invent."

We have an interesting problem, mutually exclusive mythologies which are to be equally true in the described game. Now, the problem that some people seem to have is that you cannot have this because the difernt religious views cannot be explicitly true or else there will be reprocussions through the game world that makes the one myth more true(?) than the others.

My gut instinct is to ask "reprocussion like what?" not really understanding what is being worried about here and then we get bogged down into the details of the hypethetical and forget about the main point here.

The main point here, it seems to me, is we have an interesting problem before the table, reconciling conflicting religious/mythological views in the same game world, but it is the task of individual games and players to answer this question, not any thread on an RPG theory forum. This problem has too many possible solutions to really discuss here or to ever hope to arrive at an answer. There is no one true way.

Let take the Apollo/dung beetle example again for a moment. These are two very different possible realities. How can you reconcil them?

[*]You could have only one be true. Either Apollo drives the sun or he does not.
[*]You could have neither be true, like in the real world where Great and Mighty Oogok throws his solar frisbee across the sky.
[*] or you could find a way for both to be true
[/list:u]
We seem to be talking about the last option here for the most part and how to do it. Well, that's your problem if you're running such a game, I'm afraid. RPGs are a form of artistic expression and if you wish to make conflicting mythologies real at the same time, then that is the problem that you have decided to tackle. How you solve it is a matter of your own talent, artistry, and taste and it will not be solved here.

Now, we could give you possible solutions and suggestions and whether you like them or not is, again, a matter of taste. For instance, you could have Apollo and the dung beetles "shooting for it" to see who has to take the sun across the sky.

Apollo: "...and shoot! Evens! Ha ha, beetle! You have to take the sun across the sky today!"

Beetle: "Crrkt Crrkt Crrkt"

Apollo: "No grumbling. It was fair and square. You want to use my chariot?"

Beetle: "Crrkt Cree Crrkt"

Apollo: "Suit yourself."

Don't like that one? Then you could borrow a page from the movie Erik the Viking where the vikings went to Valhalla and the Christian in their group could not see it. He did not believe in Valhalla or the Norse gods so they weren't there to him or real at all. He could walk right through the walls he couldn't see and the gods could not harm him. However, the walls of Valhalla and the gods were very real to Erik and the rest and very real danger to them.

Or come up with something different, if you like. Or only play games where these things are addressed to your liking. Either or. My point is that it really isn't within the scope on this forum to answer this question and is more up to individual designers and player to do so within individual games, perhaps answering the same question differently in different games or not at all. Just my view of it.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Jack,

Yes.

And in the telling of the tale, in defining mythological reality on the fly, the players and GM state in narrative what they think the world to be like, what matters, and even, on occassion, find themself contradicting what they might have thought before play, having entered imaginitively into a tale and discovered a new "treasure" to bring out into the real world having participated in the story's creation.

Christopher

[Gordon C. Landis]

The Truth is that there was an eclipse, and there are two conflicting lies explaining it. In both cases, the local priests make up some further lies, and the problem goes away. Conclusion? Both mythologoes are lies and useless for making decisions about the game world. In neither case it is Actually True, in any sense whatsoever, that either myth correctly describes the world.

OK, let me map this onto the way I've seen this kind of thing handled in fantasy games with a couple different game groups.  What actually happens is the light in the sky goes dark and then comes back (I'll label it an eclipse, but I'm just naming an event, not implying a "real" orbital-mechanics explanation is what caused the effect).  There are two (or more) conflicting explanations for an eclipse in varied mythologies - say, the dung beetle is unfed, or the chariot breaks down.  These mythologies are both in some way "hooked up" to the effect that is an eclipse.

By interacting with either of those mythologies, the PCs are able to influence whether or not the eclipse happens, or how long it is, and etc.  They can interact with the beetle one time, and the chariot the next.  Even at the same time, if the GM/group are good at juggling such things.  If the dung beetle is unfed, must the chariot also be broken down?  Maybe, or maybe the unfed beetle is just "trumping" the normal-state chariot.  And if you boost the chariot (add a horse to the team, maybe), that now trumps the beetle.  Or temporarily trumps the beetle.

Neither myth can lay sole claim to correctly (in a complete and total sense) describing the world.  Both myths can lay claim to being useful when applied to particular problems.  That can be defined to whatever degree the group desires - complex cosmologies where each god controls a local reality, or where there are "area's of responsibility" in the universe and gods have more power within their area than without - lots of options.

What is the Truth about an eclipse (again, as an event, not an explanation) within the game world?  The truth about an eclipse is that it can be predicted and/or changed and/or influenced by interacting with various myths.  There is no problem with the myths contradicting - they're all just means to cause an effect, anyway.

But what happens when THOSE conflict - when some people are feeding the beetle, and others are harrassing the chariot?  Ultimately, at least in a particular area, the eclipse is going to either happen or not - how do you determine which when varied myths are being used to cause DIFFERENT effects on the event?  The game, or at least the social contract, should provide guidance here.  But resolving that question doesn't make one myth valid in all ways and the other invalid in all ways - it just means that one of 'em corresponded more with the effect than the other.  The other might "fade away," if that's how you want your myths to work.

Hmm . . . I thought after reading Gareth's post, I had a new way to respond to his concerns  . . . but now I'm not sure any of this is new.  Is any of it helping?  By which I mean, am I illustrating how diverse truths can exist without it having to be a "it's all subjective" world?  I could call it the difference between a truth (aiding the chariot aids the sun) and "The Truth" (the sun is a chariot).  Lots of those "a truths" (aiding the chariot aids the sun - aiding the beetle also aids the sun) can play together just fine - it's just the "The Truths" where contradiction is a problem.  So I tend to avoid having much to do with "The Truth" in a fantasy game world.  
Maybe that's my "advice" on M.J.'s original issue - avoid The Truth (in a practical sense), and here's one way how.  I also think this is where Fang's points about level and perspective are important, but I'm at a loss as to where to go from there . . . I think I'll move on to the other threads in case they provide a focus for another comment.

Gordon

[greyorm]

edit: post (response to Gareth) moved to private message

[simon_hibbs]

I can't see how enabling multiple
valid religious philosophies in a game reduces freedom,

...because their "validities" are mutually exclusive;

You still haven't demonstrated this, only asserted it.

they are all equally invalid, and therefore nobody is free to express themselves on the given framework.

More ex-cathedra pronouncement without any actual reasoning to back it up.

How on earth you can accept that a fantasy world might have 'The Law of Similarity' as a cosmic law, and yet deny that similarities inmythical alegory with the real world can give power? This seems to me to be elementary.


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

I can't see how enabling multiple
valid religious philosophies in a game reduces freedom,

...because their "validities" are mutually exclusive;

You still haven't demonstrated this, only asserted it.

I didn't need to demonstrate it, greyorm demonstrated it for me.  We would present a scenario in which myth was to be taken as Literally True, but in actual resolution, the GM-behaviour was to declare it symbolic.  Thus, a character identity premised on the mythology being true had been violated; that character cannot carry out what they were selected by the player to carry out.  The myth has been falsified in actual play at the table.  That has appeared in every sample to date.

How on earth you can accept that a fantasy world might have 'The Law of Similarity' as a cosmic law, and yet deny that similarities inmythical alegory with the real world can give power? This seems to me to be elementary.

I don't; I merely require that the game ASSERT that the Law of Similarity IS a cosmic law and is empowered in manner X.  A game which does not make such an assertion gives me no reason to think that Law of Similarity either exists in the game world or is empowered in the game world.

The Law of Similarity per se does not explain effect.  It merely explains, more or less, why human beings FALSELY attribute cause and effect to things that are only superficially similar.  It is an argument to anthropology, not an argument to game design.