I'm looking back over what I've written and I'm not sure if any of this is apropos. This is one of those notes that I might just back over and never post, but I'm hesitating because I'd like to see it discussed. I'm hoping that others will address Brand's issues more pointedly than I am able to.

Over in this thread, Brand wrote:
one problem...my non-Mormon friends all get a little odd about playing a pseudo-Mormon game with the Mormon me...

1. “I know, but it still feels odd to play with something that looks so much like a real world religion, especially one that I’m (no offence Brand, love you to death,) not always comfortable with.”

2. “Yea, I know, I’m just a little odd about it. Don’t know why.”

3. “I think I’d be okay with playing, but I don’t want to run for you. How could I ever feel like I have authority over the subject matter when it’s real world analog is something you’ll always know more about than I do.”

So, I’m still dealing with people’s comfort levels and trying to overcome or find ways around issues that people aren’t willing to deal with. Anyone else have similar experiences?

Hiya,

I strongly recommend reading through the older threads in this forum, from back when it was the Soopasecret Playtest forum.

Here's one of the sort I mean: Where I can help ..., begun by Jake Norwood. In case you didn't know this, Jake is an LDS member who's devoted a great deal of his life and efforts toward the church.

There are several other threads of this sort as well. I think that pointing them out to folks who are interested or concerned about Dogs' content, in religious or whether-it's-OK terms, will not only reassure them, but likely will make them (justly) feel respected and well-served.

Is the game an open endorsement and straightforward support of the LDS or Mormonism? Nope. But it has a great deal of integrity about these issues, of the sort which I respect (as a non-special-interest party) and which at least one Mormon with great commitment to and proven track record with the LDS respects as well.

Best,
Ron

This is definitely a good forum for this discussion. I've been thinking about this for years, myself. I think the issues you describe stem from either a) treating a player's religion with deliberate disrespect and b) not quite knowing how to treat a subject of religious significance.

Religion's a big deal for us smart monkeys. They're the metaphorical filter through which we view a Universe more complex than we can imagine, and through them, we come to some peace with the Infinite.

How does religion work in your environment? Is there a True religion? Or do religions all grasp at the corners of a hyperdimensional tablecloth, trying to get a view of the meal? Or are they systems of politics, devised to order society the way money and force are?

So if we want to use a religion in our settings, we have to first be sure what we're doing. Ambiguity can really, seriously hurt peoples' feelings, and at the very least, that's not fun. And, of course, no one likes to be insulted. I'd guess that it would be wise to discuss this up front, or at the very least, discuss the players' beliefs and what they consider comfortable, edgy, and sacrosanct.

Here's how I used religion in a recent campaign: we were in 16th century Europe. The characters were secret agents in the service of Queen Elizabeth I and the antagonists were typically Spain and its master (for the purposes of the story), the Vatican. There were also Rationalists (Tycho Brahe and John Dee, for instance, whose mathematics and logic were no less potent) and Jews in the story. All used their understanding of the universe to work wonders with equal facility. The moral dimension of their actions were their own.

In this instance, I'm assuming that religion is an almost mechanical process. The Bad Guys are the Catholic Church (not an unreasonable position to take if you're English at the time), but that offended no one in my group. The Rationalists tended to be, well, rational, and the Jews tended to play defense, sometimes to catastrophic effect for themselves and others. But the truth of the religions were never questioned, just the motives of the practitioners, and they're characters like any other.

Just be clear with your players, and you might find that you have some really interesting and gnarly stories to tell.

I dig this conversation but I may be its least useful participant. I mean, what am I gonna say that isn't already in the game?

-Vincent

Hello,

If anyone's interested, I discussed some terms in Is religion that much of a mystery? Check out the second page, where I break'em down into families.

I'm not suggesting that anyone has to use the terms in the way I've described, but in my experience, making sure you're clear about which you're talking about really helps, especially on-line.

Best,
Ron

There's a related issue that comes up for me a lot, which is the cultural issue (which, during playtest, made me focus a lot of Vincent's treatment of Native Americans). A lot of roleplaying games try to sidestep cultural issues, especially when dealing with Asian cultures, by setting the game in a pseudo-historical land: Rokugan or Cathay or whatever. I don't think this sleight-of-hand works most of the time, because you're basically reserving your right to be offensive and not approach things in a respectful manner.

All along, even in his descriptions of the Mountain People, I felt like Vincent "got it." He figured out a way to do the pseudo-historical thing where it didn't become simply an excuse. How? I think it's because he made the people so real and 3-dimensional. They didn't become charactitures or stereotypes (as often happens in pseudo-Asian games), but had a vibrant set of motivations and cultural norms that seem every bit as real as an actual historical culture.

Jonathan Walton wrote: There's a related issue that comes up for me a lot, which is the cultural issue ... I felt like Vincent "got it." He figured out a way to do the pseudo-historical thing where it didn't become simply an excuse.

I suspect that the longer a campaign goes on the less similar to historical Mormans it will look.

The brilliance of the game design, what makes it truly a great game and not just a cool game, is that the Dogs are establishing doctrine as they go. There is no list of "right" or "historical" answers provided. There is no council of high elder poobahs judging the Dogs actions and forcing them to abide by canonical law.

Canonical law is whatever the players say it is. God's Will is whatever the players say it is. Faith is whatever the players say it is. As play progresses I'd expect the answers the players come up with as their Dogs go about making decisions about events on a micro scale will mean the One True Faith will wind up looking a whole lot different than the Latter Day Saints.

In fact, I think the only way it wouldn't look a whole lot different is if a group of players was knowledgeable enough about Mormon doctrine to choose actions consistant with existing teachings.

Valamir wrote:
In fact, I think the only way it wouldn't look a whole lot different is if a group of players was knowledgeable enough about Mormon doctrine to choose actions consistant with existing teachings.

Valamir wrote: In fact, I think the only way it wouldn't look a whole lot different is if a group of players was knowledgeable enough about Mormon doctrine to choose actions consistant with existing teachings.

Brand_Robins wrote: I’ll note that the cover image of the Dogs has had a big effect for brining people in. Both of the girls I’ll be playing with looked at the woman on the front cover and said, “SHE KICKS ASS! I want a coat like that! And a gun!” I’m hoping that once my physical copy arrives the cover will work it’s mojo on those who don’t jive with computer screens.

I have encouraged my players to fully make up passages out of the Book of Life rather than attempt to quote from the Bible.

This generally ends up with us mis-quoting from the Bible to suit our own righteous ends.

Definitely, Paka.

"For the prophet Ezradiah did say unto the Yemenites, 'Woe be to you, O My people, that you have fallen in with the heathen things and with the beasts of the earth, that you have lost sight of the My Seed within you. You have buried it in the sand and rock of the desert instead of the fertile soil of the valley Urizah, which I have given unto you for ever and ever.' So it is written, the word of the Lord to the Faithful who have gone astray. Turn back towards Lord and life! Repent your wicked ways!"

Paka wrote: I have encouraged my players to fully make up passages out of the Book of Life rather than attempt to quote from the Bible.

This generally ends up with us mis-quoting from the Bible to suit our own righteous ends.

Yeah, the Book of Life is interesting, in that people are always making up what it says. Different play groups have different Books. I'm curious about how this turns out over time. As mentioned in another thread, I have a character named Benjamin whose Book is classical literature, a la the Illiad or Aristotle. Other characters quote stuff about Righteousness and demon smiting.

I guess it's a pretty big book.

DannyK wrote:
Some of us do that in real life. :)

We came up with a couple of quotes in my game, too, because one of our Dogs had a coat with scripture embroidered in it. Appropriate phrases where sewn on appropriate body parts, and the collar had the line from the Book of Life that called the Dogs to service.

I imagined it was something like this:

Sin gnaws at the root, as rats on the roots of grape vines. Let loose my people, like dogs in the vineyard, so they may chase the rats from beneath the vines.

Not perfect, but that's what I wanted it to convey.

Just I quite like the sound of "let loose my people, like dogs into the vineyard..."

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: Just I quite like the sound of "let loose my people, like dogs into the vineyard..."