Greetings All,

So I was reading threads. Something about the quote below struck me like a two-by-four upside the head on a bright day when a cold wind blows down your shirt raising goose pimples up and down your too sensitive to the cold front moving in downgrade in temperature.

Jonathan Walton wrote: The Problem of Religion

So, I was re-reading the current thread on "Christian gaming," when I slowly realized that there are very few, if any, roleplaying games that really treat religion in a way that is both mature and respectful.

Think about it. How do you normally see religion depicted in roleplaying

I think that since you made a split from a thread; you should probably have declared why, but I won't continue and be declared a hypocrite. Anyway-

I agree on most of your points, except on how RPGs aren't special in terms of how they are used to portrey religions. And I don't think that people have brought up how hisorical RPGs actually treat religion correctly, or modern day RPGs for that matter. Or if they don't, they could. The truth is that either:

A): The GM doesn't want to tought the topic with a... 39 and 1/2 foot pole.

B): The GM doesn't feel like simulating a particular religion due to setting ect.

Any one can portrey then correctly, but it isn't really the designer's responsability. Besides, most people don't even know how religion has been treated historically. If you won't admit that all religion (which I don't neccicarilly do) you must admit that it did in ancient times. It was once said that the only difference between a cult and a church was the political power the organization held.

Greetings Pyron,

Hope all is snug and cozy in your part of the world. If not, and the snow is piling up, then I have just one thing to say...

Why aren't you out building armies of snowmen!?? *smirk*

Pyron wrote: I think that since you made a split from a thread; you should probably have declared why...

Pyron wrote: I agree on most of your points, except on how RPGs aren't special in terms of how they are used to portray religions. And I don't think that people have brought up how historical RPGs actually treat religion correctly, or modern day RPGs for that matter. Or if they don't, they could. The truth is that either:

A): The GM doesn't want to touch the topic with a... 39 and 1/2 foot pole.

B): The GM doesn't feel like simulating a particular religion due to setting ect.

Pyron wrote: Any one can portrey then correctly, but it isn't really the designer's responsability. Besides, most people don't even know how religion has been treated historically. If you won't admit that all religion (which I don't neccicarilly do) you must admit that it did in ancient times. It was once said that the only difference between a cult and a church was the political power the organization held.

Kester wrote: To me a "Elementalist" Fireball spell would not and should not be the same as a "Wizard" Fireball spell. Of course this would mean having to create seperate spell stats for every spell.

But would you really need to do that? Wouldn't the difference be solely in description and visualization? Wouldn't the end result (things burn and take damage) be the same?

Perhaps all that would be needed is different descriptives for the different spell-casting types.

As to Cleric/Priests I still think that it relies heavily upon Player Commitment and level of Simulation you're going for.

One thing that I did like about 3rd Ed D&D is the domains for Dieties. This allowed us to more easily make splinter sects of the same "religion" by changing primary domains. For example, my priest followed the Vengeful Judge aspect of St. Cuthbert as opposed to most other priests who followed the Good Protector aspect. This also led to my priest being constantly at odds with the mainstream church of St. Cuthbert, and other dieties, as he kept converting people to his sect and establishing small shrines wherever he went. :)

Greetings wyrdlyng,

wyrdlyng wrote:

Kester wrote: To me a "Elementalist" Fireball spell would not and should not be the same as a "Wizard" Fireball spell. Of course this would mean having to create seperate spell stats for every spell.

But would you really need to do that? Wouldn't the difference be solely in description and visualization? Wouldn't the end result (things burn and take damage) be the same?

wyrdlyng wrote: Perhaps all that would be needed is different descriptives for the different spell-casting types.

As to Cleric/Priests I still think that it relies heavily upon Player Commitment and level of Simulation you're going for.

wyrdlyng wrote: One thing that I did like about 3rd Ed D&D is the domains for Dieties. This allowed us to more easily make splinter sects of the same "religion" by changing primary domains. For example, my priest followed the Vengeful Judge aspect of St. Cuthbert as opposed to most other priests who followed the Good Protector aspect. This also led to my priest being constantly at odds with the mainstream church of St. Cuthbert, and other dieties, as he kept converting people to his sect and establishing small shrines wherever he went. :)

Kester Pelagius wrote: Course the main "problem" here, I think, is the belief that role-playing games are supposed to "treat religion in a way" that is anything other than a *game* scenario. Viz. in a Fantasy game you have a Cleric, who uses "magic" with the "deity" whose tenents they must obey being the justification for the "how and why" that they are able to cast spells.

Actually that pretty much sums up Priests and Clerics. They are merely magic users who must obey strict rules. That is what alignment was really for. It had no real bearing on other characters, except for Holy Warrior-Paladins and games based on a Moorcockian universe.

I've always treated religion respectfully in all my writing. In my head, it is the core to designing a fantastic culture. What holds a culture together? What the people believe.

In L5R, I tried presenting a fantastic version of Buddhism and Taoism, one that was accessable to a Western reader and familiar enough to someone familiar with the ideas to say, "Oh. It's a simple (but respectful) version of 'blah.'"

In 7th Sea, it was all about presenting a gnostic alternative to the Catholic church. Yes, the church was corrupt, but the faith was pure.

Orkworld was my most whole-hearted attempt to present not just a religion, but a philosophy of life, as dictated by a primitive, migratory people.

And, to cap it all off, I still don't see any reason for "clerics" and "wizards." Every magic system in the history of man has been based on faith in a supernatural power (there has never been an "athiest magic system"). In my mind, wizards and clerics are one and the same.

there has never been an "athiest magic system"

Mike Holmes wrote:

there has never been an "athiest magic system"

Interesting. I'd say that's because magic does not demonstrably exist. If it did, you can bet that there would be a scientific/atheist description of it.

But then some people would say that this would not be magic. Still, it would be something, so that would be belaboring the point. Which is to say that John has just tautologically explained why in real life magic is religious. But not why it must be in games.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:

there has never been an "athiest magic system"

Interesting. I'd say that's because magic does not demonstrably exist.Mike

Hi Mike,

My dilettante's understanding of Hermetic philosophy suggests that even this tradition, commonly depicted in RPGs as bringing a "scientific" take to magic, has a rich spiritual component with its own theological dimension and cosmology. Where it diverts from "religion" is in its humanocentric focus, e.g., the potential of the magus to learn and master the mysteries as part of his/her own spiritual evolution to a higher state of being. I think the key distinction between magic and science is that magic - all magic in folklore - consists of a personal, subjectively managed, frequently capricious force arising from gods, angels, demons, spirits, and human knowledge thereof. Even alchemy, about the nearest thing I can think of regarding a scientific approach to magic, has a great number of these elements, and medieval alchemy has at least as much to do with the purification of the soul of the practicioner as with the application of the lore itself.

If magic were discovered to be an impersonal force observable through experiment to achieve repeatable quantified results regardless of the practicioner, then yeah, you could make a case for atheist magic.

In turning to the core question of this thread, I've always found religion in RPGs to fall into one of two categories: (1) gods exist objectively as powerful spiritual patrons who embody broad archetypes and use their followers as pawns in a cosmic conflict (DnD, Hero Wars, Stormbringer, arguably Fading Suns, Ars Magica, and almost every other fantasy game out there), or (2) the gods are silent and belief is a matter of faith (I dunno, maybe Prince Valiant). In the latter case, so-called clerical magic is either no more than "regular" magic as practiced by priests, or it is miraculous coincidence correlated with prayer by one of the faithful. Either way, there are no "objective" manifestations of deity beyond textual claims such as "our sacred book says X pulled off this miracle 1,000 years ago."

In the majority of games, godly interaction ranges from Gods as cosmic politicians (DnD) without IMO much Mystery, to Stormbringer's Cosmic Fuckers in an Eternal Knife Fight, Ars Magica's "God is Out There," and the complex and layered mythologies of Hero Wars.

The DnD depiction of clerics does strike me as pretty secular, lacking much of anything in the way of Mystery.

Best,

Blake

In our Thursday Ravenloft game, one of the characters is a "humanist cleric." His holy symbol is an abacus (or something like that) and he turns undead because "they have no place in the rational world of men!"

He's the coolest thing ever.

John,

Much Chaos Magick and certain forms of Magickal Qabalah and Ceremonial Magic are athiest. They generally posit either:

Magick is a non-sentient force, and the "spirits" and "gods" are a psychological prop magicians use to manipulate that force.

or:

Magick is a discipline by which unconscious talents and aspects of personality are brought out in the magician, in ways that can be used consciously.

Your friendly, neighborhood occultist,
Lon

Uncle Dark wrote: John,
Magick is a non-sentient force, and the "spirits" and "gods" are a psychological prop magicians use to manipulate that force.

Magick is a discipline by which unconscious talents and aspects of personality are brought out in the magician, in ways that can be used consciously.

I've read good things about 7th Sea's treatment of religion. Thanks for sticking to your guns on that, John.

Multiverser takes a belief in magic to be inherently religious. It doesn't require any specific sort of religious belief but this: the belief that there is indeed supernatural power, some sort of force or energy which is tapped from beyond the universe. It does, however, distinguish between "holy magic" and "arcane magic".

The idea of "holy magic" is that the practitioner is specifically petitioning some supernatural persona to act on his behalf. Although most people immediately think God or gods (and most players play it that way), it equally applies to demons, djinn, dryads, and any other spirit creatures who might be petitioned by prayer or ritual to act on behalf of the character.

"Arcane magic" takes the view that there is some sort of "free energy" in the supernatural realm. Whether you think it something like the stuff of which that realm is made, or stray energy radiated from its inhabitants, or some other concept, the idea remains that the character is drawing energy directly rather than through the intermediacy of a spirit creature. This is still religious, in the sense that the practitioner must believe in the existence of a supernatural realm from which the power is drawn; but it does not require any specific connection to that realm and doesn't oblige the character to some personage who provided the power. Many characters use both holy and arcane magic; some appeal to more than one spiritual being for power.

Because the belief in the supernatural is a specifically religious belief, atheists and agnostics are barred from using magic of any sort. If they don't believe the power is there, they can't have the expectation necessary to tap it, no matter what they do to attempt to do so. This is balanced by a second factor, that if magic is used directly against them they are to some degree protected to the degree that they disbelieve it (a "religion" type score equivalent to the faith others have in the spirits who provide their holy magic).

Lon raises the issue of those who believe in magic which is not supernatural in origin. C. S. Lewis warned of the dawn of the "materialist magician" who could tap magic without believing in it. Some would insist that such persons are confused regarding the source of their own power; but Multiverser doesn't treat it so. Rather, the answer the game gives would derive from the sort of descriptions Lon gives for the source of the power.

'Uncle Dark' Lon wrote: Magick is a non-sentient force, and the "spirits" and "gods" are a psychological prop magicians use to manipulate that force.

'Uncle Dark' Lon wrote: or:

Magick is a discipline by which unconscious talents and aspects of personality are brought out in the magician, in ways that can be used consciously.

Greetings Simon,

Nice to be able to chat with you.

simon_hibbs wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: Course the main "problem" here, I think, is the belief that role-playing games are supposed to "treat religion in a way" that is anything other than a *game* scenario. Viz. in a Fantasy game you have a Cleric, who uses "magic" with the "deity" whose tenents they must obey being the justification for the "how and why" that they are able to cast spells.

Actually that pretty much sums up Priests and Clerics. They are merely magic users who must obey strict rules. That is what alignment was really for. It had no real bearing on other characters, except for Holy Warrior-Paladins and games based on a Moorcockian universe.

Given the very close relationship, to the point of common orrigin, between religious beliefs and magical theory in the real world I think you have this back to front. Magicians are merely lay people using theological lore outside the context of a religious institution.

simon_hibbs wrote: Regarding you point on religion in Monopoly. If you play roleplaying games from a purely gamist stance, treating your characters as simple playing pieces with no characterised personality beyond your own, then that's a perfectly fair point. What you're missing is that many of us at least occasionaly explore the personality and motivations of our characters.

A gamist approach to playing a game based on Lord of the Rings might
be to have Gandalf take the ring to mount doom on the back of
Throdor (the giant eagle) and risk failing the saving thows to avoid
temptation by the ring along the way. A roleplaying approach taking into
account the character's personality almost certainly wouldn't choose
this approach, as it's contrary to the kindly old wizard's ethical
beliefs. If the ethical choices of our characters have a place in gaming,
then so do the religious convictions of our characters, just as much as
their political ideals might.

Greetings John,

Lots of fascinating posts to read in this read today.

John Wick wrote: And, to cap it all off, I still don't see any reason for "clerics" and "wizards." Every magic system in the history of man has been based on faith in a supernatural power (there has never been an "athiest magic system"). In my mind, wizards and clerics are one and the same.

Greetings All,

A lot of interesting posts. Yet most speak to the treatment of relgious institutions within the context of a game environment, not so much the issues of game mechanics. (viz. the actual crunching bits about running of religions or Priest characters.) To me a good write up is always a plus for a game, not merely fluff, even if some may feel that it is.

So let me pose another brain teaser for your entertainment.

Since some are of the opinion that magic in inherent to *belief* in some preternatural force, be it a Deity or no, then I wonder why religion isn't a issue in Super Hero games. Most, if not all, create the exact sort of preternatural affects which Wizards and Clerics are able to perform, within a game environment. Yet, somehow, such games remain all but divorced for the sorts of debates which rage about Wizards and Clerics in relation to religion.

Why is that?

(No atheist magic indeed! *wink*)

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

Of course there is a difference. In superhero games and post-holocaust games with superhuman characters these are considered abilities. No lists of effects to memorize or skills, your character has certain innate abilities. Yet is that not also what magic is to a Wizard?

I guess that would depend upon the system, wouldn't it!

After all the system, the actual game mechanics, those wonderful "rules of play" create the flavor of the game environment as much as the narrative write-ups help us envision the game world.

Still, I can't help but wonder if perhaps some of the arguements and debates some gamers have might not stem from some other source closer to home.

After all a game is just a game, even if it simulates a entire world environment, populated with diverse peoples and cultures, right?

Even so Religion is a rather touchy subject, to be sure. Perhaps more so for some than others. But does having a game allowing players to have a Cleric or Magic-User trivialize religion, as some might think?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius


edited for clarity

What I feel is missing from the portrayal of religion is wisdom. Religious institutions are the locus of research, speculation about the world we inhabit; quite a lot of this data is useful if, as Kester pointed out, not well articulated and comprehended in its own right. In RP, religion is either Useful or Not... it is not explicatory. This is partly because worlds are seldom re-drawn to challenge our conventional thinking about how the world is composed - I am always amused to see fantasy worlds with gods and magic which are themselves spherical, in space, and in solar orbit. Thus there is very little for the player to understand about the world; indeed the player understands the world better than the characters could possibly hope (see arguments about relativity in TROS forums). The net result is that religion can only act as a material resource in the game world; it cannot and does not act to explain and church people are not revered for wisdom or insight.

There are exceptions, but I feel this is the general case.

Kester Pelagius wrote: Clerics [in most RPGs] are really the epitomy of the medeival (read post Roman Catholic Church) archetype of what a medieval Priest should be. Pious, subservient to their deity, et al. The Wizard is a throwback, someone with the *esoteric* knowledge of the "before time". They know... things and stuff. Whereas the Priest doesn't need to know anything, save how to call upon the aide of their Deity

Alan wrote: BTW Kester, did you know that Pelagius was a 4th century British heretic? I recall he preached a personal relationship to god and the bishops didn't like being cut out of the loop.

Greetings Alan,

First time chatting with you?

Well, here's hoping our civil discourse does not accidentally lead to the corruption of the less informed by opening their eyes... *wink*

Alan wrote: You're right that most RPGs base their religious magic workers on the midievil Christian model. But I think that "magic" workers throughout history have believed in two ways to gain power: piety and gnosticism (having a relationiship with the supernatural, and having special knowledge.) Midievil Roman Catholocism just discarded the second one and required that all miraculous power must be the result of a relationship to god or the devil.

Alan wrote: The word "gnosticism" means, roughly, "the practice of knowledge" and was coined to name a loose mystic movement among early Christians who believed that special knowledge gave special power. It was an extension of the pagan mystery cults.

Alan wrote: Religious figures in pre-christian cultures used a combination of both to invoke "magic". (I've read some material written in the late middle ages where the magician is instructed to pray for purity as preparation to spellcasting.) During the Christian era, this practice went largely underground, though it rears its head from time to time. Humans like the idea of special knowledge giving special power.

Alan wrote: BTW Kester, did you know that Pelagius was a 4th century British heretic? I recall he preached a personal relationship to god and the bishops didn't like being cut out of the loop.

Greetings Mike,

Do you ever look out your window and realize, hey, this already *is* a Mad Max kinda world?

I mean we have the intelligent mutant squirrels and people road raging all over the place. Sad, really, then again it could be worse.

Mike Holmes wrote: My point is that these are fantasy games, and we can fantasize about whatever we like. I don't need any real world examples at all...

....I feel there's really no "proper way" to approach magic and religion. Only ones that will satisfy our individual preferences more. And those preferences obviously differ in some particulars.

Mike Holmes wrote: OTOH, if you don't like such a treatment of magic, well, that I can't argue against. But that just makes it a personal preference, bearing no weight a priori. Each individual designer will have to decide if it makes sense to have an Atheist magic for themselves. Our resident Theologist seems o think it's viable...

Mike Holmes wrote: As for Impersonal, Sentient forces that one can control, um, electricity? You are aware that there are those who believe that such forces are, in fact, supernatural, and that the scentists who manipulate such forces are just priests of beings that control these forces. Again, it's all a matter of perspective.

John,

It didn't sound antagonistic to me, just a little dogmatic. As to whether or not focusing will is magick, it seems you and Aliester Crowley (and I) would disagree.

But on to game mechanics...

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

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

Most games seem to focus on 1, giving the other two some notice in passing. I think 2 is the most neglected.

Note, however, that 2 and 3 are not dependent on 1. In a game where there is no supernatural power, religion can still play these roles. Usually without modifying the mechanics of a game at all.

That this hasn't been written into non-fantasy settings more often seems to be due to one of two reasons; either the "religion is a myth we'll grow out of (in many SF settings)" assumption or "we don't want to offend any potential customers with our portrayal of religion," or both.

Lon

Lon,

Thanks for the correction RE: Hermetic philosophy. Much appreciated. Obviously, I shall have to have to read more carefully next time.

John,

That abacus cleric does sound way effin' cool, especially with that kind of pulp/Gothic dialogue. Reminds me of the True Reason stuff once bouncing through Ars Magica, but much, much better.

Everyone,

FWIW, I know in computer RPG design, clerics are typically cast as wielders of defensive magic and wizards as wielders of offensive magic. It's an oversimplified, somewhat hidebound take, I think, but surprisingly entrenched and absolutely derived from the DnD classes.

Best,

Blake

John--As for "atheist magic systems" in RP, have you ever read Bonewits's Authentic Thaumaturgy?

Much Chaos Magick and certain forms of Magickal Qabalah and Ceremonial Magic are athiest.

contracycle wrote: Religious institutions are the locus of research, speculation about the world we inhabit...This is partly because worlds are seldom re-drawn to challenge our conventional thinking about how the world is composed - I am always amused to see fantasy worlds with gods and magic which are themselves spherical, in space, and in solar orbit.

I'm surprised this discussion of fantasy magic and religion has proceeded so far without (unless I missed it) mention of what I thought was the most common fantasy-religion trope of all: the idea that gods are created and empowered entirely by the cumulative acts of worship performed by their believers. In a magic-saturated world, worship is a specific exercise of magic whose effect is to imbue power (and all the phenomena fueled by that power, such as sentience and moral identity) into the supernatural entity being worshipped. Thus, gods are objectively real and truly supernatural, but not necessarily mysterious. A god's individual action can be capricious, but overall, the deity's behavior must always be what the society of believers expects it to be.

This fits in nicely with role #2 on Lon's list. The god represents (metaphorically but also literally, inside the fantasy world) the cultural power of a society.

A cleric in such a fantasy world can be confident (even through direct observation) in the existence and power of the deities he worships. It's also reasonable that in most cases the cleric would believe in the deities' eternal-ness or existence independent from worshippers. Inside the fantasy world that would be an objective falsehood, but it would be difficult to observe, so gods would be perceived as powerful in their own right. At the same time, the cleric might have opportunity to observe that in a foreign land where some other religion is practiced, his gods lack power (except that which might be locally channeled through the cleric himself) over the society, or that ancient forgotten gods have little or no power.

Few modern real-world religions claim to have created their own gods nor that the continued existence of their gods depends on continuous worship. So fantasy religions based on this idea are at the same time distinct enough from real-world religions to be inoffensive to most, and consistent enough with the observable behavior of real-world religions to be plausible or at least not jarring. (For example, in the real world, in a head-on clash, the army whose gods have the most worshippers tends to win, though smaller groups can often prevail locally or when their worship is more fervent. And most real-world religions are rather insistent on serving and glorifying the deity through worship, even while vehemently denying that the deity, being already omnipotent, is in any way in need of such service.) This notion of how gods work is unfalsifiable in the real world, just as the existence of specific gods is. This makes depicting gods this way in fantasy reasonably comfortable, except for those who must regard even a fictional entertaining of such a notion as blasphemous.

- Walt

Walt wrote: ...what I thought was the most common fantasy-religion trope of all: the idea that gods are created and empowered entirely by the cumulative acts of worship performed by their believers. In a magic-saturated world, worship is a specific exercise of magic whose effect is to imbue power (and all the phenomena fueled by that power, such as sentience and moral identity) into the supernatural entity being worshipped.

Kester Pelagius wrote: We have a resident Theologist?

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

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

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

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

Why is that?

(No atheist magic indeed! *wink*)

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

'Uncle Dark' Lon wrote: It seems to me that religion plays three roles in a game:

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

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

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

Greetings M. J. Young,

Quite a bit of thought provoking posts here.

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

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

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

Kester,

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

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

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

Lon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings Uncle Dark,

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

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

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

Greetings greyorm,

greyorm wrote:

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

Mechanically, it doesn't.

Play-wise, it does.

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

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

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

Deficiency or oversight?

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

Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan a.k.a. greyorm wrote:

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

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

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

Greetings contracycle,

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

contracycle wrote:

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

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

contracycle wrote:

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

Deficiency or oversight?

Lack of data, rather, I believe.

Greetings lumpley,

lumpley wrote:

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

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

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

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

lumpley wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MJ, thanks for answering my query.
Also for the detailed analysis of the view of deity as an "independent entity;" you'll note I did reference that view in the paragraph following my comment about my perception of it as odd, so as to contrast it with the pagan view of deity as non-external to the universe.

And to a couple others...watch yourselves, certain of you are starting to free-associate all over the place. Check the topic, then post.

Greetings greyorm,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alright Kester, fair enough.
I overreacted, and much due to my missing any discerning between the ideas of "world mechanics" and "game mechanics" in your posting.

By "world mechanics" you are referring to alterations to or differences in the setting...but then I fail to see what your original disagreement was about? There are still no differences mechanics-wise.

Yes, again, there are differences setting-wise...the very differences I stated are the differences in setting (which is blatantly obvious). And your talk about different sources of magic, such as ley lines or mana, differing depending on the world, this is more of the same: description of the specific color of a setting.

Simply, I am left scratching my head at the reason for mentioning such things at all, for it sounds to me as though you are saying, "Settings have differences depending on their differences."

What, precisely, was the point of your original question and your later disagreement, especially as it relates to the topic at hand?

Well, I hate to jump into the middle of this discussion, but if I may, I think I see what Kester was getting at...mainly because its something of a pet peeve of mine.

In much the way Raven, that you have a distaste for the science nerd (a distaste I share but in a slightly different fashion...I like the hole poking to a point, because it tells me where they myth is weak and lets me fill in the holes I would have missed) I have a distaste for fanciful things that aren't taken to their logical conclusion (like D&D with lists of the 350 kings who ruled Oberthanahal...wait a minute...for a simple payment of gold my 7th level fighter got himself ressurected 3 times...the only reason there should ever be more than 1 king is if there was a coup, a death that resulted in total destruction of the body, or the king ran afoul of the church (all churches). That sort of thing.

So a strong but fantastical world myth (I love those...I have one involving a race being cursed by the moon, because the moon's lover begat the race on the sea...thinking the sea was it was the moon, because the trickster god put the moon's reflection in the water...that sort of thing) should have an impact on how the world works, and some of that can/could be reflected in mechanics. Now when I think mechanics I go beyond the very basic mechanism of the mechanic (die + modifier or what have you). To me rules for WHEN to invoke that mechanism are as much a part of the mechanic as the mechanism itself is, and so on.

As a concrete example, you indicated your world was flat. Well, the horizon is caused because of the curvature of the earth, distant objects being literally too "low" to see. If the world is flat, visual distances would work much differently. Even with a enormously powerful telescope I can't see all the way across the Atlantic...the curvature of the earth sees to that. But with a flat world...on a clear day...with a powerful enough telescope, I could stand in New York and watch fishing boats in the Bay of Biscay. Now while that may not effect the core mechanism of the game, it should effect things like when a party needs to roll to see if they've been spotted...which could happen MUCH farther away than our reality based intuition would suggest. In other words WHEN the mechanism gets invoked might be different based on the underlying myth.

For instance in the world I mentioned above weather is actually created in a manner similar to the Heat Miser / Frost Miser feud from the old Christmas Special...an ongoing war between cloud living Fire and Frost giants. If I were to play D&D3E in such a world I might well have to rework how "weather sense" abilities work...they might be cleric based instead of ranger based. Spells like Lightning Strike, or Call Weather, might have to be rewritten. Summoning cold weather might well piss off the local cloud of Fire Giants (like snow in South Town), may even change the balance of power in the on going war and herald the beggining of an Ice Age.

So I can definitely see places where a mythology (if its actually true and factual mythology) could have an impact on the broader set of what I would consider mechanics (i.e. mechanisms plus implementation of mechanisms).

Valamir wrote: If the world is flat, visual distances would work much differently.

greyorm wrote:

Valamir wrote: If the world is flat, visual distances would work much differently.

You're talking physical reality...you can't see beyond a certain distance because the earth curves, and if it didn't, you could. But...it's unimportant.

Gareth,

I agree, that would be a problem, and precisely what I feel (and am finding) my method allows the group to avoid, so you don't get characters or peoples who ignore their priests and diviners, nor players who fall back into "Just Like Earth(tm)" modes of thought and behavior.

Note that nowhere have I ever said "leave it utterly undefined" and similar statements about unknowing and unknowable. You're ascribing statements to me I'm not making: I'm saying that such things are best left to description through the campaign's mythology, and that such is supported as the truth in order to be recognized as such.

There is some context in regards to the issue of "unimportant" physical reality that is set up in previous posts in this thread as well as following the portion of my statement you quoted, which detail my reasons for making the statement that you might wish to reread to get a better idea of what I was promoting and what I was disapproving of, and why.

Greetings greyorm,

greyorm wrote: Alright Kester, fair enough.
I overreacted, and much due to my missing any discerning between the ideas of "world mechanics" and "game mechanics" in your posting.

By "world mechanics" you are referring to alterations to or differences in the setting...but then I fail to see what your original disagreement was about? There are still no differences mechanics-wise.

Yes, again, there are differences setting-wise...the very differences I stated are the differences in setting (which is blatantly obvious). And your talk about different sources of magic, such as ley lines or mana, differing depending on the world, this is more of the same: description of the specific color of a setting.

greyorm wrote:
Note that nowhere have I ever said "leave it utterly undefined" and similar statements about unknowing and unknowable. You're ascribing statements to me I'm not making: I'm saying that such things are best left to description through the campaign's mythology, and that such is supported as the truth in order to be recognized as such.

Simply, the world is flat and you still can't see beyond that certain distance because that's just the way the world is. No explanation necessary. Same physical laws, same gross physical "reality"...different actual cases of reality.

Kester wrote: Because your game mechanics should derive directly from your world mechanics. All novels that make it to print generally do so because they have a strong world mechanic, meaning they allow the reader reasonable room for suspension of disbelief. Thus they seem realistic within their own environment, even if they bear no resemblance to our perceived reality.

contracycle wrote: An explanation is most certainly necessary, cannot be otherwise: for I as the GM have responsibility to adjudicate and to do so with the illusion of fairness...If the explanation is located in mythology, and the mythology is given as subjective

greyorm wrote:
What I should have said instead is that no explanation is necessary in the scientific realm, and once the world is established as existing in its shape and form by the whim of the gods, explanations themselves need not be given for gross, experienced reality...because the explanation IS "that's the way the gods want it."

Further, determining the precise explanatory details of an observable fact is precisely what mythology does...it establishes why things are the way they are (and this, I think, would be an excellent cornerstone for a game about mythology).

contracycle wrote:
Will of the gods is not an explanation; it is an excuse to not provide an explanation. Mythology very seldom provides us with seriously useful information, it tends to explain the world in moral terms and be self-referential to an established model of social conduct. Thats perfectly legit in terms of character knowledge, but it is not adequate in terms of GM knowledge. Nor does it challenge the probability that a player will default to a modern understanding of the sun and the moon or the horizon, because no alternative model is being presented.

greyorm wrote:

Valamir wrote: If the world is flat, visual distances would work much differently.

Thanks, Ralph, I get what you are saying about Kester's idea...however, the above example is exactly the kind of notion I'm talking about ridding oneself of.

You're talking physical reality...you can't see beyond a certain distance because the earth curves, and if it didn't, you could. But...it's unimportant.

Simply, the world is flat and you still can't see beyond that certain distance because that's just the way the world is. No explanation necessary. Same physical laws, same gross physical "reality"...different actual cases of reality.

Regardless, I realize that's picking at the point, and I understand the intent behind the example. Ultimately, I agree, in a number of given cases alteration of the game world could affect the specific usage or usage-result of the mechanics.

Right, yeah, we agree - if the myth says that Zeus is up there, then Zeus had better be up there. If the mythology says the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle, I want to hang over the edge and tickle its nose.

contracycle wrote: These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. You see, I understand your initial position, that the world must be realised, but I disagree that subjective mythology

Greetings greyorm,

Ah, the soft hushed sounds of the Magical Mystery Tour album.

greyorm wrote:

Kester wrote: Because your game mechanics should derive directly from your world mechanics. All novels that make it to print generally do so because they have a strong world mechanic, meaning they allow the reader reasonable room for suspension of disbelief. Thus they seem realistic within their own environment, even if they bear no resemblance to our perceived reality.

Kester,

I agree wholeheartedly with your statements! However, note that what you are discussing as "world mechanics" is what the GNS essay precisely refers to as "Color" and the idea you are presenting is one long supported by the Forge and by Ron's original "System Does Matter" essay: that the system must support the intended goals of the design.

That is, what you are talking about is making your mechanics reflective of the goals of the game itself. As a specific example, if a goal of the game is to support the Exploration of Setting and Color, then the mechanics need to focus on and support the important parts of the Setting and the Color, centralizing them.

greyorm wrote: I've long been a proponent of this, and steadfastly dislike any system which does not follow this philosophy...it is my objective criteria for judgement: do the game mechanics support the intended goals of the game itself?

A specific example is "Sorcerer," which supports its Premise through its specific mechanics and makes it the center of play by making the mechanic of the Premise of central importance in the game.

Greetings contracycle,

contracycle wrote: Right, yeah, we agree - if the myth says that Zeus is up there, then Zeus had better be up there. If the mythology says the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle, I want to hang over the edge and tickle its nose.

Kester Pelagius wrote:
1. Integrated Rule System (World Mechanic is central)
2. Core Rule System (No primary World Mechanic, open ended)
3. Generic/Universal Rle System (The "everything" rules mechanics)

With all this talk of subjective mythology and things being the way they are because the "gods" say they are that way, I was wondering what you (and whoever else might like to reply) thought of such rules?

how would you say the indie games compare to the commercial grade mass produced gaming products you have?

Which, in your opinion, has treated Religion and other aspects of the "World Mechanic/Flavor" of a game better?

Kester Pelagius wrote: When traveling from one "sphere" to another Clerics were strictly forbidden from having any spells above 2nd Level *if entering a "spjere" where their deity was unknown*, if memory serves. Also, it was stated, that to regain spell levels (meaning the ability to cast spells above 2nd Level) they would have to find a deity whose basic template was relatively similar to their own to worship... or some such.

Greetings greyorm,

greyorm wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote:
1. Integrated Rule System (World Mechanic is central)
2. Core Rule System (No primary World Mechanic, open ended)
3. Generic/Universal Rle System (The "everything" rules mechanics)

Honestly, I don't see a difference between #2 and #3, they are functionally the same thing.

Kester Pelagius wrote: As well, your later breakdown makes no sense to me. Palladium does not have a centralized World Mechanic...that is, the game's mechanics are not about the Premise, nor are Stormbringer's, from my reading of it.

Palladium, in fact, is simply AD&D gone through with a thesaurus. There is little actual difference between the two systems, and certainly nothing in Palladium's system specifically indicates Premise.

Greetings greyorm,

Take note, much of what follows is based upon recollection of games played in the long long ago.

greyorm wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: With all this talk of subjective mythology and things being the way they are because the "gods" say they are that way, I was wondering what you (and whoever else might like to reply) thought of such rules?

What's to think about them? They do speak loudly about the cosmology of the D&D worlds (and specifically the Spelljammer supplements) without outright stating what its saying.

As to how it relates to the subject at hand, as a specific example it looks like this is a manner of handling the issue which indicates the gods are not in charge of natural law, since their influence does not cross planar boundaries...in other words, it is unlike a mythic reality.

Greetings M. J. Young,

M. J. Young wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: When traveling from one "sphere" to another Clerics were strictly forbidden from having any spells above 2nd Level *if entering a "spjere" where their deity was unknown*, if memory serves. Also, it was stated, that to regain spell levels (meaning the ability to cast spells above 2nd Level) they would have to find a deity whose basic template was relatively similar to their own to worship... or some such.

I note that this reflects a little-known OAD&D rule. According to the Dragonlance rules, any cleric or druid who enters the realm of Krynn from beyond immediately loses all ability to call on his gods for spells, and so is rendered powerless. Only Krynn gods have power in Krynn.

M. J. Young wrote: This is an odd extension of henotheism, to my mind. Sure, the Philistines believe that Dagon is stronger than any other god around; but they don't believe that the other gods don't exist or have no power--they just believe that the god who chose them is the best on the block. Even the Israelites believed that Dagon was in some sense a god; they just thought that he didn't measure up to YHWH at all, perhaps wasn't a god in the same sense of that word.

M. J. Young wrote: I don't like the D&D/Spelljammer rule. (Of course, I've never given Spelljammer a fair chance--I really enjoyed StarFrontiers [probably my favorite game before I was introduced to Multiverser] and saw a lot of promise in Traveler, and the idea of Dungeons & Dragons in space left me cold from the beginning.) I think if you decree that gods are limited in their influence to certain geographic realms, even if those are akin to different universes, you destroy much of what it means to be a god.

M. J. Young wrote: E. R. Jones had an interesting rule for this: a god could work in any universe in which he had at least one worshipper. This led to interesting game opportunities, as the gods would sometimes arrange for magical "accidents" to transport their clerics to other universes so that they could get a foothold on new soil. I'm not for unlimited power of the gods (if nothing else, they limit each other); but I don't see geographical limits as making any sense at all.

greyorm wrote:
Gareth, again, you are on about "subjective mythology," ignoring the ending paragraphs of my last post, where I specifically address the issue of "subjectivity" and mythology in the context of this discussion.

M. J. Young wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: When traveling from one "sphere" to another Clerics were strictly forbidden from having any spells above 2nd Level *if entering a "spjere" where their deity was unknown*, if memory serves. Also, it was stated, that to regain spell levels (meaning the ability to cast spells above 2nd Level) they would have to find a deity whose basic template was relatively similar to their own to worship... or some such.

This is an odd extension of henotheism, to my mind. Sure, the Philistines believe that Dagon is stronger than any other god around; but they don't believe that the other gods don't exist or have no power--they just believe that the god who chose them is the best on the block. Even the Israelites believed that Dagon was in some sense a god; they just thought that he didn't measure up to YHWH at all, perhaps wasn't a god in the same sense of that word.

contracycle wrote: What I really mean is that you cannot have conflicting mythology and hand-wave it away by saying mythology is subjective and/or cultural construct - not if it it has in game mechanical effects.

I'm saying the mythology cannot really be subjective at all, really, it must be True, or at least largely true.

If it is established the the sun is a god who is reborn every day, and there is a tribe over the hill who believes something else, then either you or they is Wrong (or there is a complicated reason you are both right in some qualified way).

But at that point perhaps what we are talking about is more akin to pseudoscience than mythology. If there is a game mechanical effect dependant on the implications of the daily risen god, like magical endowments, then these facts, as they have become, need to be laid out in non-subjective terms for arbitration of in game events.

simon_hibbs wrote:
The sun goes below the horizon, like a dead man being burried. It rises again, like a child being born. These conceptual keys unlock magical power. So what if another culture uses a different mythological explanation, utilising alternative symbolic language to achieve different effects?

It is a fact that the sun falls 'below' the world every night like a soul embraced by the darkness of death, and the body buried in the earth, yet it rises again every day like the joyous brith of a new child. These facts are obvious, what more proof is necessery?

The symbolism is psychologicaly powerfull in the real world, and therefore magicaly powerfull in the game world (and arguably the real world, for those with religious leanings).

I agree, Gareth, there needs to be some method of fair arbitration beyond fiat lain out for the GM or things can and will quickly become sticky.

But consider this: we're mostly talking about the idea of problems arising rather than providing concrete examples of such doing so. Let's get some definite concrete examples before continuing (that is, mythology with in-game mechanical effects).

Your example of the sun providing magical endowments isn't a problem in my mind; could you detail the exact problem faced by having two true-but-subjective mythologies and sun-based mechanical endowments affected by these? (or some problem of a similar sort)

Regardless, this isn't precisely the issue I'm thinking about; for example, I was watching the new "He-man" on Cartoon Network. Here we have a world full of technology like rocket-powered gliders, laser blasters, cybernetic implants right along side sorcery, magic and dragons...and more importantly, all the trappings of medival culture: swords, armor, crossbows, castles and so forth.

"He-man" has this weird blend of sorcery and technology, something that is both futuristic and medieval, and the question arises: why would anyone use a sword or a crossbow when they could use a laser blaster instead?

And actually, asking that question misses the point.

He-man doesn't "suck" because of this odd disparity and obvious incongruence, it rocks BECAUSE of it...it's modern mythology. You don't use a laser blaster instead of a crossbow because the world wouldn't be Eternia if you (and everyone else) were using laser blasters instead of crossbows.

This is what I said about hating the whole gamer-geek thing...reference the Simpsons episode about "Poochy" I mentioned..."He-man" wouldn't be "He-man" if you asked those sorts of questions or even arbitrated the damn things while designing the show. The show is what it is precisely because it avoids all that garbage.

Its a story, not a simulation. The fact that He-man uses a sword, his friends use crossbows, quarterstaves and laser pistols and go up against guys with lasers and magic in these psuedo-futuristic (or bizzare psychedelic) landscapes is what's important.

Its the color and events of the story that are important, not the logic. Kids get right past all that crap and enjoy the story for what it is, not what its "supposed" to be.

Yet for all our supposed immersion into this artform of creating stories, most gamers are utterly incompetent at even remotely realizing or capitalizing on this attitude, which is the essential attitude of story.

Dragons fly because they're SUPPOSED to, not because of some mystical hoodoo-judo mythological "explanation" that's really a sort of science wrapped up in a concealing cloak.

Eternia has lasers and crossbows alongside each other because its SUPPOSED to, and there is no other explanation...in fact, looking for an "explanation" that appeals to modern logic is foolish, because it misses the point.

If there is a game mechanical effect dependant on the implications of the daily risen god, like magical endowments, then these facts, as they have become, need to be laid out in non-subjective terms for arbitration of in game events.

greyorm wrote:
Eternia has lasers and crossbows alongside each other because its SUPPOSED to, and there is no other explanation...in fact, looking for an "explanation" that appeals to modern logic is foolish, because it misses the point.

Consider quantum physics: reality depends on the observer. The universe, at least subatomically, is unformed and undecided until observed...until a conscious being decides to look at the answer...and weirder, the observer affects the results.

So...why not...they're all true, to the individual...even competing game effects arising from different mythologies are both right and both have effects.

Greetings greyorm,

I hope your holiday brought you gifts a-plenty and happy tidings of joy.

Failing that, there's a whole new year ahead of us. Plenty of time to scheme your revenge. . . or something. ;)

greyorm wrote: But consider this: we're mostly talking about the idea of problems arising rather than providing concrete examples of such doing so. Let's get some definite concrete examples before continuing (that is, mythology with in-game mechanical effects).

contracycle wrote:

simon_hibbs wrote:
The sun goes below the horizon, like a dead man being burried. It rises again, like a child being born. These conceptual keys unlock magical power. So what if another culture uses a different mythological explanation, utilising alternative symbolic language to achieve different effects?

Then they are both Right in a qualified way; their stories may only be relevant to the praxis of supernatural power, then, if the true basis is elsewhere (such as latent unconscious psionics). It is the mental construct which, in some way, is addressing power.

It is a fact that the sun falls 'below' the world every night like a soul embraced by the darkness of death, and the body buried in the earth, yet it rises again every day like the joyous brith of a new child. These facts are obvious, what more proof is necessery?

But surely it is obvious to the naked eye that every day the celestial dung-beetle rolls his ball of dung over the world and buries it at night, wence we are denied its lif-giving emanations.

The symbolism is psychologicaly powerfull in the real world, and therefore magicaly powerfull in the game world (and arguably the real world, for those with religious leanings).

but how does the GM adjudicate a face-off between a priest-of-the-dung-beetle and the priest-of-the-newborn-sun? In game mechanical terms, if they are both effective then the "truth" or otherwise of their stories is unimportant and I would hazard unlikely to feature in game play much.

contracycle wrote:

So...why not...they're all true, to the individual...even competing game effects arising from different mythologies are both right and both have effects.

Then what makes them work? I mean they can't all be true unless "true" means something other then "true", something like "moral" or "valid".

Even so, in what way does this achieve the goal of making the content of mythology Really True in the game world; in fact it is not Really True but only true if you choose to think so. This would seem to reduce the religious beliefs to colourful tokenism.

simon_hibbs wrote:
Is it true that a mother loves her child?

Prove it. Not all truths are logical, or mathematicaly derivable, yet it is intrinsic to the experience of being human that these things are so.

Only if that tokenism has no power, but the common consent that magic works in fantasy worlds shows that in those worlds it is more than that.

contracycle wrote:

simon_hibbs wrote:
Is it true that a mother loves her child?

No. Or at least, not universally.

Prove it. Not all truths are logical, or mathematicaly derivable, yet it is intrinsic to the experience of being human that these things are so.

It may happen; it may not. Not everyone is a "natural parent", not "even" women.

Only if that tokenism has no power, but the common consent that magic works in fantasy worlds shows that in those worlds it is more than that.

By tokenism, I am implying it has no power. After all, the reference to mythology is only there for colour; it does not explicate what magic is nor why it functions. This is the use of mythology as obscurantism, as an excuse not to explain.

you are using "true" in a way that does NOT mean True, but means something else. No, it is not True that at all times among all people everywhere, all mothers love their children. Even if it were True, we could provide some answers to the questions why.

WHY does tokenism have power? What happens if I destroy a physical token? When I summon spirits, is that actually a non-corporeal spirit or just an Aristoi-like shard of my own consciousness speaking back to me?

As I've said before, it's quite legitimate to deny information to players. But, unless you hope to identify every possible question which might be asked in game up front, then some statements of Truth are needed so that the GM may extemporise on their own behalf. Frex, IF a spirit Really Is a discorporeal otherworldly entity, it may have access to supernatural sources of information. If it is only, in essence, a hallucination, then it does not.

simon_hibbs wrote:
That's correct. The religious/magical world view is not of a mechanistic world which blindly follows arbitrary formulaic laws. It is a world in which the ultimate reason for being, the ultimate cause and arbiter of destiny is divine authority (in whatever form that takes). To modern hermetic magicians, the laws of names, similarity, contagion, are just as powwrfull and valid as Newton's laws of motion. Will is Power, but not power in the sense only of mechanistic energies, power in the sense that George Bush is powerfull - at a mere word men die and governments fall. This has nothing to do with his physical ability to exert Force according to newton's laws.

The religious/magical world view does not require that it's symbolism, or alegory be literaly true in order to be powerfull. Any serious student of religion will tell you that ultimate religious truth is unknowable to mere mortals, for we are neither god, nor gods.

How does invoking 'psionics' explain anything?

Precisely. I'd adjudicate such a face-off using the rules of the roleplaying game in question. My personal preference would probably be Hero wars, but tastes vary. I realy don't see the problem.

simon_hibbs wrote:
Are you saying that love is irrelevent to the experience of being human?

I'm beginning to despair. Did you miss my post citing the hermetic laws of magic? Do you deny that poetic use of symbolism and alegorical reference have any meaning in human experience?

Why do people read Tennyson or Wordsworth? In the same way, mythology gives people an emotional, intuitive way to comprehend and relate to the world around them.

There is nothing obscure about it, we all experience it every time we hear beautiful music, or see a well executed work of art. The magician simply makes the intuitive step of thinking that this power can not only change the way we percieve the world, but can also change the world itself. Fundamentaly, that's all there is to it.

I did not say that all mothers love their children, I said that a mother loves her child. Please read what I say, not what' you'd like me to have said because it makes it easier to disagree with me.

Why does it matter?

Either the spirit is real and can change the world through expressing it's reality, or your mind is real and can change the world through expressing it's reality.

Theologians have struggled with this question for thousands of years. Not all religious philosophers would agree, any more than all physicists agree on the correct physical interpretation of quantum mechanics. So what?

Why can't deep unconcious recesses of your mind (or rather, that of your character) have access to the otherworld, or divine inspiration?

If a player attempts such an action, I am compelled as GM to provide an answer implicitly in providing information proffered by the spirit or "spirit".

contracycle wrote: And that is why I laugh whole-heartedly at "serious" students of religion.

Hello,

This thread really got excellent for a while there, but perhaps it's time to call it and think in terms of little spawn-threads with highly focused topics.

I also suggest that people thicken their hides a little bit. We are talking about role-playing, not about what "is," after all.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: This thread really got excellent for a while there, but perhaps it's time to call it and think in terms of little spawn-threads with highly focused topics.

I also suggest that people thicken their hides a little bit. We are talking about role-playing, not about what "is," after all.

contracycle wrote: The dung beetle and the god-risen-daily-newborn are both figments of human imagination, but useful figments for the focussing of an essentially human power. There is no dung beetle; the dung beetle is just a metaphor for a mental process.

The religious/magical world view does not require that it's symbolism, or alegory be literaly true in order to be powerfull. Any serious student of religion will tell you that ultimate religious truth is unknowable to mere mortals, for we are neither god, nor gods.

And that is why I laugh whole-heartedly at "serious" students of religion.

But we are now off track; I grant your theory is internally consistent, but I assert it is modern. It is a rationalisation based on exposure to multiple, mutually exclusive world myths. A truly traditional society is unlikely to encounter, within its "borders", ANY social context which validates the beliefs of the next tribe over the hill;

The problem is that it has failed to make it clear whether in this fictional world, which of these is "right" and thus how the native resolution system is expected to operate (or, how the system resolves conflicting arguments with qualitatively identical claims to legitimacy).

HeroWars however is not the answer; HW is deliberately obscurantist, IMO, as to the status of the gods, both real and not real. It provides us with a non-solution, to whit, we dice it off. But this still implies that both effects were sufficient real to require game mechanical effect, which makes both of them True. And yet, the mythic content of each may wholly deny the very existance of the other... a claim immediately falsified by the need to roll off!!

greyorm wrote:
Could you possibly be anymore insulting?

contracycle wrote:
OK, I can't respond to that without making a bald counterstatement; beauty and art are not magic, becuase magic is convenmtionally used to change the WORLD. Beauty and art can only change us.

Both are valid as activities; neither is analogous to mythology let alone faith. In order to claim that this "power" can feed back into the world, you would have to cite evidence and an independnantly verifiable experiment. Failing that, I feel perfectly free to assert that the "power" claimed by the magician is imaginary.

Which mother? OK, if you were thinking of a particular mother and child, I, not having access to them, cannot say whether or not she loves her offspring.

Either the spirit is real and can change the world through expressing it's reality, or your mind is real and can change the world through expressing it's reality.

Which is it?

Theologians have struggled with this question for thousands of years. Not all religious philosophers would agree, any more than all physicists agree on the correct physical interpretation of quantum mechanics. So what?

These are not remotely equivalent.

Why can't deep unconcious recesses of your mind (or rather, that of your character) have access to the otherworld, or divine inspiration?

They might. All it would take is for the designer to say "Let there be unconscious access", and there will be unconscious access. Bow I, as a GM, am able to extemporise knopwing what the reality of the established game world. There remains no excuse for declining to say so.

Alright. Bob the Psychic gets a vision that Homicidal Harry is after his blood. We will examine too scenarios to see the effect of internal and external agents. Bob summons his spirit to spy on Harry.

-objective agent cut-

Subjective agent: Bob is only imagining that he can summon spirits; he may believe it, he may even "see" spirits. However, being internal to Bob, they can tell Bob nothing he doesn't already know (although they might tell him things he is not aware of knowing). They therefore can tell Bob nothing about what Harry is really doing, having no access to any more information about Harry than Bob had to begin with.

I must know which of these scenarios is True, because I am obliged to give the player an answer.

While awaiting sub-threads, I thought I'd comment on this component of Simons post.

Theories such as Plato's - that divine power emanated from an unknowable source and differentiated itself into the knowable gods, which manifest differently in Greece and Egypt - his explicit examples. Explanations such as those of Hinduism and budhism, religions that have existed side by side for thousands of years. Hindus believe that ultimately all the gods are masks worn by the ultimate godhead and through their history have incorporated numerous cults and neighbouring religions into their pantheon. The romans persecuted christianity not because they were against foreign religions - in fact it was for exactly the opposite reason. Christianity denied the legitimacy of other religions 9there is only one god), while Rome was extremely tolerant of foreign religions, seeing it as part of the inclusivity and diversity of their cosmopolitan empire. I realy have no idea where you're getting these notions from.

H'm,

I must be losing my touch.

Take it to sub-threads, people. This thread is closed.

Best,
Ron