Greetings All,

I see the debate about religion is still raging. So, if I may, my 2 cents here to offer...

What is religion?

Is it merely a set of mores, thus a code of ethics as expressed in a theological morality?

There is a difference between religion and morality. The portrayal of religion is based upon the assumption of a grouping of cultural mores and traditons that have been, or are capable of being, adopted by a diverse group of peoples. Morality intimates conformity to the rules of the land, be those rules theocratic in origin or secular.

The use of religions within the context and framework of any fictional work, be that work a novel or roleplaying game, must begin from an examination of the basics. That means learning what the term "religion" not only means and implies, but looking beyond what we "think" it means. Not easy since we all come pre-rolled with our own unique set of preconceptions. But, unlike in a roleplaying game, we have a choice of whether to let these preconceptions be disadvantages or to turn them to our advantage.

The first step is recognising them and deciding to looking beyond what we have learned, and thus learn yet more about religion as a whole.

Since we are online let us see what sort of information we can find. Here are a few informational links:

World Religions: Religion, History and Literature

Religions, Faith Groups, & Ethical systems

Approaching the Study of Religion

Within the framework of religion there exist many modes of thought. Some deal with practical matters, others with abstracts. These range from deism to spirituality, philosophy of thought to philosophy of theurgy, and then there are religious ethics.

Most roleplaying games distill religion down to templates of good or evil, with appropriate advantages or disadvantages to apply to a character. Yet there are some characters, which while on the surface appear to be religious in nature, often aren't. Thus how to reconcile the Witches, Diviners, Wizards, Necromancers, and other denizens of the fey realm of fantasy that may be allowed to wield preternatural power? Especially when that power is all too often divorced from what little concept of religion and deity that a game world applies?

This is part of world building. Something every game designer, be they a green Game Master or veteran author, must face at one time or another if they plan to create a game world in which religion plays even a background role. Yet, as we all know, religion is no bit play. Not by far. Irregardless of whether in a fantasy or future world, religion is often part of the world building process.

But where to begin in researching this?

Luckily there are many who have already touched upon this very topic!

Fantasy Worldbuilding Questions

World Building links page

Religion and Roleplaying

It's not much, to be sure, but perhaps enough to provide some food for thought.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

I think that what religion is will be answered differently in every game. In D&D, for example, you have a multitude of godlings who dole out divine magic on essentially a contractual basis. Pendragon, on the other hand, talks less about religion and more about what it means to be religious (different personality traits for different religions, etc.)

What is religion, what is its role in the setting, and what (if any) mechanics allow religion affect play are all questions each individual game (and even every individual campaign) needs to address, implicitly or explicitly.

Please understand, I agree religion can be important, and its often handled... questionably. However, I think every game has a different answer for the question "what is religion."

Kester Pelagius wrote: What is religion?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Religion is a mode of thought or a vision of the world around us and it includes things that can help those who believe feel more secure in their lives in general.

But this is what religion is.

Hello,

I didn't get to this thread in time. Jack and Raven, the topic at hand is not what is religion at a personal and real-world level - it's what is religion in role-playing. Some of that will necessarily reference real religion, practices, and social roles, but let's keep the judgmental issues surrounding other, real persons out of the discussion.

Best,
Ron

Ron's right, we're way off-topic. Jack and I have already spoken in private, and neither one of us meant to deride/judge/insult the other, so we're all good, I believe.

To drag my above spaz kicking-and-screaming back on-topic for moderation's sake, the issue Jack and I are arguing about and attempting to answer is really thus:
Ok, what is a religion? What does it DO for a person that it would make them devote themselves to it? And how can we make it do that for a character and a society in a game?

Would that be a correct interpretation of your question, Kester?

Greetings greyorm,

Merry meet and merry greet, as some folk say.

greyorm wrote: Ron's right, we're way off-topic.

...

To drag my above spaz kicking-and-screaming back on-topic for moderation's sake, the issue Jack and I are arguing about and attempting to answer is really thus:

Ok, what is a religion? What does it DO for a person that it would make them devote themselves to it? And how can we make it do that for a character and a society in a game?

Would that be a correct interpretation of your question, Kester?

greyorm wrote: Ron's right, we're way off-topic. Jack and I have already spoken in private, and neither one of us meant to deride/judge/insult the other, so we're all good, I believe.

Kester Pelagius wrote: Should religions be portrayed in depth, or merely reduced to reference statistics?

Hi all,

This might sound like I'm dismissing this whole subject out of hand. I'm not. I'm trying to make sure we're aware of what we're doing here.

Ron has summed up the topic at hand: "What is religion in role-playing?"

But if we were to address the same "template" for the question for more mundane matters ("What is combat in roleplaying?" "What is story in Roleplaying?") I believed we'd find either 1) people talking past each other, or 2) a group consensus on the answer forged by a lot of people walking out of the discussion, so that a small group remained to reach a consensus.

In other words, Ron defines story in part from idea that story is a series of event focused on theme.

Some people would say that this is the worst way to go about answering this question. (Re: Dungeon Crawlers who think their telling a story.) But for Ron and Sorcerer, this doesn't matter, because the people who have wildly different ideas about Story are over at RPG.net, and the few who have triffling disagreements are willing to give the game a try and enjoy it because it's closer to what they like.

One need only read combat threads about RPGs to see, again, that people bring wildly divergent arguments to the topic and either take off or hang around and think they've "found it" as new friendships form.

My point? How can religion, of all things, be any different?

"What is religion in roleplaying?" It's what a group of like-minded people decide, for the sake of coherence, expedience and interest in the subject.

The interest part is very imporant. The gun collector is going to have a very different view of what combat in RPGs is than the guy who's enjoyed action movies, but never threw a punch in his life. The guy who thinks a dungeon crawl is a story is going to have a very different idea of what a story is than someone who pulls a book like Egri's off the shelf.

Religion is no different. How to "model" religion, I don't think, can be raised independent of the experience and interest of those engaged. No matter how well meaning, the various views on the last several threads reveal an almost maniacal difference in logic and assumption.

What matters is that these people might not get along at all simply because of what they bring to the discussion a priori. (Again, imagine chat board discussions of "story" in RPGs. Agreement is not usually not based on changing minds, but different mindsets forming their own, comfortable subgroups.)

In my original thread I asked what is the responsibility of players to think in new ways, toward a view of the story or world different than the one they carry around every day. This is exactly why I brought that up: Are people willing to not play a role of a man in a different time, but to imaginatively engage in a world view completely contrary to their own, making it up as they go along. (Not so alien as to be incomprehensible, I remind you, because some human beings, even on this board, have world views contrary to each other. So it's clearly not alien -- just different form some folks, and everything is different to somebody.)

So, if Ron can bring in works by Egri, I'll tap two seminal acting teachers to illustrate my distinction:

The acting text of "To Actors" by Michael Chekhov, exonerates actors to stop thinking they can play Hamlet by thinking "Hamlet is a guy just like me," and really open their imaginations discover what thoughts and actions they might take if they moved toward Hamlet, his world, his situation.

On the other hand we have the currently predominate acting style of Stanislovski, who suggested we are, essentially, limited in our work to play a part before we even begin working on it because of what I have experienced. I can only play Hamlet by what *I* know about fathers know about dying, about the betrayal of mothers. Chekhov would say poppycock and that you're imagination is larger than your experience of life.

I suspect, for a lot of reasons, most people are closer to Stanislovsky in their style of play.

This is, in fact, a fundemental issue about religion itself: Some people are always striving each day to live toward something incomprehesibly larger than he or she has already lived. Others live by the logic of: I live by the logic of what has occurred before.

Can completely contrary views on religion be reconciled by people who simply prioritize religion in different ways?

Can you say incoherence?

Maybe, maybe not. But I don't think this can be resolved until the question of how far people are willing to move toward other, contrary points of view is answered.

Take care,
Christopher

here is my take on the issues of religion in roleplaying: I pretty much agree with christopher on the point that different people have different experiences and approaches to religion, so there should likewise be different roleplaying approaches to religion. you have complete anti-religionists (who are not cynics, just people opposed to religion,) you have nonpractitioners (who don't believe in religion, but don't care what other people believe,) you have "apostates" (who believe somewhat in religion but don't practice it regularly,) you have "the faithful" (who work diligently to advance the causes of a religion.)

you just can't satisfy all of these people with one approach to religion in an RPG. I would think most people would leave this implimentation to the level of social contract rather than worrying about how to "force" people to behave in-game in a religiously-appropriate way.

however, what I think could be safely added to most rpg settings, yet I find strangely missing, is references to religion. it's an argument that used to be leveled against television: most people practice some kind of religion, if irregularly, yet religious activity is almost completely absent from most sitcom and dramatic television series -- and also most rpgs. as an example to the contrary, consider "the simpsons": at least a fourth of the episodes involve the family in church, on the way to church, or on the way home from church at some point, even if the storyline has nothing to do with religion. in other television series, you find a bunch of people who might be atheists, might be true believers, but you have no indication one way or the other. it's a curious taboo.

although not every rpg is going to address religious issues, there should be some basic outlines on religious customs, like mjor seasonal festivals, placement of shrines, and so on, if nothing more than for color. instead, religion only surfaces as part of a plot: the evil cult is going to practice a dark ritual at their next ceremony, even though we never knew they had regular ceremonies before... the abandoned temple contains a mysterious treasure ... a shrine has been defiled by salamanders ... and so on.

this is the true horror of the endless god-lists in fantasy heartbreakers: the designers did think about religion, but only in terms of deity names and bonuses/penalties for particular sects. a smaller list of gods with a list of feast days, religious symbols, and a couple customs would provider much better color to flesh out the gameworld as well as a jumping-off point for those who want to expand the details of the religion and play it out.

the AD&D version of deities and demigods was actually a pretty good attempt, in this regard, because of the god-list in the back of the book that listed symbols, sacred animals, and prefered sacrifices for the various deities. it gave you a few clues to weave into the illusion of a religion without providing mountains of detail you might not want to even use.

At the risk of starting a firestorm of debate, a few comments from the academic study of religion.

1. Religion in the real world (yes, Ron, I was listening --- wait for it!) is made up of a lot of elements of disparate kinds. Elements include (but are hardly limited to) ethics, ritual, myth, "sacred spaces," social constructs, identity claims, and numerous others.

2. There does not seem to be valid data to support the notion that any one of these elements is necessarily dominant or more fundamental. Thus to say that religion is a set of beliefs or morals or whatever is extremely dangerous. The logical conclusion (rarely intentional) is: Your religion does not seem to be founded on a set of morals, and therefore your religion is bad, or you are not really religious. [As a thought-provoker which I'd prefer not to argue about here (hopefully Ron would squelch it anyway), does the fact that from nearly everyone's perspective the actions of Osama Bin Laden or Jim Jones were immoral necessarily mean that neither is/was religious? In fact lots of politicians would like to claim that neither was really religious, because we all know religion is a Good Thing so it couldn't produce something bad. Cf. the Crusades and the Inquisition.]

3. Mainstream Anglo-American public rhetoric and public education about religion focuses on ethics, myths (but only in alien and usually old religions), and perhaps social construction; these days identity sometimes arises. Ritual is generally entirely suppressed, and ethics is predominant. This perspective arises from mainstream Anglo-American liberal Protestantism; it has nothing whatever to do with the majority of people around the world, in history.

Okay, so religion in RPGs (at last)?

1. On the "successful approaches" thread, I've proposed a beginning for imagining a fantasy religion. That one starts with everyday life and its relationship to public ritual (festivals). I think it's the third post in the thread.

The problem with this approach (almost totally ignored) is that it proposes a type of religion quite alien to mainstream Anglo-American sensibilities; it seems too "alien" to play. This touches on the comments about Stanislavsky and so forth: if it's too far from one's own experience, can one really imagine oneself into the character at all? [BTW I question, personally, whether RPG players really need to go quite as far as Stanislavsky, given that they have a very tolerant audience; I'd say go with Lawrence Olivier's comment to Dustin Hoffman (a method actor) when they were doing Marathon Man: "My dear boy, why not just act it?"]

2. Suppose, then, that we want to start closer to home. Let's start with the notion of ethics as fundamental, and let's have some gods to believe in. Fine: now start thinking about ordinary people living their daily lives in such a way that they regularly interact with sacrality. That is, they want to make daily events --- such as planting, harvesting, hunting, building, crafting, screwing, child-rearing, whatever --- have divine parallels. These parallels give them a sense of how they're supposed to act, but more importantly they give their actions divine precedent. As a modern Christian example, WWJD [What Would Jesus Do?], but the idea of following in the gods' footsteps is VERY old. So when you act as Jesus did, for example, your actions are bigger than just you. Periodically, people renew this contact formally, through ritual of many kinds. In all these endeavors to give larger-than-self meaning to their daily toil, they are guided and assisted by those few people here and there who feel this connection with the sacred more deeply, who are racked and bound by it; some of these are priests, some are merely "that guru guy down the street."

----------------------
In conclusion, I'd like to stress the following: Religion in RPGs needn't necessarily be different from that in the real world. The central issue, regardless, is what the people do. The rest is, from a design perspective, icing on the cake. All you have to do is get your various communities of NPCs actually doing religious things and you're home free. The PCs will do the same, or start investigating why.

One warning from the academic peanut gallery:

Do yourself a favor. Don't get into the "where did religion really come from?" debate. It's not worth it. Scholars fought about this for about 150 years, with no end in sight, and more theories proposed than you could shake a stick at. Finally we dropped the thing, because we realized that probably there were some pretty specific cultural and social reasons that something or other vaguely religious arose. But in order to find out what those were, we'd have to have excellent data about those communities. And we have essentially zip. So we'll never know, we'll never have the vaguest clue, it's simply not possible, period. Live with it --- it's the way the world is. (Unless you invent a time machine.)

Greetings Jack,

I suppose it's rather moot to say I tried to be brief, eh? *smiles*

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: Should religions be portrayed in depth, or merely reduced to reference statistics?

This is a problematic question and one that cannot be answered here but is only answerable by the individual game designer or GM for the individual game. That is, religion has been reduced to mere statistics and it has been more in-depth and it has worked both way albeit in different games for different people. There is no "should" here, I think.

Greetings Christopher Kubasik,

To try to approach something resemble a answer to your questions, let me begin by saying, IMO, I think the matter isn't so much about how religion is percieved or even what constitutes a belief system. Rather it is in part how religion is codified within the context of the rules of play.

Why is this important?

Because many early games considered only "Priests" or "Clerics" to have any religious connotation while others treat a far wider range of characters as belonging to this seemingly elite class. (And some may continue to do so.) Yet there might exist within a game Witches, Necromancers, Kabbalistic Mages, Diviners, Mystics, Hermeticists, and all manner of other "arcane" character archetypes.

Too often they do not seem to be religious figures even though some, like the Witch, retain their archetypal connotations as religious heretics.

Does that not seem odd?

Unless a game's rules of play clearly defines matters theurgical, thus clearly including or discluding such character types, what ew have is a vast gray. And gray areas can get confusing. Especially since many systems seperate Wizardy, usually termed "Magic", from matters of the Divine, sometimes still called magic but somehow not the same as what Wizards do. Then again there are systems that clearly provide specific terms to seperate the two, thus Divine Magic requires Piety while Wizardy requires Manna.

Alas, too often, once we look under the hood we discover that both systems are virtually identical. Only the names of the "points" used have been changed.

Am I the only one who found that frustratingly confusing?

Now, Mr. Kubasik, your suggestion that we might as well ask what combat is actually, to my mind, can perhaps help shed light on this problem. Since defining combat in relation to a RPG might be far more simple let's see what we can make of it...

Combat. It would seem to be mostly a matter of capturing the feel and flavor of the setting. Providing the proper texture to fit the setting. Thus, in a bronze age culture, we probably would not expect rules for ripostes of the sort that we might find in a 17th century world. The Bronze Age, after all, is not the sort of place where swashbuckling is part of the game setting. Rather, in that bronze age world, what we might expect is something brutal and bloody.

So, that said, does that mean that, where religion is concerned, that setting is of primary important to help define it within the rules of play?

True, it is important for the game system to provide rules of play that are consistant and coherent. That means defining basic paramaters. Like what combat and religion are. Or at least how the Game Master is to set them up within the game environment, right?

Thus, as with combat, does this mean we have to rely upon the established setting? If so then what about generic systems?

Of course we can say that, if a setting allows for Greek deities, then it will need to reflect different rules of play than a game that has a Byzantine flavor. Still, how to go about establishing those rules? What does the game designer need to provide to make it less confusing?

Something, most definitely. Alas, it seems, we become too easily lost in the gross weight of details.

Religion. How to model it, how to present a facsimile of it, how to present it within a game context, it seems some are saying, is intrisically too difficult. There are too many variables, too many people think too many different things about it, but is it really so?

I'd like to say no, that it shouldn't be.

Yet we are still here talking *about* it, aren't we?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Greetings All,

Kester Pelagius wrote: What is religion?

Kester Pelagius wrote:

A religion is a hierarchical body, usually within a organisation, which provides for a fundamental establishment of a service structure

I have to agree with clehrich. I don't think this is necessarily how religion is defined in "fantasy" rpgs.

I'm not saying it is impossible to find commonalities between religions in different games. What I am saying is that trying to explicitly define those commonalities will run into problems. Even within the same game, one may have very radically different religions (Tribalism and a bureacratized church, for example).

Greetings Nick,

Ah, the weather. Such weather, eh?

Nick Pagnucco wrote: I have to agree with clehrich. I don't think this is necessarily how religion is defined in "fantasy" rpgs.

Nick Pagnucco wrote: I'm not saying it is impossible to find commonalities between religions in different games. What I am saying is that trying to explicitly define those commonalities will run into problems. Even within the same game, one may have very radically different religions (Tribalism and a bureacratized church, for example).

Hey Kester,

I'm wary about generalizing to a genre how religion could or should be represented. I'd be willing to make some cautious generalizations about how religion works in specific RPGS. Maybe generalizations about 1 gaming group's preferences across time and different RPGs also. And thats about it.

Everything else, IMHO, is up in the air, including whether or not it needs to be defined at all. If it needs to be defined, I am sure there are some games that are well suited to have religion play a minor or a one-dimensional role. Others may require detailed accounts on political ramifications, or on the effects on everyday life, or on the cosmology.

The subtle differences in organization and expressed mores COULD be the difference between religions in an RPG. Or it may not. It could be that the two religions follow two very different deities with different machinations in the world. Or it could be something else.

Tradition could over time become ritual. And myth could work to create identity in a community. But the setting of the world doesn't need to work according to that sociology.

Hello,

Great post, Kester. I'm liking this family of threads very much.

I'd like to establish, or begin a discussion to establish, some breakdown of the concepts and issues that the term "religion" parses into. Sometimes they get mixed up in the heat of discussion.

None of the following terms are made-up, but rather gleaned from a scarily liberal-arts exposure across many years. Please bear in mind that I'm not a specialist in this matter, and I'm drawing on some very different academic disciplines, so if any of these hit your hot-button, cut me some slack and step back for the big picture. Similarly, if anyone with the training and background can provide any further parsing or perhaps a different framework, please chime in.

None of these "families" contain internal alternatives or exclusives, but rather just a set of vocabulary for the same things (or different stuff about the same things) within each.

Terms family #1
Religiosity: ascribing non-material causes to (and relationships among) perceived events and objects. Think of religiosity as a verbal, cognitive behavior by an individual.

The Numinous Experience: directly perceiving theme and meaning in reality; especially in a "direct insight" manner. Sometimes called Faith, but confusingly, sometimes referred to as a refutation of (dogmatic) Faith. Think of the NE as a personal experience.

Vitalism/Spiritualism: a combination of the above two things; Vital Inquiry refers to arriving at insights about non-material causes (and goals) in a rigorous fashion. "Spiritual" is here used in the largest sense, not in the narrower sense of individualized entities flitting about. Think of V/S as a discourse or discussion aimed at high-certainty agreement.

Terms family #2
Religion (narrow sense): a set of prescribed and socially-reinforced behaviors and customs; often integrated with education.

Religious institution: an economic, social, societal organization.

Church/Sect/Cult: degrees of institution, in terms of wealth, influence, and integration with other existing power structures (e.g. politics, government, education).

Terms family #3
Mores/Values: sets of priorities as expressed through real behaviors; also, confusingly, sometimes called Faith. One can distinguish between majority vs. minority mores.

Cultural standards: The practices of child-rearing and education, as well as various reward and punishment oriented customs for dealing with people relative to mores and values; highly differentiated by socioeconomic class.

Mythologies I: the stories and alleged events that illustrate or are said to have originated specific mores and values.

Mythologies II: the signs, symbols, and cultural reinforcement-mechanisms for specific mores and values; highly stratified along socioeconomic lines and political alliances (all you academics out there will recognize Roland Barthes).

I think everyone can see without trouble that the families both are and are not related causally. (1) Arguably, one does not get a church established in a society without some religiosity going on, but clearly, churches, once-established, may not reflect the religiosity/numinous experience at all. (2) Although institutions reflect values, they also reflect power structures. Since societies contain internal conflicts for a number of reasons, and different churches/sects/cults may reflect the power struggles involved in terms of mores/values without really addressing vital/spiritual stuff at all. (3) Durkheim's "cultural effervescence" is allegedly both a cultural practice and a numinous experience. (4) The term "ritual" means very different things within each family.

And so on. We could go on about how they all inter-relate (or don't) for quite a while. I beg of everyone to stick with the RPG context of this discussion and the site as a whole, and let's take it to different aspects of play and game design.

Best,
Ron

Kester Pelagius wrote:
Unless a game's rules of play clearly defines matters theurgical, thus clearly including or discluding such character types, what you have is a vast gray. And gray areas can get confusing.

[Re: "arcane" and "divine" magic]
Alas, too often, once we look under the hood we discover that both systems are virtually identical. Only the names of the "points" used have been changed.

John Kim wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: Unless a game's rules of play clearly defines matters theurgical, thus clearly including or discluding such character types, what you have is a vast gray. And gray areas can get confusing.

[Re: "arcane" and "divine" magic]
Alas, too often, once we look under the hood we discover that both systems are virtually identical. Only the names of the "points" used have been changed.

Based on my experiences, I feel that game mechanics are not especially important with regards to religion. If anything, making theurgical matters into cut-and-dried mechanics might impede what I consider successful portrayal of religion.

For example, I don't consider the similarity of arcane and divine to be a problem per se....

What I consider lacking in most fantasy games is a sensible background for a religious character's point-of-view....

Le Joueur wrote: Are games that absent religion broken? No, they simply don't prioritize it. Are games that have 'some religion' broken? Not necessarily, they may be insulting to people who have the beliefs depicted, but if religion isn’t the point of the game it can't be the criteria that 'breaks' them. You may easily discuss how religion is handled in a game that prioritizes religion, but if you want to, please take a moment and disclaim such. I've been having to sit here and swallow a really big pill and accept that this is the intent; others haven't and thus a lot of controversy. Sans disclaimer, this discussion gets dangerously close to 'all games should portray religion' and 'all games should portray religion thus...."

If nothing else this thread serves to identify WHY there are so many different faiths (and lack thereof) and so many different approaches to the same. For thousands of years man has not agreed on religion: its validity, or its purpose. How then can we expect to have a thread arrive at anything approaching consensus. It can sometimes be useful though to get all of the many perspectives and points of departure on the table.

I offer the following two thoughts:
1) Religion in the game should be judged by the same standards as any other setting element...this is after all a game and not a hidden attempt to proselytize. If there are mechanics related to the religion than they should be judged by the same standard as any other mechanic. Namely: What was the purpose of adding this setting element or mechanic to the game. What function does it serve, what effect on the game world or how the game is meant to be played did it have. Did the supporting text accomplish these things? Was the accomplishment significant? If so, it was effective. If not it wasn't. Simple. It's no different than judgeing whether or not elves were portrayed effectively.

2) If the purpose of the game is include as part of its creative agenda (to happily use a newly coined term) the effective portrayal of religion during play, than we have an entirely new set of priorities that are quite distinct from #1. I think much of these religion threads have confounded these two things. "Effective use of religion in a game" is NOT the same thing as "Effective portrayal of religion within a game".

What would be required for an effective portrayal of religion in a game? It really depends. Religion took many different forms throughout the ages. Modern religions center on questions of faith. Personal struggles between ones self and the ideal and so on (to oversimplify). However, this is not always the role that religion played. Throughout much of history religion was far more mechanical. The Aztecs sacrificed people to gods to save the world. It was pretty much a simple turn key operation for them. If X then Y.

So one of the first questions to be answered about our hypothetical game world religion I would pose as follows: "Is the religion to be portrayed predominately mechanical or philosophical in nature". The answer will have a profound effect on the portrayal.

In a mechanical religion sacrificing a pigeon on ones birthday, spilling a little wine on the floor when a new bottle is opened, or leaving a serving of food outside the door on certain feast days may very well be important aspects of religious observance not so much in what they represent from a philosophical stand point but simply the mechanics of their observation. In the real world such actions are an outward expression of belief. In a game world there very well may be a empirical reason behind them. If you don't sacrifice the first ounce of a bottle of wine the god of wine will spoil the rest of your vintage...

To portray this effectively in a game world, one must identify the various mechanical aspects of the religion from saying "praise be to him" whenever a particular diety's name is mentioned, to sacrificing virgins to ensure the rains will fall. One must then ensure that these aspects become illustrated in the game both within the actions of the NPCs and being carried out by PCs. It would certainly be possible to do this from purely a setting aspect, but being a proponent of tieing important setting features mechanically to the characters there could be mechanics behind these things as well. For instance each attribute and skill might be embodied by a particular god. Improving a skill or attribute might require a character being in good standing with the god, or becoming obligated fulfill greater responsibilities thereof "Now that Rork had become a master smith he was careful to never offend the god of the forge and was certain each feast day to quench the fires of his forge with a tun of the best dwarven ale" I think a system where a player can't increase his sailing skill until he's earned enough favor with Manahann god of the Sea would be a pretty interesting one.

On the other hand if the religion is actually a measure of individual morality against a divine ideal, and the principal embodiment of the religion involves the inner struggle of practitioners with themselves and their sins, then another approach is necessary. Such purely mechanical actions like the above might actually represent the corruption of the church or a lack of faith. This too can be represented mechanically. Paladin offers a good idea as to what a portrayal of such a religion in a game might represent.

Now I've broken it down into two types of religions...one could probably expand the list, but I think the gist is there.

Valamir wrote: 1) ... What was the purpose of adding this setting element or mechanic to the game. What function does it serve, what effect on the game world or how the game is meant to be played did it have. Did the supporting text accomplish these things? Was the accomplishment significant? If so, it was effective. If not it wasn't. Simple. It's no different than judgeing whether or not elves were portrayed effectively.

2) If the purpose of the game is include as part of its creative agenda (to happily use a newly coined term) the effective portrayal of religion during play, than we have an entirely new set of priorities that are quite distinct from #1. I think much of these religion threads have confounded these two things. "Effective use of religion in a game" is NOT the same thing as "Effective portrayal of religion within a game".

Valamir wrote: Modern religions center on questions of faith. Personal struggles between ones self and the ideal and so on (to oversimplify). However, this is not always the role that religion played. Throughout much of history religion was far more mechanical. The Aztecs sacrificed people to gods to save the world. It was pretty much a simple turn key operation for them. If X then Y.

Valamir wrote: In a mechanical religion sacrificing a pigeon on ones birthday, spilling a little wine on the floor when a new bottle is opened, or leaving a serving of food outside the door on certain feast days may very well be important aspects of religious observance not so much in what they represent from a philosophical stand point but simply the mechanics of their observation.
...
To portray this effectively in a game world, one must identify the various mechanical aspects of the religion from saying "praise be to him" whenever a particular diety's name is mentioned, to sacrificing virgins to ensure the rains will fall.

John Kim wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Are games that absent religion broken? No, they simply don't prioritize it. Are games that have 'some religion' broken? Not necessarily, they may be insulting to people who have the beliefs depicted, but if religion isn’t the point of the game it can't be the criteria that 'breaks' them. You may easily discuss how religion is handled in a game that prioritizes religion, but if you want to, please take a moment and disclaim such. I've been having to sit here and swallow a really big pill and accept that this is the intent; others haven't and thus a lot of controversy. Sans disclaimer, this discussion gets dangerously close to 'all games should portray religion' and 'all games should portray religion thus...."

Do we really need to constantly put legal-like disclaimers on every post?

John Kim wrote: I certainly agree that not every game needs to prioritize religion. I also agree that there are multiple ways of approaching religion (hence I started a thread on "Successful approaches to religion"). However, I find it tiresome to constantly write in "in my opinion" and "within the context of this discussion" onto every post.

John Kim wrote: That said, I don't think that something being "not the point of the game" automatically excuses a game from any criticism. Many of the fantasy heartbreaker games specifically bring religion in as part of the game, and make priests a core, expected PC type. If you don't want to portray religion, then this seems like a mistake. If you require or encourage active priests as PCs, then your game can and should be judged on its portrayal of religion.

John Kim wrote: Now, not all portrayals of religion need to be serious, deep, and respectful. For example, GURPS Goblins includes religion -- but largely mocks it along with all other aspects of Georgian society.

Hi everyone,

Gently, gently. I think everyone is reading everyone else (i.e., no one's being ignored or passed over), but that the nature of the topic makes it easy to fail to acknowledge one another's points. So then people feel "not heard," and then things go kerflooey, maybe.

So ... take a bit of time to paraphrase one another's points, let everyone know he's being listened to, etc. And recognize that this is one of those questions in which The Answer is perhaps less important than merely arriving at a common ground from which to approach it.

Thanks,
Ron

Le Joueur wrote:

John Kim wrote: That said, I don't think that something being "not the point of the game" automatically excuses a game from any criticism. Many of the fantasy heartbreaker games specifically bring religion in as part of the game, and make priests a core, expected PC type. If you don't want to portray religion, then this seems like a mistake. If you require or encourage active priests as PCs, then your game can and should be judged on its portrayal of religion.

I disagree. If taken from the OAD&D model, I argue that that is exactly not making religion a part of the game. It subordinates religion to a particular (if peculiar) class; that's indicator one that 'religion is not a priority.' Furthermore, treating 'dead religions' superficially is the second indicator, especially when such treatment includes religions not precisely 'dead.' Both of these indicators carry the strong suggestion, in my mind, that religion is not being portrayed, but simply used as 'color' in the background. If you require non-priests player characters to interact with religion, then you are making religion more of a priority. No matter how much paper is dedicated to religion, if it is only available to a small portion of the character choices (and not the most attractive), that argues that something else is the priority.

Le Joueur wrote: Just because religion gets some ink doesn't make it a priority. If religion isn't a priority, I don't think anything in this thread applies to it. (I think you can have religion in a game just as color, even lots of it.)

I'm thinking about food. In a pastoral society, nothing's more important than food. Most people would be expected to spend most of their time dealing with the production, distribution, safekeeping, and preparation of food. And the stakes should be high: any lapses in performing any of these functions could cause the death of individuals, families, or whole communities by starvation, poisoning, or disease.

Granted, player-characters are usually exceptional individuals and as such, they themselves might not be personally involved in the prevailing social structure organized around food. Nonetheless, since most of them are depicted as having grown up in that society, one might expect that concerns about food would be an ingrained (so to speak) aspect of their world views and personalities. Without understanding their personal attitudes and relationships toward food, one could barely be said to be role-playing them at all.

So I think I'm justified in saying that few if any fantasy role-playing games include an adequate depiction of the importance of food. Usually, all we're told are trivial details like the price of a meal at a tavern, or the weight of a day's "rations." Perhaps there's some superficial mechanism for the effect of hunger on performance or the number of days it takes to starve to death. But nothing about crop rotation, fertilizers, pest control (except when the pests have at least one hit point each), grain storage technology, livestock diseases, plow harness repair, or irrigation engineering. No details on the many and varied recipes favored among the different races, classes, and societies across the land. (Hackmaster is the only system that even bothers to tell us which parts of which monsters are edible!) Nothing that really helps us understand the characters' personal experiences of true hunger or of the kind of satiety that a chronically undernourished person might experience after a three-day winter solstice feast.

Or, one might instead conclude that the systematic treatment of food is not necessary (and, at the level of the individual character's personal feelings about the subject, barely even possible), even if food is represented as existing and as important in the societies depicted in the setting.

Of course, that all has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is religion in role playing games. Sorry about that.

So, back on topic. Following Ron's schema, I have a few comments about possibilites for systematic handling of religion:

Religiosity (terms family #1): If I wanted to encourage this aspect of religion in a game, I think I'd choose an "effects first" approach a la Christoffer (Pale Fire). That is, instead of causing the world to react tangibly to a character's religiosity (which tends to represent premature resolution of what are supposed to be deep mysteries), I'd ask the player to define the spiritual direction the character's religiousity should be going in (affirming of faith, doubt leading to a crisis of faith, seeking faith, acquiring new faith, or whatever). Then I'd reward the player for depicting the character's interpretation or interpolation of events in accordance with that direction. This would fit best with fortune-in-the-middle resoluton, where the player's narration is allowed to be the character's personal interpretation rather than omniscient history. This would allow a player to narrate things like "I would certainly have been killed, but Belittog guided my hand, allowing me to strike a fatal counterblow my own strength would never have been adequate for."

This would allow a character's religiosity (and especially, any changes in same) to be treated as an interpreted effect of in-game-world events, rather than one of their causes (as in, my faith gives me two extra dice to roll). Likewise, the reward would not translate into effectiveness, but perhaps into spotlight time in which a part of the story revolves around bringing the current phase of the character's spiritual trajectory to a resolution.

I think this would also work for opposite facets of religiosity, such as guilt and doubt.

Shifting gears, let me also comment that the reason personal religiosity isn't typically an issue for "clerics" in a typical fantasy system, is that by the time a "cleric" is able to cast "cure light wounds" (which is at the very start of the game), the story of that character's spiritual quest is already over. After all, that character has already been sufficiently inspired to be able to perform miracles. This doesn't mean the character is no longer spiritual, any more than the couple who "married and lived happily ever after" are no longer in love; it just means there's no more "romance story" (in the case of the lovers) or "inspiration story" (in the case of the cleric) left to tell. Unless crises of faith are to be part of the ongoing tale, which is usually not the case for a fantasy cleric advancing to greater abilities, the focus of the story to come must lie elsewhere.

Religious customs and insititutions (terms family #2) is the only group that seems amenable to objective treatment in a world background. But as such, it's also not usually necessary to deal with unless the plot is to address it specifically. This is where the food analogy applies. We don't have to depict the player-characters' practice of religious customs any more than we have to describe what recipes they cook. But we can if we want to, and doing so is not particularly difficult. It's not at all clear how a rule system could help with this.

Culture and values (terms family #3) goes back to being a part of individual characters' protagonism. This is where "alignment" might apply if it made any sense or had demonstrated any usefulness in play, which in my opinion it hasn't. For player characters, religious culture can be invented or invoked to explain a character's moral codes or taboos or values (whether or not the character actually still practices the associated practices) and can also be the backdrop for a character's guilt, doubt, affirmation-seeking, or other internal conflicts feeding back into stories in #1.

Besides background for individual characters, concepts from #3 can be part of a setting if prevailing practices and standards and values come into conflict with the player-characters'. This is straightforward. But the depth of treatment again has to be commensurate with the importance of the conflict to the story.

Food for thought, I hope. Sorry for the rambling.

- Walt

John Kim wrote: You seem to be implying here that each game has only one topic (i.e. the priority) as its focus, and that anything except for that single topic is out of bounds and immune from criticism.

John Kim wrote: Now, obviously I would not judge D&D primarily on how it portrayed religion. But that doesn't make it beyond comment.

John Kim wrote: Now, this doesn't mean that I am going to demand that D&D has to be a realistic, respectful portrayal of real-world religion. It is, after all, a fantasy game. However, it has made roughly 1/4 of the characters priests -- and insofar as it encourages role-playing at all, it urges that priests should role-play their cause.

John Kim wrote: Basically, if I publish a 150-page hardback manual on religion for my game, and expect that roughly a quarter of the PCs will be active priests -- then that at least puts religion on the map.

John Kim wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Just because religion gets some ink doesn't make it a priority. If religion isn't a priority, I don't think anything in this thread applies to it. (I think you can have religion in a game just as color, even lots of it.)

A bit of additional explanation: I consider pure "color" to be things that do not effect PC actions, such as NPCs or background that are not part of the plot. Religion in D&D may be partly color, but it also has a real effect. The rules actively encourage the player to role-play her duty to her god, and suggest to the GM to remove clerical powers if this is not done.

Guys,

The red lettering thing. Let's watch that.

Christopher

wfreitag wrote: Religiosity (terms family #1): If I wanted to encourage this aspect of religion in a game, I think I'd choose an "effects first" approach a la Christoffer (Pale Fire). That is, instead of causing the world to react tangibly to a character's religiosity (which tends to represent premature resolution of what are supposed to be deep mysteries), I'd ask the player to define the spiritual direction the character's religiousity should be going in (affirming of faith, doubt leading to a crisis of faith, seeking faith, acquiring new faith, or whatever). Then I'd reward the player for depicting the character's interpretation or interpolation of events in accordance with that direction.

... the reward would not translate into effectiveness, but perhaps into spotlight time in which a part of the story revolves around bringing the current phase of the character's spiritual trajectory to a resolution.

wfreitag wrote: the reason personal religiosity isn't typically an issue for "clerics" in a typical fantasy system, is that by the time a "cleric" is able to cast "cure light wounds" (which is at the very start of the game), the story of that character's spiritual quest is already over. After all, that character has already been sufficiently inspired to be able to perform miracles. This doesn't mean the character is no longer spiritual, any more than the couple who "married and lived happily ever after" are no longer in love; it just means there's no more "romance story" (in the case of the lovers) or "inspiration story" (in the case of the cleric) left to tell. Unless crises of faith are to be part of the ongoing tale, which is usually not the case for a fantasy cleric advancing to greater abilities, the focus of the story to come must lie elsewhere.

wfreitag wrote: Religious customs and insititutions (terms family #2) is the only group that seems amenable to objective treatment in a world background. But as such, it's also not usually necessary to deal with unless the plot is to address it specifically. This is where the food analogy applies. We don't have to depict the player-characters' practice of religious customs any more than we have to describe what recipes they cook. But we can if we want to, and doing so is not particularly difficult. It's not at all clear how a rule system could help with this.

Greetings Mr. Kim,

Well, this one is not as long as it could have been. (Why do I hear cheering?) Still best bundle up, it's getting late, and there is a chill in the air.

John Kim wrote:

Valamir wrote: Modern religions center on questions of faith. Personal struggles between ones self and the ideal and so on (to oversimplify). However, this is not always the role that religion played. Throughout much of history religion was far more mechanical. The Aztecs sacrificed people to gods to save the world. It was pretty much a simple turn key operation for them. If X then Y.

I don't agree with this at all. Modern religion is simply less central to most people's lives than religion historically was. However, the fundamentals are pretty universal. I'm not an Aztec expert, but as far as I know they were quite serious about their faith. Many of their rituals are things still commonly practiced today: like baptism of newborns and confession of sins.

There is a tendency to imagine that historical people who didn't write down their thoughts simply didn't have the complex thoughts that literate people did. For example, we know that the stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius had deep crises of faith because we have his writings on the subject. But because the Aztec emperor didn't leave a written journal of his thoughts, it is easy to imagine that he just thought of religion as a push-button affair. While we can't know for sure, I highly doubt it.

Greetings wfreitag,

wfreitag wrote: I'm thinking about food. In a pastoral society, nothing's more important than food. Most people would be expected to spend most of their time dealing with the production, distribution, safekeeping, and preparation of food. And the stakes should be high: any lapses in performing any of these functions could cause the death of individuals, families, or whole communities by starvation, poisoning, or disease

Kester Pelagius wrote: Consider the relationship of Religion, meaning the organized Temple or Church, in relation to such a agrarian populace.

Many incorperated into their strictures the necessity of Tithing the best portions of crops, first fruits, sacrifices (all of which were likely only sacrificed to be eaten, despite what horror flicks would lead you to believe), and what would you say you have?

Keep in mind that this is precisely how most "religious" institutions functioned. They were centralized, had a leadership, a body of the faithful (or "communicants" if you prefer), yet were often soley devoted to... Priestly duties.

Thus their community literally had to support them. Fail the community, well, might mean the end of the Temple. Then again might not.

Even into our modern era the names applied to religious communities reflect their origins.

Consider: The Priest is called a "Shepherd". The communicants, meaning the congregation of the Church, are the "flock". Most see in this only the superficial meaning of "protector" and "protected".

Yet what is the Shepherds true role, to protect the flock?

They rod and thy staff protect me. I believe is the pertinent bit of verse. (Taken from memory.)

That is the simplex answer.

That is the beauty of fiction, be it fantasy or space opera, you can take bits and pieces from the real world, reshape them, and... well whatever you want to do that's what!

Thus you can establish that a cult or religion is either a protector of the people, or a parasite feeding off them.

Hello,

It strikes me that The Riddle of Steel offers a fine solution to deciding between the "religiosity" and "values" of an effectiveness-increasing game mechanic.

A character may have the Spiritual Attribute "Faith." This is one of five SAs that a character must have in the game, rated from 0-5 and almost always changing in value rapidly during play (with no in-game correspondence - Faith 0 is not "lower faith" than Faith 5). The rating is used for dice bonuses.

Now here's the point: in this game, the fellow who gets 5 extra dice from "using his Faith" definitely has an in-game effect. But! Just what this represents in-game, in terms of #1 (religiosity; God literally lent me strength) or #3 (values; I am fighting for what I really care about, so I put my "all" into it to an extent I never dreamed possible), is deliberately left unspecified. The character is convinced it's #1. His cynical pal, fighting beside him with his utterly non-religious "Passion: Hates Bob" at 5, interprets that mighty strike or whatever as #3.

The game does not tell us which it is, at all. It doesn't have to.

Here are some other interesting nuances.

- Faith has no special features as an SA distinct from the other ones, such as "Passion" (which may be very selfish or very altruistic), Drive (ditto), and so on. Well, it's a wee bit easier to keep from losing than some, but no big deal.

- Faith, like all of the SAs, is completely up to the player in terms of the character keeping it or losing it. Right in the middle of play, with a bit of easy point-mongering, poof, it'd be gone and replaced by "Drive: deflower princess" or something else dubious or even reprehensible.

- Using Faith does not accord with any particular standards of niceness or goodness, just with defending the reputation, integrity, and base-line practices of that particular religion.

Looking over cinema and literature, I should like to point out that this ambiguity about #1 vs. #3 is a comfortable zone of drama and theme for the non-religious writer/reader/viewer and the religious one alike. One does not have to know which in order to understand, enjoy, and appreciate both the story itself and the larger issues involved.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Edited to fix a key typo, the "3" in boldface, which I originally mistyped as "2."

John Kim wrote:

wfreitag wrote:
Religiosity (terms family #1): If I wanted to encourage this aspect of religion in a game, I think I'd choose an "effects first" approach a la Christoffer (Pale Fire). That is, instead of causing the world to react tangibly to a character's religiosity (which tends to represent premature resolution of what are supposed to be deep mysteries), I'd ask the player to define the spiritual direction the character's religiousity should be going in (affirming of faith, doubt leading to a crisis of faith, seeking faith, acquiring new faith, or whatever). Then I'd reward the player for depicting the character's interpretation or interpolation of events in accordance with that direction.

... the reward would not translate into effectiveness, but perhaps into spotlight time in which a part of the story revolves around bringing the current phase of the character's spiritual trajectory to a resolution.

I like the idea of deriving religiosity from events rather than vice-versa. The player can interpret critical results, or storypath card play, etc. as miracles or signs of favor and whatnot. I have some doubts about the specific mechanic of pre-defining a spiritual direction -- which just seems a little dull to me -- and also with the reward -- which seems close to rewarding spotlight time with more spotlight time. One alternate approach is taken by Pendragon, where a character's personality development develops randomly from events that test traits like Chaste, Forgiving, and Pious.

Greetings Tony,

Tony Irwin wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: Consider the relationship of Religion, meaning the organized Temple or Church, in relation to such a agrarian populace.

Many incorperated into their strictures the necessity of Tithing the best portions of crops, first fruits, sacrifices (all of which were likely only sacrificed to be eaten, despite what horror flicks would lead you to believe), and what would you say you have?

Keep in mind that this is precisely how most "religious" institutions functioned. They were centralized, had a leadership, a body of the faithful (or "communicants" if you prefer), yet were often soley devoted to... Priestly duties.

Thus their community literally had to support them. Fail the community, well, might mean the end of the Temple. Then again might not.

(highlights mine)

Kester I'm sure you'll agree that debating religion is difficult enough, much more so through an impersonal written forum dedicated to RPGs! Your personal understanding of the evolution of some religions is genuinely interesting, but obviously for a proper religious debate we'd need to see historical sources that support people's claims and interpretations.

So why bother?! What's much more interesting to me is the fascinating model you describe of a community evolving its own religion. I'd be interested on your opinion on this: In a game-world where the gods are real how likely is it that the religion would gel with the community as in the agrarian example you put forward?

Tony Irwin wrote: For example:
I design a Viking game, and fill it with gods and demons of the sea. The eternal war they engage in is manifested through tide movements and storms. Worshiping a god is done in order to earn safe passage on the sea.

Now in a game where there are no gods, but communities evolve religions to meet their own needs, this seems very acceptable. It fits the kind of model that you described for an agrarian community's religion.

On the other hand, if I start from the idea that gods and demons will be real in my game, would they really be concerned about tides, storms, and sailing boats? If there are real gods then wouldn't they most likely force a system of worship upon the Vikings, one that doesn't even address the Viking's concerns about safety at sea.

Tony Irwin wrote: I'm wondering if when a religion is tuned exactly to fit in with a community, that it implies that there is no supernatural basis to that religion, that the community has created their own gods on their own terms.

In a setting where the gods are real perhaps the challenge is to create a religion that is so very different in nature from what the community (and players) would want and expect, in order to show that it is a religion with a genuinely supernatural basis?

Tony Irwin wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: Even into our modern era the names applied to religious communities reflect their origins.

Consider: The Priest is called a "Shepherd". The communicants, meaning the congregation of the Church, are the "flock". Most see in this only the superficial meaning of "protector" and "protected".

Yet what is the Shepherds true role, to protect the flock?

Thy rod and thy staff protect me. I believe is the pertinent bit of verse. (Taken from memory.)

That is the simplex answer.

I think the traditions you're referring to are based more on John 10, rather than Psalm 23, but I just know there are people out there who can easily trumph me on that (and are perhaps itching to do so) This highlights the difficulties of religious discussion and interpretation in a forum that isn't set up for that.

Im much more interested in how would you apply your personal take on these verses to designing a game, you put it so nicely at the end of your post:

That is the beauty of fiction, be it fantasy or space opera, you can take bits and pieces from the real world, reshape them, and... well whatever you want to do that's what!

Thus you can establish that a cult or religion is either a protector of the people, or a parasite feeding off them.

Both the "protector" and "parasite" model assume that community and religion gel together succesfully. To what extent do you think that this implies that people have evolved their own religion rather than receiving it from gods that the designer intended to exist in the game world?

Well, here I go again....

Clearly this discussion has split into numerous concurrent directions, and part of the difficulty is that some people are talking about one direction and others are responding about another. I'm not going to try to divide it all up --- I'd fail, for one thing --- but I'd like to propose some possibilities for specifying and clarifying debate.

John Kim started this thread as "successful approaches to religion." People have interpreted this numerous ways, and at this point it hardly matters what John Kim himself had in mind.

1. I took this to mean, "How might we design religions, within the framework of the classic fantasy Heartbreaker-type world, that would 'feel' a bit more like real-world religions?"

2. Some have asked, "How can we design mechanics that will encourage religious behaviors from PCs?"

3. Some have asked, "Which RPGs do religion well?"

Now some have responded to much of this by saying, "Whatever you want, just don't tell others how to play their games." This strikes me as unhelpful to the topic at hand.

Given this very rough breakdown, we really have a single question, upon which all the rest depends:

How will we judge whether a religion has been "done well" in a given RPG?

And this question has led to much debate about what religion is, what's the right sort of religion, what's the right emphasis, and so forth.

I stated before, somewhere, that scholars of religion have spent 150-odd years debating the origins of religion, and have mostly realized that there's no answer to the question. I'd like to add a few additional points to that, and explain why they're helpful (yes, I really do think they're helpful):

1. The discipline of History of Religions, sometimes called Comparative Religions, has essentially determined (with very few remaining objectors) that religion is not definable. To quote (I think --- it's from memory) Jonathan Z. Smith, Imagining Religion (1982), "there is no data for religion" (First page of Introduction). What he means by this is that "religion" as a category of behaviors that every culture more or less participates in is an invention of the modern world. There are behaviors that can be so categorized everywhere, by definition, but religion does not exist as an object "out there." The point, for this discussion, is this: there is no possible correct definition or standard.

2. The same discipline, along with Anthropology and other pals, have come to recognize that ritual, myth, and faith are (1) not universal, (2) not consistent categories, and (3) have no intrinsic necessary relations to each other. For example, friends of mine who study and teach the history of Buddhism always harp on one essential point for their students: classical Buddhism had nothing to do with faith --- it just ain't there.

So why is this helpful, rather than destructive, for talking about religion in RPGs?

The only way to talk about the topic is with respect to specific and stated standards and priorities. If we agree to very rough senses of things like myth, ritual, theology, institutions, and so forth, those rough definitions and categories cannot contain inherent mutual relations, nor can they be inherently prioritized. This results in an interesting effect:

X wants religion in her RPG to emphasize faith, downplay theology and ritual, and maybe have a smattering of myth. The only question is how to achieve the goal --- there is no value in debating whether the goal is itself worthwhile, because there is no standard to compare it to.

So each of those 3 questions simply needs to add the phrase, "With respect to X."

1. How might we design RPG religions that are more successful with respect to real-world accuracy? (My question --- change the comparative term as you like.)

2. How might we design RPG religion mechanics that are more successful with respect to encouraging X sort of behaviors?

3. Which RPGs have done religion well with respect to X explicit standard of measurement?

Sorry to go on so long, but I wanted to get this clear. I don't think it's necessary to do RPG religion from an academic stance, but I promise you that as soon as you claim some one standard is actually the right one, you will be in the middle of a very nasty snarl.

Walt wrote: But in the case of active gods who don't test faith by keeping all interventions ambiguous, you have two further choices. You can hypothesize gods who, out of affection for the comminity that worships them, decree exactly the same religions observances that the community might have developed itself to meet its own needs. Which makes the deity benign or beneficial, though perhaps a little superfluous.

Walt wrote: That last case, though, it problematic, because the results would probably not be much like most real-world religion, so the problem of alienness arises. Indeed, the closest scenario to that we're familiar with are things like Evil Overlords with godlike powers (Sauron, for instance) or the super-powerful computer masters Captain Kirk was always destroying by overloading them with illogic (or occasionally with phasers. In fact, Kirk also took out the actual Apollo, as I recall.) So instead of recognizable religions, we're verging back to evil cults and evil overlords. A god that's wrathful and occasionally wipes out half his worshippers with distasters or plagues is one thing. We all know that worshippers need to be wiped out from time to time because so many of them are just so gosh-darned sinful. But a god that appeared unconcerned with the community's concerns altogether would be indistinguishable from any other super-powered overlord ruling by might, except for the magnitude of the power.

Tony Irwin wrote:
Ultimately its a personal choice. The alien nature of religions compared to communities isn't a "fact", its just something I think I've observed in my own little circle, and so of course I'd be interested in seeing that represented in gameworld religions.

Greetings All,

First off, apologies, I've sort of lumped everything together here. (I've edited the answers into a sort of sequence that is meant to be read as presented.) Herein are answers to posts both old and new, so without boring you further here the missive is...


Is seperating the institution of "religion"-- as in a representative organization within the game world, viz. a cult or church or temple, with its associated hierarchy and individual set of standards-- from the expression of belief, morality, theology, and the associated ideological preconceptions impossible?

That seems to be the underlying question to much of what is being discussed. Unless I have toally misread your posts. (In which case I humbly apologize.)

clehrich wrote: 1. How might we design RPG religions that are more successful with respect to real-world accuracy? (My question --- change the comparative term as you like.)

2. How might we design RPG religion mechanics that are more successful with respect to encouraging X sort of behaviors?

3. Which RPGs have done religion well with respect to X explicit standard of measurement?

Le Joueur wrote: There is no 'right way' to portray religion in role-playing games, because religion is not required. A game can be created expressly for portrayal of religion, but that does not make it necessary for all games. It isn't even that simple. I think the OAD&D example underscore the fact that some games can and will have religion in them without portraying it. That's an important point; while it may be important for some people to, not just evangelize their religion, but religiousness in general, it is vital to remember that it is not necessary for all games to do so.

Tony Irwin wrote: Well many real-world relgions today would claim that their belief and worship system has been wholly prescribed to them by God, and yet those beliefs and behaviours are often wholly alien to contemporary communities.

contracycle wrote: One interesting aspect to consider is that religions often supercede cultural boundaries ... two states with a shared religion may well have other cultural mores ... but both will exhibit cultural features relevant to the supra-national religion.

Nick Pagnucco wrote: I'm wary about generalizing to a genre how religion could or should be represented. I'd be willing to make some cautious generalizations about how religion works in specific RPGS. Maybe generalizations about 1 gaming group's preferences across time and different RPGs also. And thats about it.

Everything else, IMHO, is up in the air, including whether or not it needs to be defined at all. If it needs to be defined, I am sure there are some games that are well suited to have religion play a minor or a one-dimensional role. Others may require detailed accounts on political ramifications, or on the effects on everyday life, or on the cosmology.

John Kim wrote: Based on my experiences, I feel that game mechanics are not especially important with regards to religion. If anything, making theurgical matters into cut-and-dried mechanics might impede what I consider successful portrayal of religion.

It's all good Kester except this part:

Kester Pelagius wrote: However, though we may realize it or not, religion is a pervasive part of our human experience.

Le Joueur wrote:
Sorry, the 'pervasiveness' of religion is purely a subjective measure. I have many days were there would be no religion in my human experience, save for those I've trained myself to have. I must assume that an atheist has these not at all; I'd hardly call that "pervasive."

Kester,

I think you have missed my point, at least.

clehrich wrote:

1. How might we design RPG religions that are more successful with respect to real-world accuracy? (My question --- change the comparative term as you like.)

2. How might we design RPG religion mechanics that are more successful with respect to encouraging X sort of behaviors?

3. Which RPGs have done religion well with respect to X explicit standard of measurement?

Is the portrayal of "what is religion" merely a matter of approach to the subject matter?

Ah, but against whose ruler should one base their measure of what is, or is not, the standard for the subject matter?!?

Is seperating the institution of "religion"-- as in a representative organization within the game world, viz. a cult or church or temple, with its associated hierarchy and individual set of standards-- from the expression of belief, morality, theology, and the associated ideological preconceptions impossible?

Greetings clehrich,

Religion *could* encompass a myriad number of possibilities, yet not every religion need necessarily portray every possibility. Just read some of the other Threads here at Forge touching upon this topic. The ideas expressed in them show the vivid diverisity of human thought, and that is, when you get right down to it, what most religions are all about. The diversity of human thought.

A religion could be a-political, or the core of a realms political intrigue. The Monarch could be both the head of State and the de facto head of the Religion of State; but does that necessarily make such a kingdom a Theocracy?

And what about a Theocracy? A Theocracy could exist where there is a de facto secular head of State, while the real power is wielded by a Hierophant or High Priestess!

That is how religions within the evivronment of the RPG should be thought of as. They are, for lack of a better term, a Meta-NPC. Yet so too are they background fixtures, but fixtures that can be installed or uninstalled at the Game Masters discretion. And as with every NPC they have motivations and goals.

clehrich wrote: I think you have missed my point, at least.

<...>

My impression here is that you are concerned about the notion of an explicit standard. Presumably, you worry that I'm suggesting we should formulate a "correct way" to do things. This is precisely the opposite of my argument.

clehrich wrote: My point is this:
1. Religion is not definable, except as a heuristic device or an ideological claim. There is, and can be, no right answer (barring revelation). Thus in answer to your question, "Is the portrayal of "what is religion" merely a matter of approach to the subject matter?" I would reply, No: the portrayal of "what is religion" is merely a matter of battling ideologies among definers, and cannot have a valid conclusion.

clehrich wrote: 2. Therefore, there can be no correct standards of comparison or measurement.

clehrich wrote: 3. Therefore, when we evaluate and compare approaches to religion in RPGs, we must always make explicit what we are comparing to, i.e. what standard we are formulating for the purpose. There is minimal value in debating such standards; the only question is whether a given approach meets a given standard.

clehrich wrote: For example:

Is seperating the institution of "religion"-- as in a representative organization within the game world, viz. a cult or church or temple, with its associated hierarchy and individual set of standards-- from the expression of belief, morality, theology, and the associated ideological preconceptions impossible?

1. No, it's not impossible. How could it be --- you've just done so.

Kester,

I think I'm not making myself clear. When I say that religion is not definable, I mean that we, now, here, outside of a game, cannot formulate a fully successful and comprehensive definition of religion, unless we make arbitrary decisions about which forms of religious behavior are more and less important. In order to compare and evaluate forms of religion within a game world (or the real world, for that matter), we must make such arbitrary decisions, and that should be done explicitly. If, for example, you want to construct religions within a given game-world such that institutions are primary, then the only question for the rest of us to deal with is whether your constructions (rules, history, background, whatever) successfully prioritize institutions. There's no value in debating whether you have made a good choice, because there's no standard to compare such choices against.

For example:

when you get right down to it, what most religions are all about [is] The diversity of human thought.

clehrich wrote:

My point is this:
1. Religion is not definable, except as a heuristic device or an ideological claim. There is, and can be, no right answer (barring revelation). Thus in answer to your question, "Is the portrayal of "what is religion" merely a matter of approach to the subject matter?" I would reply, No: the portrayal of "what is religion" is merely a matter of battling ideologies among definers, and cannot have a valid conclusion.

Exactly. Ergo the question: against whose ruler.

As to the "battling ideologies", that is a fine point, but it has to do only with the philosophy, or if you prefer theology, of religion. Which, in the game world, is merely a minor facet of the Meta-NPC that could be a religion.

clehrich wrote:

3. Therefore, when we evaluate and compare approaches to religion in RPGs, we must always make explicit what we are comparing to, i.e. what standard we are formulating for the purpose. There is minimal value in debating such standards; the only question is whether a given approach meets a given standard.

If we establish that 'religion is not definable' then that is the case. In fact if it can't be defined then there can be no standard for comparison. If we can not compare then... *shrug*

However what I was saying is that we should perhaps think of religion as the end product of a recipe. It is a cake, brownies, a soup, the fruit cake you inherited from your great great great aunt that you keep in the back of your freezer. In other words a "religion" is the sum of its parts. Remove any one of the ingrediants from the mix and it ceases to be what it was and becomes something else altogether.

After all we *could* substitute many other words here: superstition, preternatural, magic, mysticism, and etcetera... However what is at issue here seems to really be the conception of religion.

Fang 'Le Joueur' Langford wrote: Sorry, the 'pervasiveness' of religion is purely a subjective measure. I have many days were there would be no religion in my human experience, save for those I've trained myself to have. I must assume that an atheist has these not at all; I'd hardly call that "pervasive."

Okay, M. J. and everyone,

Before I respond to this mess, I need to clarify a few things.

First, I was responding to the following sentence: "However, though we may realize it or not, religion is a pervasive part of our human experience." Let me decode what I hear; 'even if you don't realize [blank], you experience [blank].' To me, that's oxymoronic; you can't experience something unrealized.

Second, and much more complicated, some time after I posted what is quoted here, Kester added an addendum with the intention of obviating confusion. I believe it has only had the opposite effect.

There are some fundamental misunderstandings attached to what I wrote that further the difficulty; I'm somewhat leery of dumping quips all over a long quote, I don't have any other way of revealing that this isn't an argument but two people speaking past one and another.

Onward...

M. J. Young wrote:

Fang 'Le Joueur' Langford wrote: Sorry, the 'pervasiveness' of religion is purely a subjective measure. I have many days were there would be no religion in my human experience, save for those I've trained myself to have. I must assume that an atheist has these not at all; I'd hardly call that "pervasive."

Perhaps my definition of "religion" is too broad to fit the RPG use of the term; however, it may also shed some light on the disagreement here.

As I understand the term, "religion" is that fundamental set of beliefs by which you attempt to understand the essential meaning of life--whether it has such meaning or not, as you understand it. Note that this is not about religious experience or religious practice. I see the former as influencing religion and the latter as stemming from it.

M. J. Young wrote: By this definition, religion is inherently pervasive. Also, atheism is a religion. It is the belief in a specific understanding of reality which is inherently unprovable (the non-existence of God), and so taken on faith as a foundation for understanding the nature of reality and the meaning of life. In that sense, the atheist's religion is as pervasive as anyone else's.

It might be that the ordinary agnostic (the one who maintains that he himself does not know whether God exists, not the one whose religion asserts that such a thing is inherently undiscoverable by any means) does not find religion pervading his life; on the other hand, he might be agnostic precisely because he does find religion pervading his life and does not know how to interpret that.

M. J. Young wrote: I would also note that the difference between supernatural religions and atheism is merely the supernatural factor, but when we say that religion pervades the lives of the believers, it is not generally the supernatural aspects of the religion that do so--that is, most believers in supernatural religions do not experience the supernatural aspects thereof constantly. It is more the belief structure that pervades their lives, including its ethical and moral influences, its ritual demands, and its personal obligations. For the atheist these are less demanding, but it must be conceded that an atheist's moral and ethical views and practices are built on a foundation that denies supernatural certification and so has some other basis for any restrictions on conduct, such as social contract or self-interest.

Religious experience is not pervasive, even among religious people; nor is religious practice, in the ritual sense.

Yes, I recognize that there is a certain degree to which my definition of religion is a truism, that if the statement "everyone is religious" only means "everyone has unproved fundamental beliefs about reality" then it's obviously true and not terribly useful. But I think if we're going to say that religion is or is not pervasive, we need to know what we mean by that.