Game News Religion in games - cliched with under-used potential

[DarkUnderlord]

Tags: Scars of War

Naked Ninja (who is most likely neither naked nor a Ninja) <a href="http://scarsofwargame.com/blog///index.php/2009/01/22/religion-and-world-design-it-s-not-about?blog=5">talks about Religion for his indie game</a> "Scars of War":
<br>
<blockquote>The entire interplay of religion and politics alone is greatly fascinating, offering a wealth of options from which to create interesting lore (and plot/quests) in your game. So much missed opportunity there, generally. [...] So, with these concepts in mind, my design philosophy in SoW is the following :
<br>
<br>
<b>1. No facts. No certainties. Especially not about any One True Path.</b>
<br>
<br>
For faith to be viable, uncertainty must reign, even if each individual group holds it’s own convictions. Nothing can be clearly provable. Any setting where the Gods regularly pop round for tea is probably going to destroy that uncertainty. Divine events may happen and divine beings may interact with the setting but they must be obscure enough in their dealings and rare enough in occurrence to allow room for interpretation and uncertainty. An earthquake that destroys a rival religion’s main temple may have been triggered by divine wrath or it may have been the shifting of tectonic plates. It can be interpreted either way. But a God appearing at that temple and setting fire to infidels, not so much. Keep things uncertain and you allow for rival viewpoints, conflicts of dogma and interpretation, religious war, etc. Maybe not so fun in real life, but great fun in setting lore. </blockquote>
<br>
Theres more and he also talks about the cliches used in current games.

 

[Volourn]

What an idiotic 'article'.

 

[BloodyPuppy]

I thought it was pretty good actually. I agree with a lot of what he's talking about and I think it could really turn out great if he implements his ideas well.

 

[Volourn]

Sure, but the problem is he's one of those who feels only his way is the right way. I think either way to approach rleigion is a good thing.

Either have it work as in the real world (can't be proven and is 100% based on one's faith) or have it done ala D&D where everyone knows the gods exist.

You cna have drama,conflicts, religious wars,and even different interperations no matter which way you go.

Case in point: MOTB Religion D&D style works absolutely perfect.

It's dumb, ignorant, and foolish to suggest his way is the only right way hence his article point premise is weak from the get go.

 

[BloodyPuppy]

Hm, I see your point. I still like his idea despite the presumption that his way is the only way though.

 

[ushdugery]

I think he's failed to mention the most prevalent and important aspect of religion in that article; altar boys surely a huge two pages more would need to be written to accomodate them but missing them out is extremely remiss.

 

[Gragt]

You're right, never underestimate the altar boys. In Divine Divinity, there is one who pisses into the sacramental wine and thus curses the church and summons ghosts.

 

[Konjad]

I'm sick of gods in both D&D games and real life. What about cRPG games where gods don't exist for sure?

But yes, if existence of god(s) is not sure it is much better. For example: The Witcher and Bloodlines show how interesting it can turn out (especially The Witcher).

Volourn -> Gods in MotB were ok, but I can only think how better it could be if there was something else about that curse. Why don't leave uncertainity if curse was made by gods or something else? Though I understand the worst thing in MotB is setting - D&D.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

What about cRPG games where gods don't exist for sure?

How about a cRPG where the Gods don't do anything for you, just like in real life?

 

[kris]

<b>1. No facts. No certainties. Especially not about any One True Path.</b>

For faith to be viable, uncertainty must reign, even if each individual group holds it’s own convictions. Nothing can be clearly provable. Any setting where the Gods regularly pop round for tea is probably going to destroy that uncertainty. Divine events may happen and divine beings may interact with the setting but they must be obscure enough in their dealings and rare enough in occurrence to allow room for interpretation and uncertainty. An earthquake that destroys a rival religion’s main temple may have been triggered by divine wrath or it may have been the shifting of tectonic plates. It can be interpreted either way. But a God appearing at that temple and setting fire to infidels, not so much. Keep things uncertain and you allow for rival viewpoints, conflicts of dogma and interpretation, religious war, etc. Maybe not so fun in real life, but great fun in setting lore.

Before I read his whole article I have to comment on this. I see a lack of understanding for any point except his own here. Fact is that uncertainty will reign even if Gods pop up all the time, just as people will be convinced any random bruning bush talked to them while they were stoned. Just because one person allegedly seen a God (and in a world of magic anyone can pose as "God") that doesn't mean anyone but just him will be convinced the God actually had been seen. so unless the god runs around and make constant miracles people won't be convinced and some won't be convinced anyway.

what I am saying is that there is always uncertainty and that no way is the best way.

Jesus is a great example. I personally can't tell if he did any miracles, but just you check how many he actually convinced by running around in person and making his alleged miracles. Hardly any people at all. an avatar of Gods will and he just convinced a couple of people.

 

[Shannow]

Before I read his whole article I have to comment on this. I see a lack of understanding for any point except his own here. Fact is that uncertainty will reign even if Gods pop up all the time, just as people will be convinced any random bruning bush talked to them while they were stoned. Just because one person allegedly seen a God (and in a world of magic anyone can pose as "God") that doesn't mean anyone but just him will be convinced the God actually had been seen. so unless the god runs around and make constant miracles people won't be convinced and some won't be convinced anyway.

what I am saying is that there is always uncertainty and that no way is the best way.

Jesus is a great example. I personally can't tell if he did any miracles, but just you check how many he actually convinced by running around in person and making his alleged miracles. Hardly any people at all. an avatar of Gods will and he just convinced a couple of people.

Do you see any difference in a world where avatars of gods fairly regularly pop up, priest are in real communion with their gods, can work magic and miracles and a world where all magic and miracles are based in tales from a long, long, long, long, .............................., long, long time ago? Not, you can go to that church, pay an outrageous sum and they'll revive your little sister but you can go to that church, pray real hard and your sister will stay dead...
There is a major difference between gods actively and noticably affecting the world and gods that may be there and may take some interrest in our lives. Or not. Without any proof of existence.
In a world full of magic there are enough people who can detect people trying to pose as gods. In D&D the gods make miracles on a constant basis. There is no doubt that the gods exist and even priests of opposing faiths acknoledge that the other's god exists. The whole setting just works differently from our real world. And the nice thing about fantasy is that that is possible. Damn, much longer reply than the comment deserved :/

Anyway, I completely agree with Volourn.
More and more often, lately. Are you trolling less or am I losing my mind?

 

[kris]

Ok reading now.

You see, when most CRPG writers sit down to write up the religious lore for their game they generally do something like the following.

I believe the problem here is more that most RPGs are actually D&D. Of course they will all look the same as far as Gods go when they all use the same setting. I don't know about elder scrolls lore, but since it isn't D&D we can assume it is different. How many CRPGS actually use a different setting, how much are those focusing on religion? from my recollection I hardly remember anything about the Gods in any non-D&D setting.

The conventions you mentioned comes from Tolkien.

The entire interplay of religion and politics alone is greatly fascinating, offering a wealth of options from which to create interesting lore (and plot/quests) in your game. So much missed opportunity there, generally.

Oh I agree. Not that it matters who gives out a quest as long as the quest is interesting. As far as plot goes, yes some new things could be seen there. what I have been writing on the last year revolves quite a bit around Gods. I sure don't follow your philosphy though.

The second way that the usual methodology misses the point is that it forgets that religion is about faith. Faith, not fact. It’s how people interact with their belief system, not how they operate under knowledge of facts. You completely rob your setting of the rich narrative nuances if you lay everything out plainly in front of the player and the NPCs in the world. How can you have scholars arguing over interpretations of religious texts if they can just ask their deity what he meant? Without mystery the interesting, fuzzy, human elements fall away.

Here is were I think you lose the plot. Religion isn't about faith. It is about the belief in something bigger than yourself and a quest to find answers to questions bigger than yourself. Faith is just what kicks in because there is really little to support the existance of your particulary faith. And there are so many different ways you could do this and faith would still be an issue.

You seem to just see your own viewpoint here and then convince yourself that it is the right one. Of course scholars can argue about interpretations of religious text even if their God said it directly. If the God said it directly to person A, then person B may just get jealous and argue against it. He may still claim the Gods words should be interpreted in another way, he may even actually interpret the most clear text in another way. Again, just look at the real world and all the interpretions of something that is printed down. Or hear how two different people hear vastly different things when what they heard was the same.

The human element never falls away.

Any setting where the Gods regularly pop round for tea is probably going to destroy that uncertainty.

No. The God have to be convincing and he still would at most convince the people that actually met him. and still another God could pop up and say the other one was "a false God". Not to forget that you could instead play this as people going around the world pretending to be God. You can play it as the despot of the country proclaiming himself that he is God. Maybe he is?

Nothing robs the mystery from divine miracles quite like enabling priests to call on them regularly, as if their God is some eager puppy who comes running at a snap of their fingers.

I am not that privy to D&D lore, but is this actually how it works?
Personally though, I think there is way to little drawback in something like this... as the priests can in that case so freely use power without needing to give something back.

Basically, I don’t come up with some creation myth and then fit the religion around these “facts". I come up with a concept for a religion, a style and theme, and fit the “facts” of that religion to that theme. Although, in accordance with rule 1, those facts aren’t certain, they are simply a group’s interpretation and dogma, however valid those may be. Which is again made possible due to the uncertainty principle; when things are open to interpretation humans will almost certainly interpret them differently. And then argue about it.

Now you are out on shallow waters. If you create a setting then you need to have it really clear as for who the Gods are or if they don't exist. Just one, all or none religion can be true. The players don't really need to know what religion is correct or based on how things really are, but I truly hope you have put it down for yourself. Your setting NEED to know who the Gods are and what they can do. If they don't exist, then you can just say that people believe in this or that. That they believe in the God of thunder and therefore see every thunder storm as sent from him.

4. Gods/Powers should have more than one dimension.

I agree. Goes for most things. multifaceted is often more interesting. One-dimensional is only to be used for clarity and focus.

 

[kris]

Do you see any difference in a world where avatars of gods fairly regularly pop up, priest are in real communion with their gods, can work magic and miracles and a world where all magic and miracles are based in tales from a long, long, long, long, .............................., long, long time ago? Not, you can go to that church, pay an outrageous sum and they'll revive your little sister but you can go to that church, pray real hard and your sister will stay dead...
There is a major difference between gods actively and noticably affecting the world and gods that may be there and may take some interrest in our lives. Or not. Without any proof of existence.
In a world full of magic there are enough people who can detect people trying to pose as gods. In D&D the gods make miracles on a constant basis. There is no doubt that the gods exist and even priests of opposing faiths acknoledge that the other's god exists. The whole setting just works differently from our real world. And the nice thing about fantasy is that that is possible. Damn, much longer reply than the comment deserved :/

Anyway, I completely agree with Volourn.
More and more often, lately. Are you trolling less or am I losing my mind?

For a lot of people there are no doubt that their Gods exist in our world. A factual revival is sure to convince someone (see Jesus example), but it won't convince the rest of the world that a revival actually happened. This is the thing. Lets not forget that D&D Gods mostly use magic through other persons. Is it really Torm that did that piece of magic or was it a priest using magic and saying he use the power of Torm?

About D&D we just know it is, because they have explicitely written it down. think instead if you read a book and you see someone say that he healed that woman in the name of "Rumpel". Would you just believe he said the truth? Would you directly assume that even if he didn't lie that "Rumpel" existed or that was just what he believed the magic came from?

anyway. What I really want to say is that regardless of how directly the Gods affect people, everyone will still not be convinced and it would still come down to faith.

 

[Liberal]

How can you have a religion that does not propagate the One True Path, and is filled with uncertainties and controversions? Isn't it obvious such a religion would not survive a generation?

 

[kris]

How can you have a religion that does not propagate the One True Path, and is filled with uncertainties and controversions? Isn't it obvious such a religion would not survive a generation?

I don't think that is what he is saying.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Naked Ninja is talking about religion in Scars Of War.

There is going to be religion in Scars Of War?

I thought this was a futuristic shooter style RPG. Creation myths and dieties are coming into it?

What kind of game is this, exactly?

 

[kris]

There are always people that want to believe in something. I believe even the Gods at mount olympus would come up with some creation myths larger than themselves if they could.

Who created God by the way?

 

[Durwyn]

Who created God by the way?

Jews

 

[DarkUnderlord]

What kind of game is this, exactly?

It's a virtual slot machine game. You get three Gods in a row and win!

 

[DraQ]

Thumbs up in regards to the article, but I've really came to this thread in anticipation of sheek posting something excessively stupid. I'm disappointed.

 

[Naked Ninja]

What an idiotic 'article'.

I must have done something right.

Sure, but the problem is he's one of those who feels only his way is the right way.

:True Codex Gangstah 4 life:

Case in point: MOTB Religion D&D style works absolutely perfect.

No, it doesn't really. It works because the skill of the writer hides the basic inconsistencies in the D&D pantheon. And because we don't look to hard at the whole system.

It's dumb, ignorant, and foolish to suggest his way is the only right way hence his article point premise is weak from the get go.

Let me give you a little advice Volourn. You're using up your quota of meaningful insults. If you rant and rave everywhere, it no longer has any impact at all. Seriously.

Try to cut back a bit and save them up to make it count.

Before I read his whole article I have to comment on this. I see a lack of understanding for any point except his own here. Fact is that uncertainty will reign even if Gods pop up all the time

No, it won't. If Zeus pitches up in the middle of New York, declares himself God Emperor of Mankind and smites anyone who disagrees, then sits there for everyone to see, uncertainty evaporates.

We're talking about beings who can lift mountains and write their name in fire in the sky. If they are too active the simple overwhelming power of them makes uncertainty impossible. People take up faith on uncertainty, something as undeniable as turning the pacific ocean into blood and carving his face into Everest would make the reality of Zeus undeniable and convert most of the planet. Some people will think it a trick, which is where the smiting with lightning bolts becomes handy.

Just because one person allegedly seen a God (and in a world of magic anyone can pose as "God") that doesn't mean anyone but just him will be convinced the God actually had been seen.

No, I wasn't talking about something that could be mistaken for a human in a mask. I'm talking divine acts such as seen in mythology. Extinguishing the sun and other such undeniably divine acts.

Jesus is a great example. I personally can't tell if he did any miracles, but just you check how many he actually convinced by running around in person and making his alleged miracles.

He convinced everyone who actually saw his miracles. Yes, people weren't convinced solely on his preaching. But it's hard to watch a man walk on water and deny it. Sure you might have a skeptic or two, but that is dramatically different from the uncertainty of most religions.

The conventions you mentioned comes from Tolkien.

Really? Tolkien's mythology was more involved, IIRC.

Here is were I think you lose the plot. Religion isn't about faith. It is about the belief in something bigger than yourself

No, it's about belief in something you can't prove, ie faith.

Faith is just what kicks in because there is really little to support the existance of your particulary faith

That doesn't make sense as a sentence. Faith is what kicks in to support your faith? Huh?

And there are so many different ways you could do this and faith would still be an issue.

So? I said faith was the issue. Show me an example where it isn't if you want to prove something.

You seem to just see your own viewpoint here and then convince yourself that it is the right one.

Well, provide proper counterarguments.

Again, just look at the real world and all the interpretions of something that is printed down.

Um, isn't that what I was encouraging? Looking at real world religions with their uncertainty, due to their gods not being directly available and provable?

No. The God have to be convincing and he still would at most convince the people that actually met him. and still another God could pop up and say the other one was "a false God".

No, two Gods performing miracles are just going to convince people in the reality of two Gods.I'm not talking preaching here, or anything subtle. I'm talking the type of things Gods do in mythology.

Look at it this way : If a dragon pitched up and destroyed half a city, and then another dragon pitched up and said "he wasn't a REAL dragon, I am" and destroyed the other half, what happens? People cower in fear of two dragons. It's too obvious, they're both dragons.

Well, Gods kick dragons on the supernatural power scale. Ant setting where they run around actively performing direct miracles makes it hard to deny any of their existences.

Not to forget that you could instead play this as people going around the world pretending to be God.

You certainly can. How does that counter what I said in my article?

I am not that privy to D&D lore, but is this actually how it works?

Yep. Cleric spells are really just their God doing the magic for them whenever they pray.

The players don't really need to know what religion is correct or based on how things really are, but I truly hope you have put it down for yourself.

I think you've gotten the wrong impression. Of course I know, I'm the writer of the lore. The point was how it looks from the reader/player's perspective. For them and the NPCs in the world, although people can believe individual religions as they want, there isn't any concrete proof one way or the other. Like in real life.

I don't think that is what he is saying.

It wasn't.

It's a virtual slot machine game. You get three Gods in a row and win!

You've nailed the core gameplay there.

 

[hiver]

Well... this was over rather quickly even if i was expecting it.

Its an equivalent of old bad synced kung fu movie when some group of villains spends 15 minutes bragging and throwing taunts to some dude and then he finally jumps in and you hear all these weird sounds of variety of punches and then they are all on the floor.

No, really. Its just like that. I can almost hear sound effects still.

Guys, next time read the damn article and dont get hang up on first thing that bothers you in it - before passing judgment. mkay?

 

[Liberal]

Bad article.

 

[Lesifoere]

NN's post is long.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Lol, you haven't seen the stuff on ITS or the Watch. :headache:

Note to self : Never discuss religion on the internet again, it's too tiring.

 

[Lesifoere]

For what it's worth, I thought you made some good points in the article, even if the tone's too rambling for my tastes.