Balor said:
Well, I have same attitude to religions as to gays... but having in mind that their views, if taken to extremes by everyone - will exterminate the humanity.
Sorry to drag this up, but the:
"If everyone were gay humanity couldn't continue." argument against homosexuality is just plain stupid.
If everyone on earth were an accountant, we'd all starve... so ban accountancy?
If everyone on earth slept in your house they'd all be crushed to death... so move out?
Any "If everyone did ??? things would be terrible, so don't do ???" argument is logically flawed. Just think how terrible things would be if everyone used such stupid arguments
.
One of the great things about humanity is diversity. People are different. Of course if everyone suddenly acted in the same way things would go horribly wrong, but the nice thing is: they don't. Pretty much any views are silly when taken to extremes - but usually they aren't taken to extremes.
I'm not religious (or gay, for the record), but my views towards religious people have changed quite a bit over the last few years. From a kind of "What!? Are you insane!?" attitude, to a "Hmm - perhaps we're all insane." point of view.
How do you define religion? Worship? A set of beliefs?
I think the thing most atheists find most weird about religion is not the worship (which makes sense once you assume the beliefs), but the beliefs themselves. Most major religions involve beliefs that I think are a bit crazy.
However, after concluding that religious folk are crazy, I thought it would be nice to conclude that I myself am not. Here I have trouble. Do I have beliefs? I'd like to say no, but I have to conceed that I do - I certainly act as though I do. Maintaining that I don't would just be being difficult.
My beliefs are pretty much all moral beliefs: "It's usually bad to kill people.", "I should consider other people's feelings." etc., with a bit of self preservation thrown in "It's not good to die."...
Can I justify any of these? No. Any justification would need to be based on some other unjustified belief. My conclusion: my beliefs are just as crazy and arbitrary (logically speaking) as religious beliefs. Almost all atheists have such beliefs.
I still have trouble with some religious beliefs though, where they form logical contradictions, or are just meaningless (or perhaps just even more meaningless than everything else in the world). On this basis I like to think I'm a bit saner than they are - though perhaps the above is an argument to the contrary
.
Back on topic to a degree, I object to the idea implicit in the question: That organised religious factions are what is needed to provide moral depth to TES (or any game).
'm in favour of the inclusion of such factions on the basis that it seems odd not to include them - they're part of the TES world. However, I don't think they are necessary in order to bring moral depth. Organised religions are not the only source of moral values or moral codes in reality, and they shouldn't be the only source in games. Religions often tend towards extremes in their teachings - towards the black and white. Personally I find it more interesting to play a character with grey areas in his beliefs: Paladins and evil necromancers will rarely surprise you - playing these character types usually (though not always) makes decisions more obvious.
Of course religious people needn't be defined by their religion, so a member of fairly extreme religious order need not be a black and white character.
I just learned something new - I was about to use "Thou shall not kill" as an illustration of organised religion being extreme, religious people being less so - willing to add a few ifs and buts -, and some "religious" people ignoring it completely.
However, apparently the correct translation is "Though shall not
murder", which can mean a whole load of things. Still, a lot of people
think it's "Thou shall not kill", but are still ready to ignore it when it suits them.
I'm sure I had a point here somewhere. Basically I dislike the idea that morality requires organised religion - in reality or in a game. I'd prefer more interesting character reactions to your actions / reputation - preferably more complex than "I hate you because...", or "You're great because...".
Deus Ex did this to a degree (and no, I'm not saying it's an RPG) with various reactions to your behaviour on the first mission according to how many "terrorists" you killed. It was fairly black and white: kill everyone and some of the soldiers think you're great, but Paul and others think you're an arse; kill no-one and Paul thinks you're great, while the soldiers think you're chicken. What annoyed me was the lack of follow through - after the first mission there were no colourful responses to your actions (well a few - shooting up the bar / using the ladies' gets interesting responses), and no atmosphere: the only difference after the first mission between butchering every guard in the game and killing only when absolutely necessary were practical considerations.
In future games I'd like to see more emphasis on this - more diverse and colourful reactions to your actions throughout the game. They needn't always have practical conseqences - just add to the feel that the way you conduct yourself has wider consequences than immediate tactical considerations.
A religious faction would be nice, but it's not something I see as necessary to provide depth. As I said above, the main reason I see for including such a faction is for consistency with the established TES world.
Obviously they have dialog explaining their motivations for sticking around.
