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

[Serus]

For faith to be viable, uncertainty must reign

This judgement draws from a modern perspective on religion and belief and thus is wrong.
The average european person living during the middleages knew that god exists. It was accepted as a fact and there was no doubt about it, the idea that god doesnt exist was unthinkable.

THIS !

You have no idea what average European person was really thinking.
And they certainly didnt "know" anything. All they had is faith in uncertain deity.

You must read one day something about mysterious sciences called "history", "anthropology", "religious studies" and others, quite fascinating things you know.

Your approach is called "rationalism" and you probably really believe that is is the only possible and WAS the only possible way of thinking even before Descartes was born. It is not.

 

[Longshanks]

First off if you would hang a bit on IT forums you would notice that there are no VDs followers who agree with him on everything automatically.
Recent thread about this same issue shows that clearly.

I know. It was not meant to be taken at all seriously. Glad it was received in the right spirit.

The greeks didn't have active gods. Not one. They had stories of active gods, which they told each other and it inspired faith. They believed, but they didn't have proof. Stories told by priests are not equal to real gods doing those things in front of witnesses.

Yes, and those stories could inspire plays, and in our modern day, movies, and yes even games.

I fail to see the necessity of religion being handled similarly to those in the real world. It can't be about realism, as your game is to have magic. Just like active gods with set domains, magic has been done to death and is usually badly handled. Why not dismiss it in the same way? Because you feel it can be done better. You've failed to show why such god-handling is so intrinsically bad that it cannot be implemented to a game worthy level.

You seem to reject it largely for its simplicity. I disagree this simiplicity is implicit, but even if it were, it's not necessarily a bad thing for one, often small, aspect of a game. Not all RPG developers will want to include interminable controversies and discussions on religion. There's enough of that in the real world, not to mention other fiction, do we really want yet another weak analogue? Kinda hard to connect with the tracts of a fictitious religion anyway. Something different, based more on choices and actions, not so much on discussion, factions and lore may be preferrable to such a developer.

But, like for the greeks, they should, by and large, be stories, not reality.

But, a fantasy RPG is still a story. I see no reason why it could not be based entirely on Greek myths, just as Fallout is largely based on the imagined future of pulp sci fi writers.

Because the reality of those stories would actually ruin a lot of the interesting human elements in religions that occur because people believe, but cannot prove, their faith.

Quite possibly, though not a necessity. But, so what? Religion, or gods, in this game can have a different focus. It may not be the one you prefer, but it does not mean it's entirely devoid of interest. Even if we do remove a large chunk of the human element in religiion, it's no problem, not every game needs to explore the same themes.

And then argue about their beliefs. Hard to argue dogma when you can just ask your God directly.

Maybe so, depending on how it's handled. Again, active gods do not have to be clear about their actions. It's possible, even liklely, that people will disagree on interpretations of these actions and on what needs to be done to gain or retain favour. Maybe gods do not speak directly to the people, only doing so through oracles and prophets. Just because they are active and tangible does not mean they are willing to explain their plans and actions. A tangible god can be almost as mysterious as an intangible one.

 

[hiver]

You must read one day something about mysterious sciences called "history", "anthropology", "religious studies" and others, quite fascinating things you know.

Your approach is called "rationalism" and you probably really believe that is is the only possible and WAS the only possible way of thinking even before Descartes was born. It is not.

No, its called common sense.
You are mistaken for the simple fact that no one can claim that all the people in the past "knew" that god exists since there was no way for them to "know" that. And even if you take into account every historic book, everything anthropology has to offer and all "religious studies" whatever that is, you wont find a common position let alone any proof of what exactly people in those times thought.
It is supremly stupid to think so.
People of Europe were never completly christian in the first place. There were always those damn Kelts, Picts, Slavs or various northern tribes with their gods and there were always people who didnt belive anything very much either.

Or will you claim those that went to crusades for some slaughter, raping and pillaging were the true belivers?
Or those that burned thousand of women after torturing them in most horrible ways ever invented.

All they could do (some of them) is to believe god really exists which is not the same thing.

 

[Serus]

 

[hiver]

You mean to say: i have no counter argument so ill just post a pic and hope ill get to be a winner?

Im afraid not.

 

[Serus]

Ok, you won, are you happy now ? Just go away.

 

[hiver]

Dont be ridiculous.
I would have been happier if you managed to come up with any argument to back up that silly post of yours.

 

[Gnidrologist]

Just like with the different approaches to game design conserning religion, quarell between ''common sense'' and ''irrational thought'' exists only in the form of words and ideas we're able to mulitply endlessly. Reality is what it is and it doesn't give a shit.

 

[Unradscorpion]

Dont be ridiculous.
I would have been happier if you managed to come up with any argument to back up that silly post of yours.

Sometimes, things just aren't the way you want them to be.

 

[ArcturusXIV]

 

[Serus]

Ok, the thread has devolved into a paste-the-most-retarded-picture-from-the-internet-to-show-how-retarted-you-are.
I am the one to blame, i guess.

 

[ArcturusXIV]

Ok, the thread has devolved into a paste-the-most-retarded-picture-from-the-internet-to-show-how-retarted-you-are.
I am the one to blame, i guess.

It would help your argument if you could actually spell "retarded."

 

[hiver]

:dislaimer:
Since im a bit bored im going to share my opinion on some of the issues here which may be different then those of NN.

I fail to see the necessity of religion being handled similarly to those in the real world. It can't be about realism, as your game is to have magic. Just like active gods with set domains, magic has been done to death and is usually badly handled. Why not dismiss it in the same way? Because you feel it can be done better.

Yes, done better and in a different way then it was attempted so far.
NN doesnt dismisses religion at all, he will attempt to do it in a different way that in my opinion is better.

Another factor why religion should be handled in the way NN suggests is that it intersects too much into magic parts of the fantasy settings basically making priests magicians casting their own slightly different spells around.

By removing that component from religion magic becomes more distinct.

You've failed to show why such god-handling is so intrinsically bad that it cannot be implemented to a game worthy level.

That wasnt his position at all. As i understand it he was talking about how it is usually handled in a bad and shallow manner. Lets face it, it would be really difficult to construct such a setting without it all falling in major logic holes requiring much suspension of disbelief.
And this provides the option of using religion for a bit deeper musings which "active gods" direction simply lacks.

You seem to reject it largely for its simplicity. I disagree this simiplicity is implicit, but even if it were, it's not necessarily a bad thing for one, often small, aspect of a game.

I think precisely because its often just a small part of the game it tends to be implemented in cheap and shallow manner.

Not all RPG developers will want to include interminable controversies and discussions on religion. There's enough of that in the real world, not to mention other fiction, do we really want yet another weak analogue?

I dont see how it would be another weak analogue. As far as i can see the usual active gods with their domains is another weak analogue and we get one after another constantly.

Maybe so, depending on how it's handled. Again, active gods do not have to be clear about their actions.

Yes they do.

It's possible, even liklely, that people will disagree on interpretations of these actions and on what needs to be done to gain or retain favour. Maybe gods do not speak directly to the people, only doing so through oracles and prophets.

Just because they are active and tangible does not mean they are willing to explain their plans and actions. A tangible god can be almost as mysterious as an intangible one.

That would be hard to pull off. If tangible and active god is so mysterious it would be pretty hard for anyone to understand what he really wants, likes or dislikes.
As soon as he would punish anyone for doing something wrong he would make his intentions clear and thus loose his mysteriousness. If he refuses to act on anything then its not an active god.

In a setting with active gods only one or a few could be so mysterious without ruining the whole shebang.
Good example is the Lady from Discworld.
She does not tolerate calling upon her, speaking her name or trying to name her and is completely unpredictable even in her unpredictability. All those who try to interact with her in any way meat horrible ends.
(and Lady of Pain is similar to that concept very much though she covers a different domain which is also not up for discussion)

But thats only possible because of the rest of pantheon of usual active gods is taking care of other normal aspects of society and universe.
If all gods were like her the whole thing would just become schizophrenic.

You can argue that gods in Greek mythology were not clear on everything and sometimes mysterious but every Greek myth shows them having rather straightforward opinions on matters followed by definite actions more often then not.

 

[Volourn]

"And this provides the option of using religion for a bit deeper musings which "active gods" direction simply lacks."

No.


"You can argue that gods in Greek mythology were not clear on everything and sometimes mysterious but every Greek myth shows them having rather straightforward opinions on matters followed by definite actions more often then not."

Wrong. More than a few Greek Mythology dieties had often nonstraightforward methods to what they did, and why they did what they did.Just because a diety is 'known' to exist doesn't mean their reasoning is always clear or understandable to humans. In fact, they (Greek dieties) could easily have two different groups worship them in completely different ways.

 

[Naked Ninja]

It doesn't matter if the 'real' ancient greeks had 100% solid proof that their gods existed. As for the characters in the mythical stories go, the gods were REAL and active so they reacted as such.

Yes, but the stories weren't called on to elaborate on how those active gods affected the rest of the setting. Think about it for a second before you type. They are REALLY active in some of those stories. REALLY. But then, after the story ends, what? Nothing. The epics that formed their body of mythology are small, self contained incidents. They make for exciting stories, but as a designer you need to look carefully at the setting and think "Hmmm, ok, if they are that over the top all the time, what would happen?"

The problem is D&D attempts to copy and paste medieval cultures into a setting, but then just say "well, since this is fantasy, make that setting's mythology real. Ok done." Except it wouldn't be, there would be large consequences to that culture if some of the things they included in their epic legends were a common day occurrence.

Absolutely, and utterly bullshit. Both Greek Mythology, and D&D disputes your theory to hell. HELL, there are FR gods that have multiple sects that oppose each other. Doof.

No, it doesn't. It simply builds a setting while ignoring the glaring logic holes. Augary spells allow you to ask questions directly, silly to have 2 factions of a religion arguing over some point of dogma when they can simply hop on the divine hotline.

It comes down to what VD said about magic. Designers add magic spells to a setting without carefully considering the consequences. Almost every D&D setting should be littered with teleport circle highways. The cost compared to the economic benefit makes it inevitable. But they aren't. Why? Because someone added the spell thinking "neat!" without stopping to consider the effect on the setting.

Only Eberron does this even close to right.

Even in Greek Mythology, two groups with the same god may actually oppose each other.

Because the stories were told to make some point instead of making sense.

THIS !

There is a difference between having absolute conviction that a God exists, and having a heretic come round and being able to prove to them that God exists by having him watch while your friendly neighborhood cleric resurrects people from the dead. There is conviction, and then there is provable fact.

I fail to see the necessity of religion being handled similarly to those in the real world. It can't be about realism, as your game is to have magic.

Hmmm, so you are saying I shouldn't aim for realistic politics then? Because my game has magic? The problem is that if the religious aspect of your game is shallow, nothing you do, not throwing fantasy and wizards in or anything like that, can make it seem anything but shallow.

Just like active gods with set domains, magic has been done to death and is usually badly handled. Why not dismiss it in the same way? Because you feel it can be done better. You've failed to show why such god-handling is so intrinsically bad that it cannot be implemented to a game worthy level.

Did I say it couldn't? I loved BG2. But I feel it can be done better, and that is what my blog post was about. Simple enough.

You seem to reject it largely for its simplicity.

No, for it's inconsistency and logic flaws. Like easy resurrection. If it exists in your setting, why does regicide exist at all? Etc etc.

Not all RPG developers will want to include interminable controversies and discussions on religion.

Which is fine. But how does that counter my point? Just because you don't want to try doing it better, doesn't mean that it can't, surely?

But, a fantasy RPG is still a story. I see no reason why it could not be based entirely on Greek myths, just as Fallout is largely based on the imagined future of pulp sci fi writers.

It certainly can. But it generally isn't. It's usually half real world, half myth, and it fails to mesh them well.

Quite possibly, though not a necessity. But, so what? Religion, or gods, in this game can have a different focus. It may not be the one you prefer, but it does not mean it's entirely devoid of interest. Even if we do remove a large chunk of the human element in religiion, it's no problem, not every game needs to explore the same themes.

I'd argue that then you aren't really exploring religion. Gods aren't equal to religion. Religion is the human structures that form around Gods/supernatural powers. Which is fine, sure. You don't have to explore religion if you don't want to. My article was about how I think it can be better done, if you do want to.

Maybe so, depending on how it's handled. Again, active gods do not have to be clear about their actions. It's possible, even liklely, that people will disagree on interpretations of these actions and on what needs to be done to gain or retain favour. Maybe gods do not speak directly to the people, only doing so through oracles and prophets. Just because they are active and tangible does not mean they are willing to explain their plans and actions. A tangible god can be almost as mysterious as an intangible one.

Indeed. Now, from my blog post which people don't seem to have actually read very well, let me quote :

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.

I'm quite fine with Gods that are active but in mysterious ways, or in ways open to interpretation. However, smiting anyone who dares violate any of their laws is a fairly hard to misinterpret action, even if they never say anything. In fact, even if you make it an earthquake, if earthquakes occur EVERY time a heretical group springs up it will again be hard to misinterpret.

Wrong. More than a few Greek Mythology dieties had often nonstraightforward methods to what they did, and why they did what they did

Yes, and if you read my above post you'll see I think that's fine. Did anyone read more than a few lines of my blog post? Seriously? However, what I have a problem with is things like this :

A queen of Thebes and wife of Amphion, Niobe boasted of her superiority to Leto because she had fourteen children (Niobids), seven male and seven female, while Leto had only two. Apollo killed her sons as they practiced athletics, with the last begging for his life, and Artemis her daughters. Apollo and Artemis used poisoned arrows to kill them, though according to some versions of the myth, a number of the Niobids were spared (Chloris, usually). Amphion, at the sight of his dead sons, either killed himself or was killed by Apollo after swearing revenge. A devastated Niobe fled to Mount Sipylos in Asia Minor and turned into stone as she wept. Her tears formed the river Achelous. Zeus had turned all the people of Thebes to stone and so no one buried the Niobids until the ninth day after their death, when the gods themselves entombed them.

Gonna be hard to have heretics in a setting when simply mouthing off about a God results in that God destroying your family and entire city, yes?

When Hermes loved Herse, one of three sisters who served Athena as priestesses or parthenos, her jealous older sister Aglaurus stood between them. Hermes changed Aglaurus to stone. Hermes then impregnated Aglaurus while she was stone.

Very subtle.

King Atreus of Mycenae retook the throne from his brother Thyestes using advice he received from the trickster Hermes. Thyestes agreed to give the kingdom back when the sun moved backwards in the sky, a feat that Zeus accomplished.

Very subtle.

Battus, a shepherd from Pylos, witnessed Hermes stealing Apollo's cattle. Though he promised his silence, he told many others. Hermes turned him to stone.

Very subtle.

Zeus killed Salmoneus with a thunderbolt for attempting to impersonate him, riding around in a bronze chariot and loudly imitating thunder.

Very subtle.

Zeus, with Hera, turned King Haemus and Queen Rhodope into mountains (the Balkan mountains, or Stara Planina, and Rhodope mountains, respectively) for their vanity.

Very subtle. Hey guys, I'm a stupid peasant, I didn't notice those 2 new mountains popping up!

Now try to imagine a setting where an entire family of these beings are all running around actively. Not just a few stories. Literally, they are active 24/7. And turning people to stone/moving the sun/impregnating statues/smiting anyone who gets out of line.


The uncertainty aspect vanishes, beyond an "oh shit, I hope I don't get smited today for something I unknowingly did which offended the Gods, or because they were bored or something". It would be less religion, and more supernatural tyranny.

 

[Serus]

There is a difference between having absolute conviction that a God exists, and having a heretic come round and being able to prove to them that God exists by having him watch while your friendly neighborhood cleric resurrects people from the dead. There is conviction, and then there is provable fact.

No, the difference is only in your rational mind. And mine for that matter.
You wrote "able to prove" - this a word from "rational" language we use today but wasn't used always and in every place on earth. Gods existed (and still exist in some remote parts of the globe) for real. There is no difference if a god ressurects people or kill people by sending a flood because there is no concept of questioning it. The fact that gods exist is given for granted and alternative thinking is impossible as the laws of nature are yet to be discovered.

Very subtle. Hey guys, I'm a stupid peasant, I didn't notice those 2 new mountains popping up!

You repeated the words "very subtle" half dozen of times - does it make your argument stronger somehow ?
For those peasants the mountains were created in the past probably. Mountains are not "popping up", they are bodies of some people that angered a god - obviously ! There is no other explanation.
BTW: greek mythology is not the best one to discuss as Greeks were the one who started to question gods in the first place - this was quite an achievement, philosphy and all that stuff ! :wink: A lot we know from their mythology is from later periods when the Greeks themselves started to talk about gods in rational terms. Also myths shoudn't be always taken litteraly by definition.

 

[kris]

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.

Zeus would still only convince the people that actually saw it. And then I mean saw it with their own eyes. Watching it on TV is not enough. in the medieval world they have no TV even. Is Zeus the only God then? The creator? Was he ever questioned in the setting? Or just a powerful mage?

also a analogy with a dragon is another thing. A God is a concept, a dragon is a creature. If you see a dragon you can say "That looks like a dragon". A God on the other hand is another matter. They are generally accepted to look like a human. Which means anyone can pose as one. In a setting with magic people can pose as one convincingly. That is one of the things I have in the thing I write, powerful mages posing as Gods. What is then a real God? Are we talking a creator? Or just a dude that can call down lightning (Thor)? This is what I am saying, you are to set and convinced that your method is the only correct and interesting, when it isn't. Your method just looks like a copy of our world.

The Egyptians didn't need miracles to be God-kings.

That wouldn't make him any less valid or interesting. It would just crash your argument that it is all about faith. Sounds more like faith in nothing that actually exist to follow your line of thinking. Again, you only find your own thinking as the correct one. How many settings do actually have Gods doing anything even close to what you said? I can't come up with that many.

We're talking about beings who can lift mountains and write their name in fire in the sky.

No you are talking about that. What Gods actually can do is another discussion. Tolkien had the creator that basically could do anything, but he never did anything to convince anyone he existed. Then the creator created the Gods that lived in the world. Still how many people in his world actually knew the Gods existed? Did they consider Morgoth a God? Sauron a God? Gandalf? The creator? Tolkien had clear distinctions, but that is another thing than what the people knew and believed.

 

[kris]

Let me congratulate you though for having conjured a interesting discussion.

There is a difference between having absolute conviction that a God exists, and having a heretic come round and being able to prove to them that God exists by having him watch while your friendly neighborhood cleric resurrects people from the dead. There is conviction, and then there is provable fact.

A cleric resurrecting someone doesn't prove there is a God. It proves to the viewers that the cleric can resurrect someone. If the God is down there in person and resurrect someone then it would probably be convincing. to the viewers, but none else.

Hmmm, so you are saying I shouldn't aim for realistic politics then? Because my game has magic? The problem is that if the religious aspect of your game is shallow, nothing you do, not throwing fantasy and wizards in or anything like that, can make it seem anything but shallow.

It isn't shallow to have active Gods.

No, for it's inconsistency and logic flaws. Like easy resurrection. If it exists in your setting, why does regicide exist at all? Etc etc.

Here is the points you should concentrate on. inconsistency and logic flaws. That is bad.

Now try to imagine a setting where an entire family of these beings are all running around actively. Not just a few stories. Literally, they are active 24/7. And turning people to stone/moving the sun/impregnating statues/smiting anyone who gets out of line.

Trust me, they have their work cut out. they need to be many (or all powerful) and they need to keep on doing these things. People forget, another generation need some convincing.

One last point. If you have a setting where ther Gods just walk the planet, then people would still ask the question as to who created the Gods. With that the Gods wouldn't really be Gods anymore... Even better, maybe the Gods walking the earth would have their own Gods.