Theism and Christianity in RPGs

[WhiteShark]

I'm a Christian and I hold theism to be philosophically inescapable. Consequently, when I consider worldbuilding for games or any other sort of fiction, it begins with theism. Even if I believed otherwise, I would still prefer inventing a meaningful world over a nihilistic one. Given a theistic baseline, the following questions arise: to what degree should the setting's theistic nature be obscured or obvious? and how closely should it resemble Christianity?

These are the possibilities that spring to mind:

• Christianity exists as is. Ex: C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy, Darklands, Castlevania
• Overt Christianity analogue, including a Savior.
• Overt Christianity analogue absent a Savior. Ex: every JRPG, except they usually make God fake and/or evil
• Overt pre-Christianity analogue.
• Seeming paganism layered over theism. Ex: Tolkien

So far, all seems well. Any one of those can probably work at a storytelling level. The last option gets you the closest to D&Desque fantasy polytheism (Valar = "gods"), which some may prefer, while still maintaining a theistic foundation.

Problems begin to arise when we come to gameplay. Consider the typical D&D-style cleric. He can freely cast "divine spells" up to a number of times determined by his attributes and level. This is quite different from a real world wonderworker, whose every miracle-working is directly dependent upon the will of God and not on a limited reserve of power. A cleric can run out of spells; a wonderworker is done when God says he is.

Consider again, in what battle did God ever work a great miracle only to allow the beneficiary to ultimately lose? I can't think of an example. Maybe I'm just ignorant. It seems strange to imagine a character being sufficiently pious to call on God for aid in battle only for said aid, being granted, to be insufficient for victory. Such would make God look weak and ineffective.

Perhaps we try to work around these issues by not gamifying miracles at all. This has its own drawbacks. We lose the cleric, a classic archetype. The theistic religion of the setting is made to look hollow and formal rather than living and powerful. If we choose to use miracles as plot devices without allowing players access to them in gameplay, they may appear cheap contrivances. This seems to pose just as many problems as the alternative.

Then there is the matter of the details. The closer a fictional theism to Christianity, the greater also the danger of accidental blasphemy. Say you have a Christianity analogue and a cleric quotes from the equivalent of Scripture. Now you, as the writer, are inventing a pseudo-Scripture, effectively putting words in God's mouth. Fiction though it may be, if it's meant to be a stand-in for Christianity, that seems like dangerous ground to tread. Even more unsettling is the question of how to write a fictional Messiah. Perhaps this is why most don't.

One solution I've conceived is a heavily obscured approach wherein clerics receive their powers from the greater among the angels and no man is in direct communion with God. This is effectively a blend of Tolkien and D&D. Since the granters of power in this approach are finite beings and not God, it follows that the powers granted are also limited. This works well enough to avoid most conundrums, but it also is restrictive in its own way: there's no portraying the Church in all its splendor and universality.

What RPGs and other fiction handle Christianity or an analogue thereof well? and how do they so? Do you have any other thoughts on how theism ought work in RPGs?

[KnightoftheWind]

I prefer fantasy works that acknowledge a single God that rules over all, calling him "The Maker" or "The One" or something similar. This alludes to Christian truth, while freeing the writer and the fantasy world to tell it's story and come up with it's own rules. Churches and Priests must also be held in high regard, which isn't typically the norm unfortunately. And miracles should be treated as a form of luck stat, something that may bless you on occasion and not something that grants you superhuman powers.

[WhiteShark]

And miracles should be treated as a form of luck stat, something that may bless you on occasion and not something that grants you superhuman powers.

But this basically destroys the cleric archetype. Instead of a wonderworker he's just a guy who gets lucky sometimes. When spectacular miracles are a staple of both fiction and history it doesn't seem the right call to reduce them to a luck bonus.

[rusty_shackleford]

I think you'd gain insight on this from studying D&D and Gary's writing, especially his informal ones.

D&D was a Christian work created by a devout Christian man. It's not based on the scripture, something that Gygax purposely avoided, but it is based on the teachings professed therein. The implied setting and the rules used are written through a Christian lens, which is why humans are inherently Lawful Good and evil is evil. The alignment system was to be interpreted from an Anglo-Christian worldview, and doing otherwise was using it incorrectly — that is, alignment in D&D is not subjective.

Again, Gygax repeatedly stressed that he purposely did not include any references to Christianity in his work. He even went so far as to not use the terms 'Church' and 'Abbey', instead preferring 'Temple' and 'Monastery'.

To answer your part about Clerics and other parts regarding the bible, Gary himself already answered this. When asked if he used inspiration from the Bible for the creation of Cleric & Paladin spells, he replied thusly:

I did not use anything from the Bible, as I consider that quite beyond the pale.

Therefore, why do I call it a 'Christian' work if he actively worked to exclude Christianity? Because he was, as stated, a devout Christian. His views and his work was shaped by his faith. Modern D&D is created by materialist atheists and largely now reflects their world-view: Alignment is gone, there is no objective good or evil, significantly less focus on adventures that involve vanquishing evil, and so forth.

That does not apply to it inherantly evil entities such as vampires, let alone demons and devils. There the modification might be in orderliness (Law-Chaos) and the degree of Evil, the dilligence with which the wicked and malign is pursued. Just as there are truly evil people with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, so too all such creatures of Evil, for they epitomize that trait.

The game was really designed to facilitate a Good vs. Evil sort of struggle, and I subtly weighted the original AD&D game towards the Good side, but I never thought it "wrong" to play Evil characters as a means of exploring that particular aspect of human nature. I do think it abnormal to do nothing but play Evil PCs, FWIW...

[...] the perspective I wrote from is basically that of the Judeo-Christian--my own background.

[WhiteShark]

D&D was a Christian work created by a devout Christian man. It's not based on the scripture, something that Gygax purposely avoided, but it is based on the teachings professed therein. The implied setting and the rules used are written through a Christian lens, which is why humans are inherently Lawful Good and evil is evil. The alignment system was to be interpreted from an Anglo-Christian worldview, and doing otherwise was using it incorrectly — that is, alignment in D&D is not subjective.

But was it theistic? I am not personally familiar with D&D prior to 3.0. At least from 3.0 through 4 alignment remained objective but the cosmology was not theistic. I believe FR had the overdeity 'Ao', but he was Neutral rather than LG as a proper theistic deity would be. Were sinners punished and the righteous rewarded in eternity? Objective alignment doesn't mean much if everybody ends up in their preferred afterlives.

[rusty_shackleford]

D&D was a Christian work created by a devout Christian man. It's not based on the scripture, something that Gygax purposely avoided, but it is based on the teachings professed therein. The implied setting and the rules used are written through a Christian lens, which is why humans are inherently Lawful Good and evil is evil. The alignment system was to be interpreted from an Anglo-Christian worldview, and doing otherwise was using it incorrectly — that is, alignment in D&D is not subjective.

But was it theistic? I am not personally familiar with D&D prior to 3.0. At least from 3.0 through 4 alignment remained objective but the cosmology was not theistic. I believe FR had the overdeity 'Ao', but he was Neutral rather than LG as a proper theistic deity would be. Were sinners punished and the righteous rewarded in eternity? Objective alignment doesn't mean much if everybody ends up in their preferred afterlives.

The afterlife evil people went to was not a pleasant one, something I'd imagine is either hand-waved away or done away with entirely now. And yes, Gary directly answered the 'baby orc' question without most people even noticing.

If the infant orc was not able to reason, the paladin would not slay it, possibly see to its care somewhere until it reached a state where reason was possible; but if and when the immature humanoid was able to reason, the paladin would make it swear its rejection of evil, confess its adherance to LG, and then execute it before it could recant. Thus the orc would be guaranteed acceptence in a more benign afterlife.

As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their sould, prevents them from slipping back into error.

With regard to setting, D&D was written with a certain kind of milieu in mind, but not specifically for Greyhawk. OD&D predates Greyhawk, and AD&D had no default setting(iirc?) If you want to know more about it, I'd suggest grabbing some books on Greyhawk. It's probably going to be different than you'd expect, as his work wasn't based on Tolkien but writers like REH & Fritz Leiber.

[WhiteShark]

The afterlife evil people went to was not a pleasant one, something I'd imagine is either hand-waved away or done away with entirely now. And yes, Gary directly answered the 'baby orc' question without most people even noticing.

As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their sould, prevents them from slipping back into error.

This is reasonable, assuming the captives had already done something to merit capital punishment.

If the infant orc was not able to reason, the paladin would not slay it, possibly see to its care somewhere until it reached a state where reason was possible; but if and when the immature humanoid was able to reason, the paladin would make it swear its rejection of evil, confess its adherance to LG, and then execute it before it could recant. Thus the orc would be guaranteed acceptence in a more benign afterlife.

This raises questions. If the goal is 'guarantee the best afterlife' and slaying the innocent no object, why not do this to everybody? Orcs may have a much greater inclination toward evil than humans but you can't guarantee a human won't fall at some point. Better safe than sorry, right? This turns into a strange theistic utilitarianism.

With regard to setting, D&D was written with a certain kind of milieu in mind, but not specifically for Greyhawk. OD&D predates Greyhawk, and AD&D had no default setting(iirc?) If you want to know more about it, I'd suggest grabbing some books on Greyhawk.

It may have had no default setting, but things like objective alignment imply an unchanging foundation that must therefore be common to all D&D settings. It doesn't sound like there was anything directly pertaining to a God-equivalent written. What specifically should I read to understand Gygax's take on D&D religion?

It's probably going to be different than you'd expect, as his work wasn't based on Tolkien but writers like REH & Fritz Leiber.

I'm aware that D&D had much larger influences than Tolkien and I apologize if I gave the impression otherwise. My point with Tolkien was that it seems to me his cosmology comes the closest to "standard" fantasy polytheism while still being explicitly theistic, God and afterlife and all.

[maidenhaver]

A paladin osn't lead by reason. Just being in character is what matters.

[rusty_shackleford]

This raises questions. If the goal is 'guarantee the best afterlife' and slaying the innocent no object, why not do this to everybody? Orcs may have a much greater inclination toward evil than humans but you can't guarantee a human won't fall at some point. Better safe than sorry, right? This turns into a strange theistic utilitarianism.

You're misunderstanding. This is answered by his other quote regarding evil captives.
Essentially all orcs are evil as Gygax made them, with only a very few deviations who are complete abnormalities. The assumption he made is that they are an average orc, and therefore immutably evil. Even if they do temporarily become 'good', they will eventually revert back to their natural alignment.
Gygax was a biological determinist, through and through.

What specifically should I read to understand Gygax's take on D&D religion?

Greyhawk, the world Gygax created.
But I think you're trying to find something that simply isn't there. He did not create a deity like the Christian God. His works are influenced by his beliefs, but they are just fictional works and not a fictional reflection of Christianity.

[WhiteShark]

A paladin osn't lead by reason. Just being in character is what matters.

37:30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.

51:6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

104:24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.

4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I could go on. A paladin ought consider reason as his religion is founded in the Truth and therefore it is reasonable in every respect. He were a sorry paladin indeed if he followed a religion that clashed with reason, the very faculty given us by which to seek out Truth.

[WhiteShark]

You're misunderstanding. This is answered by his other quote regarding evil captives.
Essentially all orcs are evil as Gygax made them, with only a very few deviations who are complete abnormalities. The assumption he made is that they are an average orc, and therefore immutably evil. Even if they do temporarily become 'good', they will eventually revert back to their natural alignment.
Gygax was a biological determinist, through and through.

And yet, the very fact they can change, even if only temporarily, means that they are not immutably evil, just overwhelmingly evil. Given what you've just told me, it's still possible for an adult orc to have a deathbed conversion without a paladin's intervention. For something to be immutably evil it needs to be, you know, immutably evil. Always evil. No exceptions. This is not immutably evil and therefore, like it or not, this prescribed doctrine concerning orc babies should logically be applied to humans and every other sentient as well.

Greyhawk, the world Gygax created.
But I think you're trying to find something that simply isn't there. He did not create a deity like the Christian God. His works are influenced by his beliefs, but they are just fictional works and not a fictional reflection of Christianity.

I see. So it is not theistic, as I thought. It may reflect certain Christian truths but it is absent a Creator and thus cannot explain the existence of the setting in a rational fashion. I respect him for putting his beliefs into his work to the degree that he did but I don't consider that enough to call it theistic, let alone Christian.

[maidenhaver]

A paladin osn't lead by reason. Just being in character is what matters.

37:30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.

51:6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

104:24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.

4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I could go on. A paladin ought consider reason as his religion is founded in the Truth and therefore it is reasonable in every respect. He were a sorry paladin indeed if he followed a religion that clashed with reason, the very faculty given us by which to seek out Truth.

In wine there is truth.

[WhiteShark]

In wine there is truth.

Already got through the 9th beer, eh?

[rusty_shackleford]

And yet, the very fact they can change, even if only temporarily, means that they are not immutably evil, just overwhelmingly evil. Given what you've just told me, it's still possible for an adult orc to have a deathbed conversion without a paladin's intervention. For something to be immutably evil it needs to be, you know, immutably evil. Always evil. No exceptions. This is not immutably evil and therefore, like it or not, this prescribed doctrine concerning orc babies should logically be applied to humans and every other sentient as well.

If you had the chance to prevent any evil he would have committed in his lifetime but chose not to act, you are responsible for that same evil.

I see. So it is not theistic, as I thought. It may reflect certain Christian truths but it is absent a Creator and thus cannot explain the existence of the setting in a rational fashion. I respect him for putting his beliefs into his work to the degree that he did but I don't consider that enough to call it theistic, let alone Christian.

Presumably, he saw it as blasphemous. Especially when introducing it next to elements like witchcraft and magic which is heresy.

[WhiteShark]

And yet, the very fact they can change, even if only temporarily, means that they are not immutably evil, just overwhelmingly evil. Given what you've just told me, it's still possible for an adult orc to have a deathbed conversion without a paladin's intervention. For something to be immutably evil it needs to be, you know, immutably evil. Always evil. No exceptions. This is not immutably evil and therefore, like it or not, this prescribed doctrine concerning orc babies should logically be applied to humans and every other sentient as well.

If you had the chance to prevent any evil he would have committed in his lifetime but chose not to act, you are responsible for that same evil.

So the highest priority is not guaranteeing salvation but preventing evil acts? Even so, that same logic still applies to everyone. "If you don't kill every person you meet, you're responsible for all their future evil."

[rusty_shackleford]

And yet, the very fact they can change, even if only temporarily, means that they are not immutably evil, just overwhelmingly evil. Given what you've just told me, it's still possible for an adult orc to have a deathbed conversion without a paladin's intervention. For something to be immutably evil it needs to be, you know, immutably evil. Always evil. No exceptions. This is not immutably evil and therefore, like it or not, this prescribed doctrine concerning orc babies should logically be applied to humans and every other sentient as well.

If you had the chance to prevent any evil he would have committed in his lifetime but chose not to act, you are responsible for that same evil.

So the highest priority is not guaranteeing salvation but preventing evil acts? Even so, that same logic still applies to everyone. "If you don't kill every person you meet, you're responsible for all their future evil."

You were discussing a deathbed conversion, which would imply their salvation. If you allowed the orc to live knowing they'd spend most of their life being evil, you would indeed be responsible for that.

Even so, that same logic still applies to everyone. "If you don't kill every person you meet, you're responsible for all their future evil."

No, the orc is evil.

Let us assume we are in a time prior to modern technology. You come across the a recently hatched baby snake in your back yard. It is of a species that is highly venomous. Your children and dog play in this yard.
What do you do with the snake?


Gygax doesn't deal with shades of gray, evil is evil.

Thanks. Not a few critics claim my villains lack redeeming qualities, are thus not complete and "dimensional," but that's the way I see really evil individuals. No touchy-feely, blame society sort of hogwash for me. they have nothing whatsoever to recommend them, no depth of character, and their motives are simply to do what is malign. Hey, that sounds a lot like game reviewers! Heh-heh.

[maidenhaver]

In wine there is truth.

Already got through the 9th beer, eh?

Five. I had to quog.

[WhiteShark]

Summarizing the exchange on IRC:

• Rusty and I agreed that Gygaxian orcs do not truly have free will as they will inevitably revert to Evil.
  • Therefore, their fate in the afterlife is essentially arbitrary.
  • Therefore, it is always right to slay them no matter the circumstance.
  • Therefore, it is most merciful to slay them immediately after converting them (however temporarily) to Good, as Gygax prescribes.
• We agreed that Gygax was a devout Christian.
  • Therefore, he likely avoided religion in his game so as not to blaspheme.
    • Therefore, I consider D&D to be neither theistic nor Christian, though it has some Christian themes.

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't think there will be many, if any at all, games using Christianity actually created by Christians. There is an inherent aspect of playing a game that is very hard to overcome such that it would be difficult if not impossible to create something like Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ. Most Christians will probably accept their game is fiction and refuse to mix it with their religion beyond ethics, morality, and so forth.

[WhiteShark]

I don't think there will be many, if any at all, games using Christianity actually created by Christians. There is an inherent aspect of playing a game that is very hard to overcome such that it would be difficult if not impossible to create something like Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ. Most Christians will probably accept their game is fiction and refuse to mix it with their religion beyond ethics, morality, and so forth.

Maybe so, though I wonder if the more fundamental reason may simply be that a serious Christian would usually pursue a different career altogether. I would still rather make a setting explicitly theistic than not. I almost see it as a dereliction of Christian duty to create fiction and not infuse it with your worldview at every level. How am I supposed to portray virtue as praiseworthy if the setting is meaningless? How can I show the beauty of a spiritual victory amidst material defeat if there is no final justice? I don't think it's impossible to have these things in a video game, greater care though it may require. How much you can include is certainly dependent on the sort of game you're making, but the possibility is surely there.

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't think there will be many, if any at all, games using Christianity actually created by Christians. There is an inherent aspect of playing a game that is very hard to overcome such that it would be difficult if not impossible to create something like Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ. Most Christians will probably accept their game is fiction and refuse to mix it with their religion beyond ethics, morality, and so forth.

Maybe so, though I wonder if the more fundamental reason may simply be that a serious Christian would usually pursue a different career altogether. I would still rather make a setting explicitly theistic than not. I almost see it as a dereliction of Christian duty to create fiction and not infuse it with your worldview at every level. How am I supposed to portray virtue as praiseworthy if the setting is meaningless? How can I show the beauty of a spiritual victory amidst material defeat if there is no final justice? I don't think it's impossible to have these things in a video game, greater care though it may require. How much you can include is certainly dependent on the sort of game you're making, but the possibility is surely there.

Most gamedevs do this already with their religion(the religion of anal sex) and it's one of the worst things that happened to video games.
There is certainly something to be said about creations that are inspired by, but not allegories to, someone's faith.

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion,’ to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

Academia has never forgiven him for being Catholic.

[WhiteShark]

Maybe so, though I wonder if the more fundamental reason may simply be that a serious Christian would usually pursue a different career altogether. I would still rather make a setting explicitly theistic than not. I almost see it as a dereliction of Christian duty to create fiction and not infuse it with your worldview at every level. How am I supposed to portray virtue as praiseworthy if the setting is meaningless? How can I show the beauty of a spiritual victory amidst material defeat if there is no final justice? I don't think it's impossible to have these things in a video game, greater care though it may require. How much you can include is certainly dependent on the sort of game you're making, but the possibility is surely there.

Most gamedevs do this already with their religion(the religion of anal sex) and it's one of the worst things that happened to video games.
There is certainly something to be said about creations that are inspired by, but not allegories to, someone's faith.

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion,’ to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

Academia has never forgiven him for being Catholic.

But Tolkien's works do have the very things I'm talking about. His setting is theistic, complete with a God, a devil, an afterlife, and so on. He depicts the praiseworthiness of virtue and the beauty of martyrdom. He doesn't include "cults and practices", certainly, but in every other way his setting is deeply theistic. That's why it's up there in the OP as the fifth possible implementation. This is what I would call 'infusing your worldview at every level'. The difference between Tolkien and the satanists is that his worldview is true and good and beautiful and, for the most part, he shows you rather than tells you.

[MadPreacher]

The last option gets you the closest to D&Desque fantasy polytheism (Valar = "gods")

Valar are angels not gods. There is only 1 god in Middle Earth and that's Eru Iluvatar.

AD&D had no default setting(iirc?)

AD&D 1E had four default settings with the first being Greyhawk. The second was Forgotten Realms. The third was Dragonlance. The fourth one was Oriental Adventures.

AD&D 2E had 10 default settings.

Al-Qadim
Birthright
Dark Sun
Diablo
Forgotten Realms
Greyhawk
Lanhkmar
Planescape
Ravenloft
Spelljammer

In my Hero System setting titled Inceptum Terminus: Chronicles of the New Confederation I did have religion in it. In fact, I used the church established by Jesus and added in elements of Kabbalism to it. All magic is based off of the Kabbala. Magic spells were derived from God and the specific sephirots that pertain to an aspect of God.

[KnightoftheWind]

And miracles should be treated as a form of luck stat, something that may bless you on occasion and not something that grants you superhuman powers.

But this basically destroys the cleric archetype. Instead of a wonderworker he's just a guy who gets lucky sometimes. When spectacular miracles are a staple of both fiction and history it doesn't seem the right call to reduce them to a luck bonus.

But in an RPG, is it right for a cleric to "summon" an awe-inspiring miracle anytime he wants?. Is it not up to God to do so?. It is better for a cleric to be adept at healing or dispelling curses, and have a "luck" (blessing) bonus that is more accurate to reality. These are my thoughts.

[Acrux]

a serious Christian would usually pursue a different career altogether.

I agree, but that ends up leaving RPG creation in the hands of people who don't have even a basic grasp of Christian theology and who get their views from people who hate Christianity. C.S. Lewis said something like we need less "Christian bakers" and more "bakers who are Christians".

TTRPGs set in a historical setting come closest to what you're asking about. Something like Ars Magica (and by extension I guess the WoD games) is very thoroughly grounded in a theistic world, but it's utterly Satanic - the PCs are mages and Christianity is opposed to that in game. Like almost every historical RPG, the Church is cast as an enemy or corrupt.

Pendragon is also theistic (sort of), and the internal character struggle between Christian virtues vs. Chivalric virtues is a major part of the game. But, it ends up equating pagan and heathen religions with Christianity.

If you include CRPGs, Darklands and Inquisitor are probably the two that come closest to a theistic world where the Church is a positive influence.

I used the church established by Jesus and added in elements of Kabbalism to it. All magic is based off of the Kabbala.

Okay, now you just WANT us to say you're Jewish.

[MadPreacher]

Okay, now you just WANT us to say you're Jewish.

I did it because nobody did it before. I go for unique over cookie cutter bland shit any day of the week.

[WhiteShark]

But in an RPG, is it right for a cleric to "summon" an awe-inspiring miracle anytime he wants?. Is it not up to God to do so?. It is better for a cleric to be adept at healing or dispelling curses, and have a "luck" (miracle) bonus that is more accurate to reality. These are my thoughts.

There are other wonders sometimes granted saints to work freely: clairvoyanace, authority over demons, tongues, prophecy, superhuman endurance, reading of the heart, and so on. Samson was gifted superhuman strength from his youth. Elijah was allowed to freely call down fire from heaven. Perhaps if we understand these as abilities, the miracle being the granting thereof, rather than one-time wonders, we can incorporate divine wonders into gameplay without turning God into a miracle-dispenser.

TTRPGs set in a historical setting come closest to what you're asking about. Something like Ars Magica (and by extension I guess the WoD games) is very thoroughly grounded in a theistic world, but it's utterly Satanic - the PCs are mages and Christianity is opposed to that. Like almost every historical RPG, the Church is cast as an enemy or corrupt.

WoD is worse than just that: it casts God himself as merciless and vindictive. Terrible setting. The details are interesting but the whole thing is a pointless nightmare.

If you include CRPGs, Darklands and Inquisitor are probably the two that come closest to a theistic world where the Church is a positive influence.

Technically this thread is in the (video) RPG forum but really I'm interested in both sorts, so thanks. I didn't know about Inquisitor.

[Kalarion]

I've had this idea for the longest time for the storyline of a game.

The world was invaded by demons at some point. In order to stem the invasion, a semi-shadowy patriarch made a deal with what he thought was an antagonistic faction of the demons. He was taught how to bind demons to his will, by housing them in his body. They gave him supernatural powers, but each demon had vices that had to be indulged at regular intervals to keep it satiated and seated in the body. The length of time between "sessions" of indulgence depended on the physical vitality and mental willpower of the binder. The patriarch formed an order dedicated to the practice of binding, and then fought back the invasion. The order grew to be the sole ruling power in the world, something akin to the Judges from Judge Dredd. They keep constant vigil for new invasions, administer the law the world over, and of course the practice and research of demon-binding. As a natural effect of this, they effectively create a new religion, with the patriarch as a venerated, over-watching spiritual figure (think of a dark-shrouded Arthur in an inverted Avalon, waiting to return), and the demon-binders as paladins of humanity, the last bulwark against the slavering hordes.

You would start as an initiate some number of hundreds of years after the first invasion. You're about to graduate to full demon-binding, and your capstone trial involves invading and destroying a "cult" hideout. Its members claim that everything the people of the world understand about the demonic invasions, the order of demon-binders and what is really happening, is a lie. That the truth of who rules everything has been hidden, deliberately scratched away. Your order, while obviously finding these teachings heretical, also considers them an existential threat. Not just to the order but to humanity, since if the demon-binders go away, humanity's last protection is gone as well. You believe these cultists would literally create hell on earth if they had their way.

The tutorial would be the cult hideout invasion. You would go in with your mentor, who would guide you through the basics of demon-bound combat etc. The final battle would be against a cultist member who absolutely crushes your mentor, then bitch-slaps you with ease. As he's about to deliver the coup de grace, he suddenly seems to hear something that enrages and distracts him. Maybe his face would twitch off to the side, or his eyes would widen in incredulous disbelief, something like that. He says something along the lines of, "spare him?! Look what they've done!". Like a one-sided argument. It would be cut short by your killing him in some humdrum fashion while he's distracted (slit his throat or something like that).

The aftermath of the purging of the hideout would be the start of the game proper.

I think the simplest solutions are kind of Kantian: separate the game's world and cosmogony completely from reality. If you want to make something closer to reality, and keep the Cleric archetype, make Clerics something like the wizard Merlin from CS Lewis' Space Trilogy. Wonder-workers, yes, but wild and dangerously innocent, not lightly to be reckoned with by those with a modern mind. In a world like that, the wonders would be awful and frightening as well as inspiring and miraculous:

"It must be that I should go in and out, to and fro, renewing old acquaintance... hidden it may be, but not changed. Leave me to work, Lord. I will wake it. I will set a sword in every blade of grass to wound them and the very clods of earth shall be venom to their feet. I will--").

[rusty_shackleford]

WoD is a counterexample to D&D, it's a setting with actual Biblical scripture usage as created by atheists. Again, I'm siding with Gygax on this one. D&D has far more Christian-like qualities than WoD does.

[WhiteShark]

WoD is a counterexample to D&D, it's a setting with actual Biblical scripture usage as created by atheists. Again, I'm siding with Gygax on this one. D&D has far more Christian-like qualities than WoD does.

Well, yes, being vaguely Christian-inspired is certainly more Christian than being openly satanic.