Theism and Christianity in RPGs

For discussing role-playing video games, you know, the ones with combat.
User avatar
rusty_shackleford
Site Admin
Posts: 8954
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by rusty_shackleford »

WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 09:00
rusty_shackleford wrote: May 26th, 2023, 08:48
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.
I think you're underestimating the importance of morals professed by a game.
Consider this excerpt from an early Dragon magazine article:
And good and evil are really Christian concepts that belong within a Christian mythology […]
I won't pretend to speak for Gygax, but personally I strongly disagree with the second part. Gygax clearly defining Good and Evil was not some accident, it is how he wished to create his work and would have had it no other way.
We can see this in his other works e.g., one of the primary duties laid out for the player character in Dangerous Journeys is to vanquish evil.

To quote from Tolkien's essay On Fairy Stories (worth reading if you haven't),
Fantasy remains a human right: we make in our measure and in our derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker.
Dear Sir,” I said—Although now long estranged,
Man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
Dis-graced he may be, yet is not de-throned,
and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned:
Man, Sub-creator, the refracted Light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with Elves and Goblins, though we dared to build
Gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sowed the seed of dragons—'twas our right
(used or misused). That right has not decayed:
we make still by the law in which we're made
If man is made in the image of God, then it is natural that man would likewise have a natural urge to create, the term Tolkien used was "sub-creator".
WhiteShark wrote: May 25th, 2023, 09:56
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.
Again, this time with the full part of the letter:
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revisions. 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. However that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little and should chiefly be grateful for having been brought up (since I was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know
Tolkien realized the work he created was Catholic because he is Catholic. It was impossible for Tolkien to create something that wasn't Catholic unless perhaps he purposely set out to do so.

If you are Christian then that will shine through any work you create, likewise how the values and beliefs of the people creating current D&D creates a noxious odor around it.
User avatar
WhiteShark
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1862
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by WhiteShark »

rusty_shackleford wrote: May 26th, 2023, 11:00
I think you're underestimating the importance of morals professed by a game.
Consider this excerpt from an early Dragon magazine article:
And good and evil are really Christian concepts that belong within a Christian mythology […]
I won't pretend to speak for Gygax, but personally I strongly disagree with the second part. Gygax clearly defining Good and Evil was not some accident, it is how he wished to create his work and would have had it no other way.
We can see this in his other works e.g., one of the primary duties laid out for the player character in Dangerous Journeys is to vanquish evil.
The morals are important, which is precisely why it's a problem that those morals break down in the cosmology Gygax created. It's a moral horror that orcs go to hell for actions from which they cannot refrain. It's a moral absurdity that 'Lawful' is separate from 'Good', as if Lawfulness were anything but a subset of Goodness. I don't know if Gygax had anything to do with the planes, but if he did, he's also father of the ridiculous fact that one can travel bodily to the afterlife and torment the souls of the righteous or rescue the souls of the damned. These offer easy targets for those who would attack the implicit worldview of D&D. Tolkien largely doesn't have these problems.
rusty_shackleford wrote: May 26th, 2023, 11:00
If man is made in the image of God, then it is natural that man would likewise have a natural urge to create, the term Tolkien used was "sub-creator".
I have believed for many years that not only is there a natural inclination but an implicit duty to create.
rusty_shackleford wrote: May 26th, 2023, 11:00
Again, this time with the full part of the letter:
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revisions. 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. However that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little and should chiefly be grateful for having been brought up (since I was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know
Tolkien realized the work he created was Catholic because he is Catholic. It was impossible for Tolkien to create something that wasn't Catholic unless perhaps he purposely set out to do so.

If you are Christian then that will shine through any work you create, likewise how the values and beliefs of the people creating current D&D creates a noxious odor around it.
Tolkien might have been able to "accidentally" write a Catholic world in those innocent days, but I don't have that luxury. I'm already aware of the problem and in a culture inundated with fiction espousing opposing worldviews. I can't forget what I know; for me it will be a conscious consideration, whether I like it or not. Moreover, I'm opposed to the idea that knowingly incorporating your worldview into your work somehow guarantees a poor outcome. C.S. Lewis didn't seem to have that problem. The key is primarily in the execution and secondarily in the value of the worldview. A well-written nihilistic fantasy may surpass a preachy and shoddy allegory, but an equally well-written Christian story exceeds them both.
User avatar
rusty_shackleford
Site Admin
Posts: 8954
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by rusty_shackleford »

WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 13:50
It's a moral horror that orcs go to hell for actions from which they cannot refrain.
So do libtards, what's your point?
WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 13:50
It's a moral absurdity that 'Lawful' is separate from 'Good', as if Lawfulness were anything but a subset of Goodness.
The pharisees were quite lawful, or at least saw themselves as such.
User avatar
WhiteShark
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1862
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by WhiteShark »

rusty_shackleford wrote: May 26th, 2023, 14:03
WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 13:50
It's a moral absurdity that 'Lawful' is separate from 'Good', as if Lawfulness were anything but a subset of Goodness.
The pharisees were quite lawful, or at least saw themselves as such.
Paying lip service to the Law while using every trick in the Talmud to get around it is hardly Lawful. Hypocritical lawfulness is arguably less lawful than just ignoring the law.
User avatar
rusty_shackleford
Site Admin
Posts: 8954
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by rusty_shackleford »

WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 14:14
rusty_shackleford wrote: May 26th, 2023, 14:03
WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 13:50
It's a moral absurdity that 'Lawful' is separate from 'Good', as if Lawfulness were anything but a subset of Goodness.
The pharisees were quite lawful, or at least saw themselves as such.
Paying lip service to the Law while using every trick in the Talmud to get around it is hardly Lawful. Hypocritical lawfulness is arguably less lawful than just ignoring the law.
It's their interpretation of lawful, which is what makes it evil. What you just described
while using every trick in the Talmud to get around it is hardly Lawful
is a stereotypical D&D devil. Devils are the embodiment of Lawful Evil in D&D, and they were based off of Mephistopheles from the Faustian cycle.

Also, alignment wasn't originally a 2D axis, it was just law/chaos/neutral. Law equated to Good, Chaos equated to Evil.
User avatar
WhiteShark
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1862
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by WhiteShark »

rusty_shackleford wrote: May 26th, 2023, 14:52
Also, alignment wasn't originally a 2D axis, it was just law/chaos/neutral. Law equated to Good, Chaos equated to Evil.
Yes, and this is essentially how it should have remained, though I would change the labels. D&D 4E moved back in this direction by collapsing the alignment matrix into a linear system: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil, in descending order of Goodness. Devils are Evil whereas Demons are Chaotic Evil. Devils are effectively less evil than Demons, which matches their goals in the game: Demons would destroy everything, but Devils would merely rule it.
User avatar
Tweed
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1506
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by Tweed »

The Megaten series has always adhered to the Law/Neutral/Chaos compass, but they rarely ever frame any one of those as being either good or evil, they let the player decide. Of course, in a good portion of the games you also end up fighting God which seems to be a favorite trope of the Japanese, they just can't get enough of either killing gods.
User avatar
WhiteShark
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1862
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by WhiteShark »

Tweed wrote: May 26th, 2023, 18:52
The Megaten series has always adhered to the Law/Neutral/Chaos compass, but they rarely ever frame any one of those as being either good or evil, they let the player decide. Of course, in a good portion of the games you also end up fighting God which seems to be a favorite trope of the Japanese, they just can't get enough of either killing gods.
Megaten is quite gnostic, if I remember correctly. I think it was implied in Nocturne that there is a true Creator behind even YHWH, who is portrayed as a controlling and vindictive pretender. Also, you're wrong: neutral is always portrayed as the good option. Law and chaos are always edgy dystopias.
User avatar
Tweed
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1506
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by Tweed »

WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 19:17
Tweed wrote: May 26th, 2023, 18:52
The Megaten series has always adhered to the Law/Neutral/Chaos compass, but they rarely ever frame any one of those as being either good or evil, they let the player decide. Of course, in a good portion of the games you also end up fighting God which seems to be a favorite trope of the Japanese, they just can't get enough of either killing gods.
Megaten is quite gnostic, if I remember correctly. I think it was implied in Nocturne that there is a true Creator behind even YHWH, who is portrayed as a controlling and vindictive pretender. Also, you're wrong: neutral is always portrayed as the good option. Law and chaos are always edgy dystopias.
Not in Nocturne it isn't. No particular ending is a best option over the others and there's one crappy ending.
User avatar
WhiteShark
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1862
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by WhiteShark »

Tweed wrote: May 26th, 2023, 19:20
WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 19:17
Tweed wrote: May 26th, 2023, 18:52
The Megaten series has always adhered to the Law/Neutral/Chaos compass, but they rarely ever frame any one of those as being either good or evil, they let the player decide. Of course, in a good portion of the games you also end up fighting God which seems to be a favorite trope of the Japanese, they just can't get enough of either killing gods.
Megaten is quite gnostic, if I remember correctly. I think it was implied in Nocturne that there is a true Creator behind even YHWH, who is portrayed as a controlling and vindictive pretender. Also, you're wrong: neutral is always portrayed as the good option. Law and chaos are always edgy dystopias.
Not in Nocturne it isn't. No particular ending is a best option over the others and there's one crappy ending.
Nocturne is a bad counterexample since although neutral isn't the good ending, there is a true ending in the game that is actually both the best and canonical.
User avatar
Tweed
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1506
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by Tweed »

WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 19:51
Tweed wrote: May 26th, 2023, 19:20
WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 19:17

Megaten is quite gnostic, if I remember correctly. I think it was implied in Nocturne that there is a true Creator behind even YHWH, who is portrayed as a controlling and vindictive pretender. Also, you're wrong: neutral is always portrayed as the good option. Law and chaos are always edgy dystopias.
Not in Nocturne it isn't. No particular ending is a best option over the others and there's one crappy ending.
Nocturne is a bad counterexample since although neutral isn't the good ending, there is a true ending in the game that is actually both the best and canonical.
That's subjective.
User avatar
madbringer
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 430
Joined: Apr 4, '23
Location: the vast

Post by madbringer »

WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 15:13
rusty_shackleford wrote: May 26th, 2023, 14:52
Also, alignment wasn't originally a 2D axis, it was just law/chaos/neutral. Law equated to Good, Chaos equated to Evil.
Yes, and this is essentially how it should have remained, though I would change the labels. D&D 4E moved back in this direction by collapsing the alignment matrix into a linear system: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil, in descending order of Goodness. Devils are Evil whereas Demons are Chaotic Evil. Devils are effectively less evil than Demons, which matches their goals in the game: Demons would destroy everything, but Devils would merely rule it.
Bah, that's going back to Warhammer Fantasy alignment system. As much as I dislike alignment systems in the first place, I do like clear delineations in games, coz, well, they are not real life. And IIRC, neutral evil was supposed to be the one alignment that puts you beyond redemption, an ultimate expression of selfish indulgence.
User avatar
maidenhaver
Posts: 3879
Joined: Apr 17, '23
Location: ROLE PLAYING GAME

Post by maidenhaver »

I quit playing rpgs when they started with the she pronouns bullshit. Sorry, but woman don't play rpgs, and the ones who do are masculine, not feminine.
User avatar
KnightoftheWind
Posts: 1528
Joined: Feb 27, '23

Post by KnightoftheWind »

maidenhaver wrote: May 27th, 2023, 04:42
I quit playing rpgs when they started with the she pronouns bullshit. Sorry, but woman don't play rpgs, and the ones who do are masculine, not feminine.
Um, excuse me chud, but um there is a SEVERE lack of women in many fields and this is an ISSUE that must be RESOLVED. And this peer-reviewed survey PROVES that 60% of RPG players are FEMALE.
User avatar
madbringer
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 430
Joined: Apr 4, '23
Location: the vast

Post by madbringer »

KnightoftheWind wrote: May 27th, 2023, 04:44
maidenhaver wrote: May 27th, 2023, 04:42
I quit playing rpgs when they started with the she pronouns bullshit. Sorry, but woman don't play rpgs, and the ones who do are masculine, not feminine.
Um, excuse me chud, but um there is a SEVERE lack of women in many fields and this is an ISSUE that must be RESOLVED. And this peer-reviewed survey PROVES that 60% of RPG players are FEMALE.
Show me a woman that can add to hit bonuses and ac modifiers in 3.5 D&D without needing a calculator, spreadsheet and alexa. Maybe such a mythical creature exists, like the magical nigger that has no felony charge on his criminal record.
User avatar
WhiteShark
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1862
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by WhiteShark »

madbringer wrote: May 27th, 2023, 04:33
WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 15:13
rusty_shackleford wrote: May 26th, 2023, 14:52
Also, alignment wasn't originally a 2D axis, it was just law/chaos/neutral. Law equated to Good, Chaos equated to Evil.
Yes, and this is essentially how it should have remained, though I would change the labels. D&D 4E moved back in this direction by collapsing the alignment matrix into a linear system: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil, in descending order of Goodness. Devils are Evil whereas Demons are Chaotic Evil. Devils are effectively less evil than Demons, which matches their goals in the game: Demons would destroy everything, but Devils would merely rule it.
Bah, that's going back to Warhammer Fantasy alignment system. As much as I dislike alignment systems in the first place, I do like clear delineations in games, coz, well, they are not real life. And IIRC, neutral evil was supposed to be the one alignment that puts you beyond redemption, an ultimate expression of selfish indulgence.
What's not clear about the 4E alignment system? It's just a sliding scale of goodness. Also, I don't see how NE could be morally worse than CE. NE may be more self-interested and calculating, but CE are those who wish for universal destruction:
Dostoevsky wrote:
There are some who remain proud and fierce even in hell, in
spite of their certain knowledge and contemplation of the
absolute truth; there are some fearful ones who have given
themselves over to Satan and his proud spirit entirely. For
such, hell is voluntary and ever consuming; they are tortured
by their own choice. For they have cursed themselves, cursing
God and life.... They cannot behold the living God without
hatred, and they cry out that the God of life should be
annihilated, that God should destroy Himself and His own
creation. And they will burn in the fire of their own wrath for
ever and yearn for death and annihilation. But they will not
attain to death.
User avatar
madbringer
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 430
Joined: Apr 4, '23
Location: the vast

Post by madbringer »

WhiteShark wrote: May 27th, 2023, 07:10
madbringer wrote: May 27th, 2023, 04:33
WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 15:13

Yes, and this is essentially how it should have remained, though I would change the labels. D&D 4E moved back in this direction by collapsing the alignment matrix into a linear system: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil, in descending order of Goodness. Devils are Evil whereas Demons are Chaotic Evil. Devils are effectively less evil than Demons, which matches their goals in the game: Demons would destroy everything, but Devils would merely rule it.
Bah, that's going back to Warhammer Fantasy alignment system. As much as I dislike alignment systems in the first place, I do like clear delineations in games, coz, well, they are not real life. And IIRC, neutral evil was supposed to be the one alignment that puts you beyond redemption, an ultimate expression of selfish indulgence.
What's not clear about the 4E alignment system? It's just a sliding scale of goodness. Also, I don't see how NE could be morally worse than CE. NE may be more self-interested and calculating, but CE are those who wish for universal destruction:
Dostoevsky wrote:
There are some who remain proud and fierce even in hell, in
spite of their certain knowledge and contemplation of the
absolute truth; there are some fearful ones who have given
themselves over to Satan and his proud spirit entirely. For
such, hell is voluntary and ever consuming; they are tortured
by their own choice. For they have cursed themselves, cursing
God and life.... They cannot behold the living God without
hatred, and they cry out that the God of life should be
annihilated, that God should destroy Himself and His own
creation. And they will burn in the fire of their own wrath for
ever and yearn for death and annihilation. But they will not
attain to death.
Good points. I suppose it lies in the eye of the beholder. But from the in-universe perspective, the chaotic nature of demons and the beraucratic nature of devils are inherent, unavoidable. While the mercenary yugoloths and other NE fiends CHOOSE to be sociopathic and selfish. At least, that is how I interpret it.

In Greyhawk, mortal worshippers of Tharizdun are not necessarily evil, they are nihilistic, for example.
User avatar
WhiteShark
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1862
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by WhiteShark »

madbringer wrote: May 27th, 2023, 07:21
Good points. I suppose it lies in the eye of the beholder. But from the in-universe perspective, the chaotic nature of demons and the beraucratic nature of devils are inherent, unavoidable. While the mercenary yugoloths and other NE fiends CHOOSE to be sociopathic and selfish. At least, that is how I interpret it.
As far as I can tell Yugoloths are just as essentially Evil as the Tanar'ri and Baatezu -- which is to say, from a real world moral perspective, they are not evil at all, but rather dangerous forces of nature. To my knowledge the only edition of D&D where any fiend differed from this is D&D 4E, wherein the devils were angels who willingly gave themselves over to Evil.
madbringer wrote: May 27th, 2023, 07:21
In Greyhawk, mortal worshippers of Tharizdun are not necessarily evil, they are nihilistic, for example.
I don't know, man, wanting to destroy of all existence sounds pretty evil to me. A lot of people really prefer existing.
User avatar
madbringer
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 430
Joined: Apr 4, '23
Location: the vast

Post by madbringer »

WhiteShark wrote: May 27th, 2023, 08:39
madbringer wrote: May 27th, 2023, 07:21
Good points. I suppose it lies in the eye of the beholder. But from the in-universe perspective, the chaotic nature of demons and the beraucratic nature of devils are inherent, unavoidable. While the mercenary yugoloths and other NE fiends CHOOSE to be sociopathic and selfish. At least, that is how I interpret it.
As far as I can tell Yugoloths are just as essentially Evil as the Tanar'ri and Baatezu -- which is to say, from a real world moral perspective, they are not evil at all, but rather dangerous forces of nature. To my knowledge the only edition of D&D where any fiend differed from this is D&D 4E, wherein the devils were angels who willingly gave themselves over to Evil.
madbringer wrote: May 27th, 2023, 07:21
In Greyhawk, mortal worshippers of Tharizdun are not necessarily evil, they are nihilistic, for example.
I don't know, man, wanting to destroy of all existence sounds pretty evil to me. A lot of people really prefer existing.
I'll concede the point on NE, because maybe that's just my personal take, but I know from modules that usually Tharizdun cultusts are either truly insane psychos or very misguided people that see the world they live in at the edge of unavoidable corruption and go for the nuclear option. Not a big fan of moral relativism but in a simple moral structure like that it makes sense to me.
User avatar
Acrux
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1833
Joined: Feb 8, '23

Post by Acrux »

WhiteShark wrote: May 26th, 2023, 15:13
D&D 4E moved back in this direction by collapsing the alignment matrix into a linear system: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil, in descending order of Goodness.
I'm becoming more convinced over time that this is the best alignment system. It was first used in the Holmes Basic set, I think.

The 3x3 vs the 5-stage alignment interestingly both start from stories first published in 1961. The 3x3 grid is the Moorcock view where the cosmic forces of Order and Chaos must remain in balance for the universe to survive. It's really a pretty Manichean viewpoint and D&D eventually ended up inheriting this. No alignment is said to be better than any other, and in fact things like the Blood War encourage this. Think about it - in world, if either law or chaos gets the upper hand, then Heaven has a risk of being invaded by Hell! In a truly morally theistic system, that would be inconceivable.

But, Poul Anderson's 3 Hearts and 3 Lions is clearly nearer to the 5 stage model - and the more grounded, in my opinion. While the battle between Law and Chaos is still there, Law is fundamentally good and Chaos fundamentally evil, and yet individuals still have personal responsibility to act within their alignment. The main character (Holger) is Lawful, but commits a chaotic act and suffers the consequences for it. Faery are chaotic and untrustworthy, and there's never any hint that their perspective could be correct. But, individuals from Faery may decide to work for Law instead, as a couple of the main characters do. This system is more fleshed out in the Operation Chaos stories and he explicitly equates Chaos with Evil.
User avatar
maidenhaver
Posts: 3879
Joined: Apr 17, '23
Location: ROLE PLAYING GAME

Post by maidenhaver »

The only morality system I support is killing valley-dwellers.
User avatar
maidenhaver
Posts: 3879
Joined: Apr 17, '23
Location: ROLE PLAYING GAME

Post by maidenhaver »

There should be a game where if you do bad things you must be a nigger in your next playthrough.
User avatar
Sweeper
Posts: 544
Joined: Apr 1, '23

Post by Sweeper »

This is actually my dream RPG, gamedev idea that I'd do if I wasn't as stupid and lazy as I am... anywho.
WhiteShark wrote: May 25th, 2023, 05:34
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?
100% resemblance, 100% obvious, but I don't think you'd manage to make it work if the game was centered around Christianity in its entirety.
WhiteShark wrote:
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.
Not that much of a problem, you just make the cleric spells be less D&D like and more based in reality. Abilities like chanting, burning incense, prayer, which could give HP, to hit, damage buffs/debuffs.
WhiteShark wrote:
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.
This is more a theological question, but many martyrs went to their deaths while praying to God. Their deaths don't make God look weak or ineffective, it stands more as a testament to their faith.
WhiteShark wrote:
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.
I'm also not a fan of gamefying miracles, but perhaps a saint mechanic could be attributed to clerics to allow them to call upon miracles in battle that would give extraordinary buffs/debuffs.
WhiteShark wrote:

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.
This is why you don't make the game centered entirely around Christianity. I was thinking more along the lines of running a mercenary company in medieval Europe a la Battle Brothers or Darklands but with a clear(er) Christian focus.
As for any blasphemy concerns, just get the go ahead from a monk.
WhiteShark wrote:
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.
That's actually a pretty good idea. I'm stealing it.
User avatar
Emphyrio
Posts: 2095
Joined: Mar 21, '23

Post by Emphyrio »

iirc the religion in Dragon Age Origins was christian-coded and it wasn't even portrayed as evil. The oppressive templar guys were even proven right.
User avatar
Emphyrio
Posts: 2095
Joined: Mar 21, '23

Post by Emphyrio »

rusty_shackleford wrote: May 25th, 2023, 06:42
WhiteShark wrote: May 25th, 2023, 06:34
rusty_shackleford wrote: May 25th, 2023, 06:22
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.
Gary Gygax wrote:
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.
Gary Gygax wrote:
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.
Arminianism. Begins with the premise "humans are inherently good", ends with "you should convert people and then execute them".
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 830
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

WhiteShark wrote: May 25th, 2023, 08:56
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.
The part that doesn't compute for me is the temporary forced alignment change. Unless the gods are automatons that can be easily fooled.
User avatar
WhiteShark
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1862
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by WhiteShark »

Emphyrio wrote: June 2nd, 2023, 20:48
iirc the religion in Dragon Age Origins was christian-coded and it wasn't even portrayed as evil. The oppressive templar guys were even proven right.
Huh, that's actually true, isn't it. The whole origin myth of the darkspawn, if I remember correctly, is that they are the offspring of mages who tried to assault heaven and ended up corrupting both it and themselves.
User avatar
Val the Moofia Boss
Posts: 252
Joined: Jun 3, '23

Post by Val the Moofia Boss »

WhiteShark wrote: May 25th, 2023, 05:34
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.
Rather than interpreting him as weak and ineffective, perhaps it is God's plan for some men to live and some to die. God granted the Israelites victory in many battles, but did every Israelite soldier survive? Did all of those thousands of men miraculous evade every thrust and every arrow? God cares more about us than the birds, and yet he still allows people to perish. Also, IIRC the apostles Peter and Paul were empowered by God to cast out demons and speak in tongues, and yet God allowed them to be imprisoned and crucified upside down or beheaded, even though they didn't disobey God like Moses or Samson or King Saul did.

This happens in LotR as well. Even though the hero armies are fighting against evil, and even though it was Eru's plan that they would ultimately prevail, how many soldiers fell in that fight? Even those empowered by the influence of the Valar (ie angels) like the elves, or wielding artifacts crafted by the Valar. Gandalf himself perished in battle despite being an angel and wielding power.

WhiteShark wrote: May 25th, 2023, 05:34
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.
Blessed are those who believe without seeing? Who do not ask for visible signs? You could have the theism of the setting affirmed by the implication that there is providence at work, similar to LotR where there must have been a guiding hand at play for the Ring to have made it all the way to Mordor and for the Ring to have been destroyed.

The Trails JRPG series has a Catholic Church stand-in, and often times you get a priestly character as a playable party member. Some can cast magic but others just use magitek to fight, some using magitek socked with water gems to heal, giving off that healing cleric aesthetic without actually being able to perform miracles.

Image

WhiteShark wrote: May 25th, 2023, 05:34
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.
I think there is the understanding that the author of a story is not all-knowing about God. In Narnia you have Aslan who seems to be Christ's form in Narnia and acts messianically. Then you have that scene from towards the end of the Last Battle where Emeth (the Calormen aka Muslim stand-in) who goes to Aslan's Country/The Real Narnia (The New Heaven and New Earth), and Aslan claims that it was because Emeth was actually serving Aslan in his heart. That scene is controversial and there is debate about whether or not C.S. Lewis was right or wrong, (I do not think Lewis was promoting universalism. Presumably many other Calormen were not saved), but I haven't heard people saying "Do not read Narnia because it commits blashemy!".

WhiteShark wrote: May 25th, 2023, 09:34
I wonder if the more fundamental reason may simply be that a serious Christian would usually pursue a different career altogether.
Well. I grew up playing video games and wanted to create video games. I went to college to learn how to become a game programmer, thinking that since programmers were the most demanded specialty that I would be the best off/secure compared to everyone else who wanted to be an artist. Worked on a couple team projects and got my certificate. Then I realized I would never get to make a game I would be proud of. I like JRPGs but I would never get to make a high production value game like a JRPG. Also, to make a high production value game, you need to be a part of a corporation. It's going to be a team project and no one man can dominate the vision, and the Western entertainment industry has been infiltrated by people who hate God. The industry pumps out stuff with messaging like Assassin's Creed Valhalla. So not only would I be making games I don't enjoy, I would be making stuff pushing people away from God. I guess I could make indies, but I wouldn't be satisfied with making low production value games, and frankly the video games industry isn't very good. The market is oversaturated. Programmers can make more money working for software companies or creating websites, and I didn't enjoy the coding process that much. Aritsts can make more money working on television commercials or doing 3D CGI for movies. Etc. So I decided to change career fields.
User avatar
rusty_shackleford
Site Admin
Posts: 8954
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by rusty_shackleford »

WhiteShark wrote: June 3rd, 2023, 02:30
Emphyrio wrote: June 2nd, 2023, 20:48
iirc the religion in Dragon Age Origins was christian-coded and it wasn't even portrayed as evil. The oppressive templar guys were even proven right.
Huh, that's actually true, isn't it. The whole origin myth of the darkspawn, if I remember correctly, is that they are the offspring of mages who tried to assault heaven and ended up corrupting both it and themselves.
Only if you stop at DAO.
Inquisition basically retcons everything to be about elfs, every single thing is "an elf did it and you stole it", blatant pandering to tumblr legbeards
User avatar
WhiteShark
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1862
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by WhiteShark »

I want to reply to some of the other points raised eventually, but I'll start with these.
Sweeper wrote: June 1st, 2023, 19:34
This is more a theological question, but many martyrs went to their deaths while praying to God. Their deaths don't make God look weak or ineffective, it stands more as a testament to their faith.
Val the Moofia Boss wrote: June 3rd, 2023, 02:34
Rather than interpreting him as weak and ineffective, perhaps it is God's plan for some men to live and some to die. God granted the Israelites victory in many battles, but did every Israelite soldier survive? Did all of those thousands of men miraculous evade every thrust and every arrow? God cares more about us than the birds, and yet he still allows people to perish. Also, IIRC the apostles Peter and Paul were empowered by God to cast out demons and speak in tongues, and yet God allowed them to be imprisoned and crucified upside down or beheaded, even though they didn't disobey God like Moses or Samson or King Saul did.

This happens in LotR as well. Even though the hero armies are fighting against evil, and even though it was Eru's plan that they would ultimately prevail, how many soldiers fell in that fight? Even those empowered by the influence of the Valar (ie angels) like the elves, or wielding artifacts crafted by the Valar. Gandalf himself perished in battle despite being an angel and wielding power.
To be clear, I'm talking about a very specific scenario: a pitched battle wherein a great miracle is worked to the advantage of one side. Certainly martyrs go to their deaths amist prayer and often many miracles. As @Sweeper says, these do not make look God weak, for it is not a physical battle to be won nor are the miracles intended to prevent the martyrdom, but rather to serve as signs to the unbellievers of the truth of the martyr's faith. @Val the Moofia Boss points out that not all Israelites survived their battles even when they had God's favor and great miracles. Certainly this is so, but it does not change the fact that the Israelites won.

My point is, when God causes a great miracle to the benefit of one side in a physical battle, that side invariably wins. If your 'side' consists of your party in an RPG, and if your cleric invokes God's direct aid in the form of a miracle, then it becomes unthinkable, from a theistic standpoint, that your side should lose. Even if your side is greater than just your party, if your party is fighting separately from the rest and yet receives a great miracle, then it would seem that God does not will your defeat, and so to lose would imply that God's power is insufficient to enact His will.

To reiterate, martyrdoms as well as miracleless battles are a different topic entirely. There it is entirely expected that the righteous will die or have the possibility of losing, respectively.
Post Reply