Theism and Christianity in RPGs

[Acrux]

Here's a statement from Gary on his intention for Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil in Strategic Review, February 1976 . I recommend reading from that link since there are graphs and pictures to help illustrate his thinking.

THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by Gary Gygax

FEBRUARY 1976

Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.

[WhiteShark]

Here's a statement from Gary on his intention for Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil in Strategic Review, February 1976.

Thanks, I read through it. It's pretty similar to the alignment matrix as presented in 3E, just absent all Neutrals save True Neutral. Naturally it doesn't change my stance that Law is a subset of Good and not a standalone alignment. Law must refer to ordered harmony with spiritual reality lest it be a mere measure of fussiness and particularity, psychological traits unworthy of the label 'alignment'. I also strongly objected to Gygax's characterization of the lowest level of Good as 'harmless', though I suppose those lower tiers would be incorporated into the various Neutrals under the alignment matrix.

[maidenhaver]

The lambs call the lions evil. The lions call the lambs good. Law and Chaos are political, a barbarian wouldn't have any need of either idea. I think alignment should represent your whole party and their relations with a city or deity. The uncivilized have no need of these ideas, they fall into True Neutral.

[WhiteShark]

The lambs call the lions evil. The lions call the lambs good. Law and Chaos are political, a barbarian wouldn't have any need of either idea. I think alignment should represent your whole party and their relations with a city or deity. The uncivilized have no need of these ideas, they fall into True Neutral.

Your view presupposes that the alignments are subjective and only exist in the eye of the beholder, but this is neither true in D&D nor in a theistic worldview. Civilized or uncivilized, educated or uneducated, every sentient being is aligned according to his deeds and the orientation of his soul, whether he is aware of it or not.

[rusty_shackleford]

I prefer what pillars of eternity/deadfire was leaning towards over alignment. Don't particularly like the implementation of it though.
https://pillarsofeternity.fandom.com/wiki/Disposition

That is, a multi-axis personality based on opposed personality characteristics. I don't think pillars was quite that specific, which may have been one of the issues I had with it. I'm not sure if this exists in TTRPG space since it would be much harder to track than alignment, and most TTRPG rules are designed for simplicity of play at a table rather than computer book-keeping.

[maidenhaver]

The lambs call the lions evil. The lions call the lambs good. Law and Chaos are political, a barbarian wouldn't have any need of either idea. I think alignment should represent your whole party and their relations with a city or deity. The uncivilized have no need of these ideas, they fall into True Neutral.

Your view presupposes that the alignments are subjective and only exist in the eye of the beholder, but this is neither true in D&D nor in a theistic worldview. Civilized or uncivilized, educated or uneducated, every sentient being is aligned according to his deeds and the orientation of his soul, whether he is aware of it or not.

Correct. Soul is something I don't presuppose exists, in the alignment system I want. Instead, we are our choices and desires. There's no ideal self or intellect behind the deeds. The priesthoods in my setting are kept holy in the original sense, cloistered far away from the proles, so they can't corrupt the cities with their magic words. The setting is not a universalist empire, there is no law as such outside the cities and their colonies, the perspective of the player would be that of whichever city or deity they align with in chargen. So barbarians, aligning with no city and no laws, having neither concept of good and evil, are True Neutral.

[rusty_shackleford]

I prefer what pillars of eternity/deadfire was leaning towards over alignment. Don't particularly like the implementation of it though.
https://pillarsofeternity.fandom.com/wiki/Disposition

That is, a multi-axis personality based on opposed personality characteristics. I don't think pillars was quite that specific, which may have been one of the issues I had with it. I'm not sure if this exists in TTRPG space since it would be much harder to track than alignment, and most TTRPG rules are designed for simplicity of play at a table rather than computer book-keeping.

Can't believe I never made the connection between this & Ultima virtues before.

[TheEmptyRoad]

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

I make it a point to play Inquisitors who exclusively recruit the Templars now and also tend to make my Humans Andrastian Chantry Zealots while my Qunari Mercs just want to restore order. The Elves were pagan mage-supremacists and not the native american/druidic celtic allegory the tumblristas wanted. That caused hilarious backlash.

[TKVNC]

In truth, outside of Christianity as it is, added wholesale to a game, it could never be theistic without being blasphemous.

You could write a myriad of gods, or about a god in your work, but unless it refers directly to God, and does not change him, or his nature, it could only be sinful; perhaps even to add additional elements would also be sinful.

As a result, no game can realistically, or spiritually, add or create theism in a game.

Things like DnD gods, are no gods, and to even assume the premise of 'gods' would be wrong - but you can perhaps make believe this were true, as long as it becomes clear that it is strictly literary - people who are like "Praise XYZ (from a game)" on forums or real life fail this test, but that's not a huge surprise, since it's actually quite hard to fully avoid sin, you just need to hate it when you sin, and do your best to avoid it, and atone for that which is done.

Regardless, as for Clerics running out of spells, really, that's pure game mechanics. Since anything short of that would defeat the purpose of game. Unless, naturally, the gods were not gods at all (as they must not be), in which case they could be fickle, and demand specific ritual before anything is given (naturally opposed to God).

As for baptising an Orc just to kill them, as others have said, Man is made in God's image. Not an Orc. Thus, an Orc can never truly be saved from anything, since they likely don't even have souls.

The entire issue with fantasy is that it cannot ever be taken as 'real', or the entire work becomes a sin (which I think is remarkably common these days... though I am sure we all knew this). I would assume, however, if you thinly veil references to Christianity, it might circumvent this.

With that said, Okran in Kenshi, Eru Ilúvatar from Tolkein, 'The Light' from (original, I don't know what they've done since, because fuck Blizzard) Warcraft, the Maker from DA:O, perhaps a few others I have missed, make very clear references to Christianity, though they all still deviate in ways that is, from the perspective of faith, unnacceptable. Though it could theoretically be used as a tool to preach the Gospel via stealth, but that still makes no sense, as ostensibly, it should be direct, clear and open.

Ultimately, you can only conclude that it must be explicit that faith in your story is strictly for world building purposes only, and can never be presumed to be 'real', though that sounds obvious, I think it's less obvious to some people than others...

[Acrux]

I make it a point to play Inquisitors who exclusively recruit the Templars now and also tend to make my Humans Andrastian Chantry Zealots while my Qunari Mercs just want to restore order.

Given the context of this topic, that seems kinda weird to me considering Andraste was a real Icenian goddess who accepted human sacrifice.

[asf]

I would like to see more actual christian elements in worldbuilding, also more heathen purging.

[TheEmptyRoad]

I make it a point to play Inquisitors who exclusively recruit the Templars now and also tend to make my Humans Andrastian Chantry Zealots while my Qunari Mercs just want to restore order.

Given the context of this topic, that seems kinda weird to me considering Andraste was a real Icenian goddess who accepted human sacrifice.

Ironic, considering in Dragon Age she’s the Christ-figure Messiah who advocates for humanity to the Maker. She was also basically Joan of Arc at the head of a Crusade against the Pagan ‘Rome’ of the setting: Tevinter.

[OnTilt]

I have a cutom theology I use in my DnD games. Its basically Christian theological themes reskinned and changed just enough to make worshipping little-g gods make sense. It works very well for epic fantasy.

[Acrux]

I have a cutom theology I use in my DnD games. Its basically Christian theological themes reskinned and changed just enough to make worshipping little-g gods make sense. It works very well for epic fantasy.

Yeah, same. I've basically co-opted the Valar for mine.

[Metalhead33]

My fantasy world has a religion that's basically Catholicism/Lutheranism, but with reincarnation (and even more explicitly anti-gay).
And they are the good guys.

[TheEmptyRoad]

Some gods I’ve noticed that seem to be stand-ins of a sort for Christ, or at least the core idea of redemption through faith.

Sarenrae, from Pathfinder and now Exandria apparently. All about redemption and healing, also with a history of smiting the wicked with sunfire when they reject her mercy. Aesthetically her followers take inspiration from Islam interestingly enough.

Iomedae, also from Pathfinder. All about crusading against evil and generally being Joan-of-Arc-ish. Much more aesthetically inspired by Christendom.

Illmater, of the Forgotten Realms. Emphasis on aiding the weak and relieving the suffering of others. Part of a trio of Lawful Good gods called the Triad; seems to be inspired by the Trinity.

Those are all I can think of off the top of my head.

[rusty_shackleford]

Amusing how few games have something like a deity of beauty considering if you made Christ a D&D deity, it would be one of his aspects.
Not to be confused with something like a fertility goddess or similar.

[Acrux]

Some gods I’ve noticed that seem to be stand-ins of a sort for Christ, or at least the core idea of redemption through faith.

Sarenrae, from Pathfinder and now Exandria apparently. All about redemption and healing, also with a history of smiting the wicked with sunfire when they reject her mercy. Aesthetically her followers take inspiration from Islam interestingly enough.

Iomedae, also from Pathfinder. All about crusading against evil and generally being Joan-of-Arc-ish. Much more aesthetically inspired by Christendom.

Illmater, of the Forgotten Realms. Emphasis on aiding the weak and relieving the suffering of others. Part of a trio of Lawful Good gods called the Triad; seems to be inspired by the Trinity.

Those are all I can think of off the top of my head.

Obviously, no D&D god will ever really come close to a stand-in for the orthodox concept of God, but yeah, Ilmater, Lathander (although not Amaunator), Pelor (the patrician's choice), St. Cuthbert, even Tyr or Tor would be the closest, although they only have a very limited aspect. So for instance: technically, Ilmater's deal is redemption through suffering, or Tyr is focused on justice, and so on.

None of the Golarian gods can be said to be like the Christian god because they are all deviant in some way.

[TheEmptyRoad]

I don’t count anything from PF2E, personally. Especially the lesbian polycule they put Sarenrae in. 1E seemed decent overall. I’m curious what is so deviant about Iomedae?

[The_Mask]

Amusing how few games have something like a deity of beauty considering if you made Christ a D&D deity, it would be one of his aspects.
Not to be confused with something like a fertility goddess or similar.

Unironically the last "RPG" to have this kind of thing might be Skyrim with the Temple of Dibella.

[Vergil]

Amusing how few games have something like a deity of beauty considering if you made Christ a D&D deity, it would be one of his aspects.
Not to be confused with something like a fertility goddess or similar.

Unironically the last "RPG" to have this kind of thing might be Skyrim with the Temple of Dibella.

Isn't Dibella basically a whore fertility goddess in Skyrim though?

[The_Mask]

Isn't Dibella basically a whore fertility goddess in Skyrim though?

https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Dibella#Teachings

Dibella, as Goddess of Beauty, is the embodiment of beauty and teaches mortals to seek truth through beauty and worship.[12] Those who follow the teachings of Dibella, and propagate beauty and promote harmony, are granted charm and grace.[12] The Goddess teaches that mortals should give themselves to love,[13] and commands them to open their hearts to "the noble secrets of art and love. Treasure the gifts of friendship. Seek joy and inspiration in the mysteries of love".[14] Dibella holds no limit on the number of lovers one may have, but demands focus on the quality of the essence of love, not the quantity.[1] She teaches that, "No matter the seed, if the shoot is nurtured with love, will not the flower be beautiful?", and blesses the love of those which is pure and untainted.[1]

Dibella discourages relations with undead, such as vampires, and concurs with the teachings of Arkay that vampires have impure spirits.[1] Dibella is known as the Divine who "pays Men in Moans".[15] Critics of Dibella consider her a lustful and passionate goddess.[16][17]

Not really. Although her teaching may be misinterpreted as such, I would guess.

[Boontaker]

Isn't Dibella basically a whore fertility goddess in Skyrim though?

https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Dibella#Teachings

Dibella, as Goddess of Beauty, is the embodiment of beauty and teaches mortals to seek truth through beauty and worship.[12] Those who follow the teachings of Dibella, and propagate beauty and promote harmony, are granted charm and grace.[12] The Goddess teaches that mortals should give themselves to love,[13] and commands them to open their hearts to "the noble secrets of art and love. Treasure the gifts of friendship. Seek joy and inspiration in the mysteries of love".[14] Dibella holds no limit on the number of lovers one may have, but demands focus on the quality of the essence of love, not the quantity.[1] She teaches that, "No matter the seed, if the shoot is nurtured with love, will not the flower be beautiful?", and blesses the love of those which is pure and untainted.[1]

Dibella discourages relations with undead, such as vampires, and concurs with the teachings of Arkay that vampires have impure spirits.[1] Dibella is known as the Divine who "pays Men in Moans".[15] Critics of Dibella consider her a lustful and passionate goddess.[16][17]

Not really. Although her teaching may be misinterpreted as such, I would guess.

Dibellas priests are female, so of course she turns into the whore goddess

[Xenich]

Here's a statement from Gary on his intention for Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil in Strategic Review, February 1976.

Thanks, I read through it. It's pretty similar to the alignment matrix as presented in 3E, just absent all Neutrals save True Neutral. Naturally it doesn't change my stance that Law is a subset of Good and not a standalone alignment. Law must refer to ordered harmony with spiritual reality lest it be a mere measure of fussiness and particularity, psychological traits unworthy of the label 'alignment'. I also strongly objected to Gygax's characterization of the lowest level of Good as 'harmless', though I suppose those lower tiers would be incorporated into the various Neutrals under the alignment matrix.

Law And Chaos: The opposition here is between organized groups and
individuals. That is, law dictates that order and organization is necessary

and desirable, while chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supports
the group as more important than the individual, while chaos
promotes the individual over the group.

Good And Evil: Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in
the case of ADBD, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative
freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable.
Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or
happiness; purpose is the determinant.

There can never exist a lawful chaos or on evil good. These, and their
reverses, are dichotomous, This is not to say that they connot exist in the
same character or creature if it is insane or controlled by another entity,
but as general divisions they are mutually exclusive pairs. Consider also
the alignment graph. If law is opposed to chaos, and good to evil, then the
radically opposed alignments are lawful neutral - chaotic neutral,
neutrol good - neutral evil, lawful good - chaotic evil, ond lowful evil
- chaotic good. Lawful groups might, for example, combine to put down
some chaotic threat, for example, just os readily os good groups would
combine to suppress some powerful evil. Basic understanding and agreement.
however, is within the general specific alignment, i.e. one of the
nine categories. These are defined as follows:

How do you account for things like organized groups that have lawful tenents which are scared to their ideals, require strict adherence that results in punishment for any deviation from them, yet... are evil (like a cult, or a powerful society that enslaves/murders those its directed order requires)?

They can portray every aspect of being lawful in terms of organization. Also, how do you deal with chaos in such as well? Are random acts evil in themselves?

I think Gygax's establishment of Law and Chaos being neither good or evil provides a more logical structure.

What logical reasoning do you use to come to such a conclusion for your own interpretation of them?

[LemonDemonGirl]

Does Yevon from FF10 count as this?