One area that religion can play a major role is that of magic. Clerical magic is bestowed by the gods onto their worshippers. Clerics are submissive to the will of their gods and their powers flow from their submissiveness.

Mages, on the other hand are fiercely independent and serve no one but themselves. Their power is derived from their own will and knowledge of the forbidden arts (revealed by a trouble making deity ages ago, eg. Loki, Prometheus, Lucifer).

A third group are the athesists who believe in neither gods, nor magic. Their unbelief renders them completly immune to magic and miracles. (The movie Eric the Viking is a good example on how this unbelief would work.)

Korvan

quote:Original post by solinear
...Well, as usual I took a planned 3 paragraph post and turned it into an essay...

...and a fine essay that I enjoyed reading.

The conflict in games is between LANGUAGE and TEST. Religion in games presents an interesting juxtaposition of these two processes because religion can act both as a "system of meaning" and as the precondition for a "test".
Once you include religion in a game, the usual balance between language and test is distorted, becoming relative to the observer''s attitude/s to the religion. In other words, the game becomes relatively successful as a function of how seriously it is taken. Hence the concern about religious games that "turn" on the player and demand certain behaviour.

The flipside of the coin is that games already are a form of religion. They constitute a meditation on some external form of truth and, among game players, success at games is about being able to pass the test they present. But more than being language or test alone, the games can simultaneously become symbols of social membership to the religion practiced by a particular game''s followers.

Is there a way to liberate people from treating games as religion or coding religion into games? In short, is there a way to liberate games from materiality? I don''t know. Perhaps the answer lies in the integration of gaming into standard social practice as a method of change (not empty language) and as a method of exploration (not as an empty test). Both steps imply breaking the material conditions of gaming and becoming sensitive to long term considerations in gaming implementation - the language no longer as fleeting, the test no longer of simple reflexes (certainly chess and games like it have enjoyed their life for this reason).

Its simple if the games story calls for religion put it in.

If you are writing the story you must think will I want religion to be a big part of the story. Its all about the message you are trying to send and the story you are trying to tell. Who cares if other people think religion should be in a game its your game make it how you like not how other people think it should be. If a person wants to make a game have him write a story and if he wants religion so be it. Make the game how you think it ought to be made.

OoMMMoO

"Only when dead are we truly free" -Me

quote:It would be far better in my opinion to develop a sensible pantheon of gods rather like the Greek or Roman gods. Keep the pantheon down to a sensible size, maybe as many as ten but no more. (unlike the completely absurd number of D&D gods)

I''ve found 2 solutions to this dilemma.

1) All gods other than the ''native'' ones to a solar system are predatory gods, living off the labor of other deities work. In this solar system the ''true'' deity is ''God'' (Yahweh, Allah, blah blah...) all of the others were predatory ones, pantheons from other solar systems who gave up after their loss in this solar system was guaranteed.

2) All of the pantheons are actually just groups of angels sent down to teach humans the ways of those in heaven. I like this one more because it makes the most sense. Too many common themes across religions. Also, there is the head deity (Zeus, Odin, Indra, etc...) that could be considered an ArchAngel while the others would be of the other choirs of angels (Angel, Seraphim, Cherubim, etc...). They seemed as gods to us because of the unexplainable levels of power they commanded.

I really like the 2nd one too because of it keeps duality in place. It shows that deities really don''t care about our problems, only their own hides. What was God''s determinator for who is an Angel and who is a Demon? Are you with me or against me. Love the sound of a human skull crushing but you just can''t turn your back on God? You''re an Angel. There is NO moral barrier, just one based upon who''s side you took. Set sound demonic to you? It doesn''t matter what he sounds like to you, he was on the winning side and gets to keep his wings.

Loki, Set, Shiva (the Destroyer), Ares, etc... they''re all Angels. How do we know this? Because God sent his angels to teach us their ways, he didn''t send Demons and his Angels wouldn''t associate with Demons now, would they?

Like I said, I really like the 2nd option.

As for the ''rediculous number of D&D gods'', almost all of those are actual historic deities and almost all of them were coexistent (around at the same point in time in history). With the exception of the Hindu religion all of them are largely non-existent now also. It''s not rediculous, it''s reality. Each culture had it''s own religion. The Sumerians had one, the Scandinavians, the Celts, Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, American Indians, Russians... these are all historical pantheons that all existed at around the same time. Even a large number of the non-human deities are based upon historical mythological characters, from Grummsh to Correlon Larethian (or however you spell it). Actually, only having 10 gods is kinda rediculous when you consider our history.

I do have to admit that I agree with you and see little reason for having more than a dozen though, since most of the deities are simply the same thing with a different name and slightly different powers. There''s a good dozen earth mothers/fertility/harvest deities that all end up serving largely the same purpose. Thunder/storms? Do we really need a half dozen of these gods? Not really, it''s a game. Add more later if you need to, but try to keep it reasonable and manageable.

I should reiterate about the good vs. evil thing though. Real life is never so black and white. Tomas de Torquemada (Grand Inquisitor) is viewed today as one of history''s greatest villains, but he was a priest. Confidant of Isabella, refused dozens of promotions above friar preferring to serve God in that capacity until he became an Inquisitor. Even during that time in Spain he was called by one historian "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the saviour of his country, the honour of his order" and I''m guessing that it wasn''t just lip service.

Too often powerful priests are the villains, working against the true meaning of their religion. How can you make it a wall with black on one side and white on the other? What side are you on, what side am I on? While we may agree on both of those, what side will history put us on? Even the most vile beast, if in a position of religious power, will be defended by the most holy knight and fellow priests. There is no "Oh, you are evil, I see the light and now turn on you!" scene. There is no "You have found me out, I have made a pact with the devil and now I will transform into a demon of immense power" scene like is too popular in console RPGs. This is reality. Most of those unforgiveable monsters actually believe what they are doing is right and good. In a freakish coincidence, if they were Angels they would be right, for as long as they are on God''s side they are doing what is right, no matter what it is.

Anyway, again this post is getting too long.