Not D&D

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Not D&D

 

My answer to the deities for my long running fantasy campaign was to have the players make up the primary deities and play them in a short dawn of time campaign to set everything up. it certainly made them remember the gods and their roles and personalities

[AlHazred]

Re: Not D&D

 

Also' date=' (for example) if you can go the edge of the world, peer down and see the turtle, that renders creation myths and debates on "our place in the universe" moot. You know where you are ... on top of a giant turtle![/quote']You're very clever, young man, very clever. But it's turtles all the way down!

[quozaxx]

Re: Not D&D

 

My answer to the deities for my long running fantasy campaign was to have the players make up the primary deities and play them in a short dawn of time campaign to set everything up. it certainly made them remember the gods and their roles and personalities

 

 

I prefer the idea of no deities rather than deities at all - even those made by players. I sure that's just personal preference though.

[Curufea]

Re: Not D&D

 

You can't hardly find fiction or tale from those periods without a temple' date=' church, shrine, priest or monk. Therefore it seems odd not to have it. [/quote']

 

I find this statement highly spurious.

 

You can't hardly find fiction or tale that is in the Fantasy Genre that actually ever mentions a temple, church, shrine, priest or monk.

 

We are talking Fantasy Hero here - not Historic Medieval Hero.

[Lucius]

Re: Not D&D

 

Plenty of fantasy fiction mentions temples, shrines, priests, monks, etc.

 

Conan for example stumbled across a ruined temple or scheming priest or corrupt cult every other story.

 

Plenty of fantasy fiction doesn't.

 

There were no priests or churches in the Shire, and in all Baum's Oz stories, the only church to make an appearance does so to be casually destroyed in the same sentence (not even for being a church, but for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.)

 

To the original poster, I would say this:

 

What I'd find hard to believe is a world where no one had ever considered such questions as how the world came to be or if there is an afterlife. What I think is more credible is a world where such issues are considered open questions, and no one claims to have definite and certain answers. If a player does ask a question about a “spiritual” topic, you can say “Well, most people your character knows think X, some think Y, but there's no authority who tells everyone what to think and while some people like to talk about it there are no groups organized around believing this or that” and steer the game back on course. But if the players never see a temple or priest they probably won't think to look for them, and the problem will likely never arise – I just think you should have an answer ready (a boring, “this is obviously not going to be a focus of the game” type answer) in case it does.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says a world without benefit of clergy would at least be free of clerical errors

[Markdoc]

Re: Not D&D

 

There were no priests or churches in the Shire

 

We don't know this - just that they were never mentioned. In fact, I don't recall any reference to organized religion in LOTR. It just makes the point that religion doesn't need to be part of an heroic story.

 

As to your second point, I agree that people (humans, anyway) will always ask "where did we come from" and "What happens after we die?" but the answers are likely to be different in a world with magic. If mages with second sight look back as far as they can and report "We looked unimaginably far into the past and there's always been an earth here, with people. The sun was small and kind of yellowish, but otherwise it doesn't look that different." then you probably wouldn't have creation myths - just a quiet confidence that the earth has always been here and probably always will. People who pushed creation myths would be politely smiled at and condescended to as ignorant bumpkins.

 

Alternately, if they can look back and see the world being created, or everybody knows that the world was here when humans arrived on sky chariots .... well, there you have it.

 

It's just a matter of setting the game world up as you want.

 

cheers, Mark

[megaplayboy]

Re: Not D&D

 

*cough* Narnia *cough* (probably a good reference to throw back at your mom should this discussion ever arise again...)

 

Belief systems can be "background info" only, and largely allegorical or analogous to precepts held by prominent real-world faiths you are at least comfortable with...or to real-world philosophies, 7 virtues, 7 sins, whatever. Point being, you can be plenty vague and have no need to reference specific entities, or give them names which directly correspond to the value they represent(Patience, Greed, Equanimity, Love, etc.). As a GM, I can role-play an a-hole without actually becoming an a-hole--that's the beauty of role-playing.

 

Those same virtues, sins, philosophies and belief systems can also provide motivations and weaknesses for PCs..."My character is searching for true love but is often blinded by lust"..."My character wants to bring justice to those who wronged his family, but is in danger of adopting methods just as odious as those he seeks to punish"..."My character is driven by his beliefs to help others, but in quiet moments is plagued by doubts whether he's really making a difference"...and so forth.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Not D&D

 

I prefer the idea of no deities rather than deities at all - even those made by players. I sure that's just personal preference though.

 

 

Definitely personal preference is the name of the game here.The deities give me so much adventure fodder ideas even if they were only delusions of the people I'd have to have them. No evil high priests in your games I guess. i ran a game for awhile with only sort of vague priests of the "Source" but I find the polytheistic world much more creativity inducing

[Ragnarok]

Re: Not D&D

 

1) If you don't want deities, go for religious orders that deal with general non-deity structures. Like "the Light" or somesuch, or even druidism.

2) If you don't want religion, then go for magic as the structure of supernatural existence. Properly done, magic can answer a lot of questions that are typically asked of religion.

3) If you don't want magic...then good luck trying to explain the supernatural without magic or religion.

 

 

At a certain point, there are only a few options here. I think between all of us posters, we have supplied a good deal of ways to go about the original problem. I'm not sure what else to say.

 

Best of luck!

[AlHazred]

Re: Not D&D

 

I don't know if I completely agree with the tone of those three points.

 

1) Religious orders that revered concepts like "the Light," or "the Force," or somesuch would still be "false gods" to someone who was RL religious. Easier to drop the religious overtones entirely, which means dropping reverence as a facet of the campaign. So long as the abstract concept is given the attributes of a god (i.e., created the world, judges people, provides absolution, etc.) then it's a "false god."

2) Magic is a perfectly valid substitute. Reading The Wheel of Time series, although they have the religion of "the Light," the way some of the characters treat "the One Power" makes it seem quasi-religious in theme, but nonreligious enough to make a decent substitute.

3) Explaining the supernatural without magic or religion is unnecessary. Look at a series like The Lost Room or Warehouse 13 or whatever. There's no satisfactory explanation given. There doesn't have to be -- as long as something preternatural works in a certain fashion, people will (by their very nature) attempt to exploit that Item or Process for personal gain.

[Ragnarok]

Re: Not D&D

 

I don't know if I completely agree with the tone of those three points.

 

1) Religious orders that revered concepts like "the Light," or "the Force," or somesuch would still be "false gods" to someone who was RL religious. Easier to drop the religious overtones entirely, which means dropping reverence as a facet of the campaign. So long as the abstract concept is given the attributes of a god (i.e., created the world, judges people, provides absolution, etc.) then it's a "false god."

2) Magic is a perfectly valid substitute. Reading The Wheel of Time series, although they have the religion of "the Light," the way some of the characters treat "the One Power" makes it seem quasi-religious in theme, but nonreligious enough to make a decent substitute.

3) Explaining the supernatural without magic or religion is unnecessary. Look at a series like The Lost Room or Warehouse 13 or whatever. There's no satisfactory explanation given. There doesn't have to be -- as long as something preternatural works in a certain fashion, people will (by their very nature) attempt to exploit that Item or Process for personal gain.

 

Just to clarify....

 

1) My idea here, though poorly clarified, was that non-deity religions would be more philosophical organizations with supernatural fuel rather than direct reverence. That is to say, one would not worship "the Light" itself. Rather, one would recognize that "the Light" is useful in accomplishing goals A, B, and C, and try to live up to those philosophical values using "the Light" as a tool. For example, let's say the order of "the Light" values healing and creation. Rather than worshiping the essence that brings that about, one commits oneself to healing and creation (the real importance) via use of "the Light." Does that make sense? There are plenty of RL examples. Many churches, mosques, temples, what have you value community service. Money and manpower is used to bring about positive community changes. One does not worship money, rather one values the goal behind the money.

 

2) It sounds like you're pretty much agreeing with my point, that magic can be a substitute for religion if one so desires.

 

3) It sounds like you're suggesting that one doesn't need to explain the supernatural at all. Which is valid. But, my #3 said that if one does wish to explain the supernatural, doing so without religion or magic is difficult at best.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Not D&D

 

OP, I understand your concerns with religion in a game. I once ran a fantasy game, and a buddy of mine ask some questions which I wasn't prepared to answer. So then we skirted the issue- no problem. So I would say that if you keep religion in the background, that would be fine. Especially since your not trying to emmulate classic D n D, you don't need to have the cleric class, which will help keep it in the background.

[quozaxx]

Re: Not D&D

 

Well, in my Champions game. I role played a priest, a nun, and and evil entity known as The Dark. We have dipped slightly in the afterlife also. In fact one of the player's characters has "obsessed with the afterlife", as a low level disadvantage.

 

So, I can see where religion in the background may be a good thing. I think I'm just uncomfortable with the deity and worship of those deities. Even in the back ground. As as I have heard more than once in these threads. "Go with your conscience."

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Not D&D

 

So, I can see where religion in the background may be a good thing. I think I'm just uncomfortable with the deity and worship of those deities. Even in the back ground. As as I have heard more than once in these threads. "Go with your conscience."

 

 

I understand completely although I have a different cringe. I want to have religion etc but I feel really uncomfortable depicting the "wishes of God' even in a completely fantasy environment so I go with lesser completely imaginary beings I feel have no spot in reality. Go with what feels right for you obviously.

[AlHazred]

Re: Not D&D

 

Never said I disagreed with your points themselves, Ragnarok, just the tone. Actually, it was only the tone of #1 I felt needed clarification, but online everybody loves to talk.

 

Of course, one can also go a different way. I ran a High Fantasy game with only religions that worshipped one God. They even agreed that it was the same God. However, the details of that devotion differed. I drew heavily on the Church of the Late Classical to Middle Ages and tried to represent interesting factions and sects. The major detail was a lack of priestly "spells" -- instead, each priest had a Variable Power Pool, which had No Conscious Control on it; all of the powers I put in there had Totally Invisible Power Effects. The one priestly PC could never be sure exactly what his points were being used for, but trusted me to handle it properly and I think the results were pretty good. Everything could be explained away as perfectly natural coincidence, except for the fact that things seemed to work out for the priest, generally (but not always) when he prayed for success.

[Lucius]

Re: Not D&D

 

We don't know this - just that they were never mentioned. In fact' date=' I don't recall [b']any[/b] reference to organized religion in LOTR. It just makes the point that religion doesn't need to be part of an heroic story.

 

Actually, I believe that Tollkien explicity stated that the Hobbits had no organized religion, but had "natural religion" - by which I took him to mean that, in the absence of revelation but by means of grace and reason, they had an awareness of the moral order of the universe, a hope of an afterlife of some kind, and even an unarticulated reverence for a dimly concieved Power implicit in Creation. But yes, the closest thing to prayer was when Gandalf told the Balrog just Who Gandalf was working for. The lack of temples, priests and idols is no accident; like Quozaxx, Tollkien was a sincere Christian.

 

Lots of fantasy does have the trappings of religion, but I think it's the influence of D&D that creates the assumption that somehow these trappings have to be there in fantasy gaming.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that role playing games don't need Gods, but do need Game Operations Directors

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Not D&D

 

Actually, I believe that Tollkien explicity stated that the Hobbits had no organized religion, but had "natural religion" - by which I took him to mean that, in the absence of revelation but by means of grace and reason, they had an awareness of the moral order of the universe, a hope of an afterlife of some kind, and even an unarticulated reverence for a dimly concieved Power implicit in Creation. But yes, the closest thing to prayer was when Gandalf told the Balrog just Who Gandalf was working for. The lack of temples, priests and idols is no accident; like Quozaxx, Tollkien was a sincere Christian.

 

Tolkien and C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity at about the same time. They did develop differences though, when Tolkien chose to be a Catholic while Lewis became an Anglican. Their legacies are an interesting contrast; Tolkien is considered his generation's premiere fantasist, while Lewis became one of the 20th-centuries most significant Christian writers and philosophers, more respected for Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters than he ever was for the Narina series. He was a great influence on the thought of my sister Mary, who became a Lutheran pastor: an except from The Screwtape Letters was read at her wedding.

[Lucius]

Re: Not D&D

 

Tolkien and C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity at about the same time.

 

Are you sure of that? Everything I've ever read says J. R. R. Tolkein was a lifelong Catholic, but that he was instrumental in converting C. S. Lewis - but disappointed that Lewis did not choose to become Catholic, but "came back to Christianity by the same door he left it by" (Lewis had been raised Anglican.)

 

Anne McCaffrey on the other hand, speaking of her Dragonriders series, said organized relgion was "one problem Pern didn't need." The motivation was different, but like Tolkein, her world lacks temples, cults, and idols.

 

But does anyone have any specifically gaming related examples? Say, a published setting?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary considers Lucius guilty of Idle-atry

[Lethosos]

Re: Not D&D

 

heh, if you want to have a setting that doesn't involve gods messing with the mortals, I reccomend the Leirune setting; it's a bit dated (and furry,) but the backstory is worth looking at. In a nutshell, an ancient civilization got fed up with the gods screwing around with the world and practicaly shut them out altogether with the Great Seal. By the end of the First seal, all the "priests" ended up being a special class of mages called "faith mages," where their power of belief manifested as magic.

 

So technically you can have priests in the game; they just follow a philosophy or doctorine that movitates their faith-magic. The closer they cleave to their faith, the more powerful their faith becomes.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Not D&D

 

heh' date=' if you want to have a setting that doesn't involve gods messing with the mortals, I reccomend the Leirune setting; it's a bit dated (and furry,) but the backstory is worth looking at. In a nutshell, an ancient civilization got fed up with the gods screwing around with the world and practicaly shut them out altogether with the Great Seal. By the end of the First seal, all the "priests" ended up being a special class of mages called "faith mages," where their power of belief manifested as magic.

 

So technically you can have priests in the game; they just follow a philosophy or doctorine that movitates their faith-magic. The closer they cleave to their faith, the more powerful their faith becomes.

Did you read the OP and the reason he doesn't want gods in the game? Pretty sure this wouldn't help in his case...

[Lethosos]

Re: Not D&D

 

Did you read the OP and the reason he doesn't want gods in the game? Pretty sure this wouldn't help in his case...

 

Oh, I'm just showing a world-creation option; really, faith-mages are all wierd as heck. There was one who was formerly a follower of justice; he ended up believing in an unmagical collar he wore constantly that it controled his powers instead. The twin city-states of Ziland and Zeraland (i think, been a year since I've been back there) are complete polar opposites of themselves, being govered by two different theocratic entities that are quixotic in nature to each other. Says a lot about the lack of actual divine natures controlling the world, yet it still leaves a mark all the way to the 6th Seal. (As far as speculation went on the forums, faith pretty much died out in the 7th Seal.)

[kahuna's bro]

Re: Not D&D

 

i've probably way off base here but itsounds like the OP wants a pulp style game in a fantasy setting

[Lethosos]

Re: Not D&D

 

I know, I'm thinking Fafnir and the Grey Mouser myself. I just don't think you can properly apply pulp without making it sound like Hyborean Adventures 2.0.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Not D&D

 

Well the OP could take it to a point that is a bit further than most fantasy campaigns. There are those that say that the distinction between Fantasy and Science Fiction is pretty small. What would stop the OP from creating a Fantasy based campaign, where magic has become the new technology, rather than science? If most things could be explained in terms of magic, that would reduce the civilization from using 'dieties' to explain things they do not understand. And, that would push the campaign into a general direction that the OP is seeking.

 

I was watching something on tv about the Greek dieties, and that the people during that civilzation period would explain what they did not understand with the dieties. A good example of this was storms. Instead of saying that a storm was created by a diety, you could then say that when certain flows of magic collide, that the collision is responsible for the storms. These flows of magic, are also way too strong and wild to be controlled by any single or group of magicians...

[AlHazred]

Re: Not D&D

 

I know' date=' I'm thinking Fafnir and the Grey Mouser myself. I just don't think you can properly apply pulp without making it sound like Hyborean Adventures 2.0.[/quote']Fafnir?!? Augh! Wars have been fought over less egregious mistakes!

 

"... the otherwise ridiculous suggestion that the two comrades fell out over the proper spelling of Fafhrd's name, the Mouser perversely favoring a simple Lankhmarian equivalent of 'Faferd' while the name's owner insisted that only the original mouth-filling agglomeration of consonants could continue to satisfy his ear and eye and his semi-literate, barbarous sense of the fitness of things." -- Lean Times in Lankhmar