PDA

View Full Version : Dealing with religion in historical settings



Mighty_Chicken
2013-02-16, 11:05 PM
I hope this really doesn't bring any kind of bad discussion about religion.

Well, last time I was DMing my semi-historical campaign (15th century, Portuguese exploration), one of the players was very uncomfortable.

We are both religiously conservative people; but maybe because I'm more politically aware, I don't feel uncomfortable around the notion that bad people can be religious, or that everything was about religion in those days.

I'll admit, actually, that I'm a bit of a polemizer. I really like NPCs with an ambigous relationship with faith. On the other hand... maybe this isn't the worst thing. Maybe the most offensive thing to him was religious sincerity from fictious characters of a fictious story. I think it might be that... and this also makes me think if I wouldn't be trivializing things I, too, hold very dear.

So, do you have any idea of what to do? Talk to him is a good idea, of course, as we are friends and have similar views on such things. But maybe I should go totally fictional? Change all the real-religion references for fictious deities and institutions? Just the names or more?

Slipperychicken
2013-02-17, 12:17 AM
Privately ask each player about their opinion. If they're uncomfortable, ask about what specifically makes them feel that way. Come to an agreement about how to accommodate it. Whether that means de-emphasizing religion in general, or just not having the bad guys talk so much about God, or fictionalize it more. Maybe they just want to focus on exploration, and would rather not deal with religion at all. Maybe your player takes the subject very seriously, and doesn't want that to spoil game-time.

Also, this is an excellent opportunity to mark out your group's comfort zone, to avoid future discomfort or awkwardness. Ask how they feel about including other explicit or controversial material in the game; things like historical politics, torture, rape, incest, spousal abuse, child-murder, and so on. Then you can have more confidence about what they'll find acceptable, and know what you should and should not keep in the game, when things should "fade to black", etc.

LibraryOgre
2013-02-17, 12:58 AM
The Mod Wonder: Pre-emptive: Be very careful with this conversation. The OP is ok, but be aware that this is a conversation that can go downhill real quick. If you're going to For Instance, I suggest using one of the D&D pantheons.

That said... communicate the heck out of this. Communicate a whole heck of a lot, and figure out everyone's triggers on something like this. IMO, this becomes more important if there are mechanics in place for showing divine favor... if he can get mechanical benefits by being devout, then I can see people being a lot more uncomfortable with it than if his devotion is more a character trait than a power source.

inexorabletruth
2013-02-17, 03:34 AM
When it comes to gaming, I think it's always best to keep it metaphorical or allegorical when relating to these types of campaign plots. For those who are religious, their faith can be very personal and sacred, and as you've already experienced, can make sessions awkward and uncomfortable. However, drawing a parallel to a mythical or fantastical god/goddess can quickly turn a theological can of worms into a much more palatable fairy tale or parable.

I'm a religious person, and while I don't feel uncomfortable playing D&D in a world with a small army of gods and goddesses, demi-gods, celestial beings, half-celestial, a mirror opposite of demonic rulers and minions, so on so forth, because it's all fantasy. However, if my DM started using real-world religions for his campaigns, I would get a bit squeamish, even if the DM was trying to be respectful to my faith while doing so. That said, I can kind of see where your friend is coming from.

Iceforge
2013-02-17, 08:20 AM
I am very split on this topic, imagining myself being in either your shoes or in the role of a player in your campaign.

One part of me would be, as the game master, desiring to meet the groups needs, and adapt so everybody around the table felt comfortable and good while playing, as roleplaying is about having fun together, and if something is ruining that sensation/experience for one player, I would want to make changes so me and all my friends could be having a good time while playing.

The other part of me, is mostly if I was a player, is that it is a huge pet peeve of mine when something is simply renamed to avoid giving offence; If a religion and its related institutions is simply a renamed Christianity or Hinduism or whatever real-world religion, then I would strongly prefer it being called what it is, and it hugely bother me when it is 99% X, but 1% is changed and its given the name of Y; I understand that is a personal thing for me, but beware that might also be the case for some of the other players in your group.

And it also seems to me that it would be a huge blow to the mood of historical accuracy if you cannot display religion as having a vital part in the life of a huge majority of people in that given time and location that you have chosen to play in.

In the end, I think you should do what is the least damaging to the fun of the players in the group; If it does not hurt your fun and good time leading in the setting, and all other players are fine with altering the names and some of the aspects of the religion, then you should go that path, just make sure to communicate with the other players besides the one feeling uncomfortable, as the changes might influence their comfort and play experience.

KillianHawkeye
2013-02-17, 09:15 AM
Well to be honest, I'm not quite sure from your post what actually happened or what the problem is. I am guessing that some NPC in your game did some bad things while professing to follow a real life religion? And that that offended your player because of his own beliefs?

I'm not sure I can give any proper advice until I know what really happened.

Jay R
2013-02-17, 09:20 AM
Find everybody's boundaries, and treat them like data, not weaknesses.

There are no more giant spiders in our campaign, because one player can't look at the miniatures. There was a short conversation after the last game, because a situation came up one player couldn't handle. (Can't mention the details here.)

Play a game you will all enjoy playing.

KillianHawkeye
2013-02-17, 09:23 AM
Find everybody's boundaries, and treat them like data, not weaknesses.

There are no more giant spiders in our campaign, because one player can't look at the miniatures. There was a short conversation after the last game, because a situation came up one player couldn't handle. (Can't mention the details here.)

Play a game you will all enjoy playing.

Not sure how much this helps your specific situation, but it's a great piece of general advice!

scurv
2013-02-17, 09:49 PM
A Note on the historical perspective. And considering the overlap between religion and history It might be worth considering
Keep in mind if you are doing a historical based campaign, That

One: Most of the history that is presented in highschool is crap. And sadly that tends to be the extent of peoples historical understanding.

Two: There are many things in history that onto them self's are highly uncomfortable subjects. <edit> Some people will feel accountability for actions of their distant ancestors, Or culture. And if it is a European history based campaign There are many aera's you might best want to have some sober second thoughts before proceeding into.

Three: People tend to have an idealized version of history. Especially when it comes to their faith path. Now keep in mind geoffrey chaucer himself Knocked on clergy of his own faith path in his own day. So this is nothing new. But even if it is historically accurate to the time. It can truly hurt people when they see a representation of a faith based figure doing morally questionable actions. Moreso If there is another player who might have an opinion that rubs salt in the wounds.

<edit 2>Often in subjects of discomfort you need to be aware that what a person responds to is ether the sole source of discomfort, Or it is the straw that broke the camels back. But quite often it is somewhere in the middle, give or take a third.

hiryuu
2013-02-18, 01:08 AM
Three: People tend to have an idealized version of history. Especially when it comes to their faith path. Now keep in mind geoffrey chaucer himself Knocked on clergy of his own faith path in his own day. So this is nothing new. But even if it is historically accurate to the time. It can truly hurt people when they see a representation of a faith based figure doing morally questionable actions. Moreso If there is another player who might have an opinion that rubs salt in the wounds.

Also, it is important to remember that things we once thought were perfectly ethical are now no longer considered remotely excusable, almost no matter what your belief structure happens to be.

Synovia
2013-02-18, 03:31 PM
I'm a religious person, and while I don't feel uncomfortable playing D&D in a world with a small army of gods and goddesses, demi-gods, celestial beings, half-celestial, a mirror opposite of demonic rulers and minions, so on so forth, because it's all fantasy. However, if my DM started using real-world religions for his campaigns, I would get a bit squeamish, even if the DM was trying to be respectful to my faith while doing so. That said, I can kind of see where your friend is coming from.
I agree with this. You're much better off using a fantasy world that mimics ours with a fantasy pantheon than using our world directly.

I'm not religious. If you told me we were playing 15th century Portugal and my character gets spells from the Roman Catholic Church, thats going to upset me. If its a roughly medeival world, in a country that looks a lot like Portugal, and there's a dominant church my character is getting spells from, I'm cool with that.

If you're going to deal with religion or politics, make it fantasy religion, or fantasy politics. Real world stuff is too close to home, and people get too heated about it.

Scow2
2013-02-18, 06:26 PM
I agree with this. You're much better off using a fantasy world that mimics ours with a fantasy pantheon than using our world directly.

I'm not religious. If you told me we were playing 15th century Portugal and my character gets spells from the Roman Catholic Church, thats going to upset me. If its a roughly medeival world, in a country that looks a lot like Portugal, and there's a dominant church my character is getting spells from, I'm cool with that.

If you're going to deal with religion or politics, make it fantasy religion, or fantasy politics. Real world stuff is too close to home, and people get too heated about it.Meh... the most fun character I've ever played was a Holy Roman Catholic Priest in a Savage Worlds game that was loaded with divine miracle powers. I've never had a second thought about playing fantastically-empowered versions of real-world religions set in fantastically-empowered versions of the real world.

Mighty_Chicken
2013-02-18, 06:40 PM
Thank you folks for all advice so far. I've thinking about all of it.

I'll detail my situation further; then again, I thank everyone for the respectful tone, and I hope we can go on like this despite our passions.

Me and the player are protestant Christians. Both of us have respect for the medieval church's history despite that. Another player is a proud atheist. I don't mind his remarks (he's respectful but sometimes things slip out of his mouth) but the other player do.

If we're talking about Portuguese exxploration, we're talking about money from religious orders, and we're talking about the wish to win souls for Christ. Or the desire to get rich in the Indies, camouflaged as piety...

So here's number 1 issue: I don't think my friend minds the notion that priests were vain and evil in the past. But maybe he minds the notion that many were not, and still they were involved in the navigations with all their good and evil.

Another thing is the source of divine powers. But it's almost a non-issue: we can settle it's just another form of magic/knowledge/mind power.

The biggest issue though... I really wanted to explore the relationship with an Arab antagonist. So we're talking about two religions that antagonize each other because 1) their lore is very similar and 2) both aim to convert populations

It's hard to mimic the dynamic between those two religions with politheistic pantheons. I can't imagine this kind of rivalry and urge to convert people from politheism.

So, any suggestions?

Slipperychicken
2013-02-18, 06:43 PM
So here's number 1 issue: I don't think my friend minds the notion that priests were vain and evil in the past. But maybe he minds the notion that many were not, and still they were involved in the navigations with all their good and evil. [...]

So, any suggestions?

Ask him what the issue is. Trust me, you'll be better off asking than guessing.

fusilier
2013-02-18, 07:14 PM
Also, it is important to remember that things we once thought were perfectly ethical are now no longer considered remotely excusable, almost no matter what your belief structure happens to be.

I would be very cautious about assuming this to be true. And that applies in both directions (i.e. "we don't do stuff like that now", and "people thought it was ok back then"). A lot of history is skewed by viewpoint. The "Black Legend" of the conquistadors, spread by English sources wanting to demonize the Spanish, is a point in case. It's also an example of how complicated history is (nobody's claiming that the conquistadors didn't do bad things).

On the other hand, there is an argument that rising levels of education have made conflict between different groups of people less common. Nonetheless I still urge caution about making those assumptions. It was not the middle ages, but the middle of the 20th century that witnessed the Holocaust. :-(

If you are going to try to take a realistic bent on history in your games, make sure that your players understand that is your intent, but also do some research -- you will most likely find historically correct counterpoints to the uglier aspects of history. I think there's a general tendency to simplify history (and I think it's a part of human nature) -- try to remember that history is complicated, and people are complicated, that should open opportunities for you and your players.

On the other hand, you may not want to run a purely historical setting, and instead use some "version" of history that's often passed down. -- A great one I saw in the GURPS WWII book on Italy, is running a campaign where all the characters fit into the Buffoonish stereotypes that the British propaganda claimed. :-) -- At the opposite end of the spectrum, you could run one where the stereotypes about conquistadors were basically true; this would be a violent and ugly campaign. Both kinds of campaigns can be enjoyable. Just don't try to claim that they're 100% historical! ;-)

As for the specific problems your player is having, I would follow the advice of those who say talk to him.

hiryuu
2013-02-18, 07:20 PM
I would be very cautious about assuming this to be true.

It certainly doesn't apply everywhere, and I certainly didn't mean that, but, hey, you know, if you want to get into specifics and put words in my mouth and assume I meant "black legend of the Conquistadors" and so on, we can start with the much more specific "locking up crazy people in rooms with no ventilation or waste removal systems," "thinking it was okay to use cats as a tool for punishment of your workers," "locking your workers in during the workday with no way to escape fires," and then move on to "paying off your murder sentence" and "shooting natives in the head for their own good" if you like.

I didn't say anything about the Conquistadors. I didn't single out anyone with my post, and that was my intent: not singling anyone out.

I was not blaming anyone or anything. I was not calling out a very specific historical period. I was just mentioning that the moral zeitgeist was going to be very different. The Inquisition was not the 1940s, which was not 1500s Mexico, which was not 1700s Australia, and the 1940s is not now.

Moral zeitgeist HAS changed, that is a fact. No matter what your belief system.

scurv
2013-02-18, 07:51 PM
I would suggest http://www.learnoutloud.com/Catalog/History

I'm not trying to spam, But for the level of research you are endeavoring These courses tend to break down the topics you need and presents them to you with much of the context you will need in a very manageable way.

Or to put it in DND terms, It is giving you your Int boost with a twist of wisdom to go with it. That and generally they are kinda fun to listen to.

fusilier
2013-02-18, 08:04 PM
--EDIT--
I'm not going to delete my post, but a more succinct way of describing what I mean:

Just because people could get away with doing something that nowadays is considered morally reprehensible, doesn't mean that it was considered morally acceptable.

I'm not convinced that morality and reality are intimately correlated. Instead, I see small groups of powerful people abusing those with less power. The reasons for the change, therefore, is those "powerless" gaining more political power. There's also an argument for more awareness leads to viewing "other" people as "real" people. Keep in mind, that it may have been acceptable for a foreman to whip his workers, but it would not have been acceptable for the manager to whip the foreman -- that's because the manager and foreman identified among themselves, but didn't identify with their workers. So it's not so much that the moral code was different, but, perhaps, who qualified to have the moral code applied to them differed.
--EDIT--


. . . "locking your workers in during the workday with no way to escape fires," . . .

This is a good example of what I meant. If you've been paying attention to the fires that happened somewhat recently in Asia. Likewise, a hundred years ago (I assume you are referring to the Triangle Shirt Waist factory fire) there was outrage. That's my point, even when these things were common, it doesn't mean that they were considered morally correct. In this case it took a disaster for the public to become aware of the abuse. Not only was there morale outrage at the time, it's happened recently. :-(

Just because something was an accepted practice, doesn't mean it was justified morally. You will find historical examples of people speaking out against such practices, and often on moral grounds.

This is not to say that I totally disagree with this statement:

Moral zeitgeist HAS changed. No matter what your belief system.
But that issues of morality are, just like a lot of things, more complicated and it probably wouldn't be too difficult to find contemporaries who were critical of those practices, that are now universally agreed to be repugnant. (Likewise, with the internet, it's probably not difficult to find people who would support those practices today . . . sadly) It's not so much a matter that it wasn't considered morally reprehensible, but that now more people are convinced that it shouldn't be done for any reason. Slavery at times was called a "necessary evil", by those who supported the practice. They acknowledged it was morally wrong, but other reasons compelled them to continue the practice. Then as now, human nature will allow people to justify all sorts of things (like locking fire exits). :-(


I didn't say anything about the Conquistadors. I didn't single out anyone with my post, and that was my intent: not singling anyone out.

I didn't mean to imply that you did. It was an example that fits closely with the time period the original post referenced. My entire post was not directly solely at yours, and I apologize if that wasn't clear.

scurv
2013-02-18, 09:36 PM
History is the past tense of the word politics.
<edit>
A rule of thumb for finding the truth. It tends to be in the middle of two view points and off to the side a bit.

Slipperychicken
2013-02-18, 10:14 PM
Or to put it in DND terms, It is giving you your Int boost with a twist of wisdom to go with it. That and generally they are kinda fun to listen to.

Nuh uh. It's obviously a bonus to Knowledge: (History) checks :smalltongue:

scurv
2013-02-18, 10:27 PM
Meh, History and the arts like that are fun to study. But the interlink and interplay all the players is one of those things that is its own art to understand.
And much of what one needs to consider when one studies history is that to the people then, They did not know how it was going to turn out. Or to put it in perspective that i know the people stateside at least can relate to now.
Today we do not know how this national budget and recession deal will end. People are losing sleep over it (along with many other things) But 50 years from now. kids in a school will say many of the same things you said in school about the great depression.

TheOOB
2013-02-21, 02:35 AM
Religion can(obviously) be a difficult issue. As others have mentioned, it is very important to discover the other players boundaries and act accordingly. It's also important to do your research and make sure you got things right for the time period and location.

One of the most important things is to make sure everyone is treating it roughly the same way. You can't have a faithful devote, a silly over the top comedic stereo type, and an anachronistic modern day vocal atheist in the same part, as those characters wouldn't exist in the same world. When in doubt use moderation, and try to portray the church in a more positive light than you think appropriate, even if you already think it appropriate to portray it in a positive light.(You're less likely to offend by being nicer than you think necessary than meaner).

Ravens_cry
2013-02-21, 04:45 AM
Besides, of course, the general suggestion of preforming Inspire Discussion,
♪Talk, Talk, Talk With Your Players, About This Thorny Issue ♫:elan: I also recommend reading Brother Cadfael. It shows religion in a historical setting in a way that explores all sides of the issues, and some of the conflicts that can arise.

Mighty_Chicken
2013-02-21, 09:08 AM
History is the past tense of the word politics.
<edit>
A rule of thumb for finding the truth. It tends to be in the middle of two view points and off to the side a bit.

Oh, so much this.

Yet, as peaceful as my friends are... even if a vocal atheist understands history very well, it is hard for him to not despise institutions and customs that existed solely because of religion - so the ambivalence is gone for that person. But you know...

In a way... I think we're all adults. So just as religious people have to listen all the time about how many bad things religions did (and we really should: its a matter of political awareness), i should taunt my atheist friend with situations where religion is a beneficial and necessary influence. Because I like grey morality - and if only one person is offended, it's not a legitimate grey morality situation, right? Yeah, that's how I'll solve this... I'm going to offend EVERYONE! :D

Yeah, bad idea. But I really enjou being polemic... I have to think this through.


So I thought of a solution... please give me feedback if you can :)

I want my players to be happy, and I also want to be "historically" " 'accurate' " (double quotes), in the sense that I want fantasy and adventure in the Navigations Era - not Piracy era, not a Greek argonaut thing. Not seafaring ponty hatted wizards. So politics and culture must be there.

Maybe the solution is to mantain all the religious-political-cultural structures, but change names and details. I already said I don't believe politheism can do the trick. But maybe philosophy can.

I can change Christianity can be substituted a vague belief system where I don't have to talk about God or gods. Like the Light in Warcraft. Maybe that's how I'm calling it... the Light, or the Way, or something like that.

I'd be able to mantain the religious hierarchies, the genuine/false concern with religion in politics, the good and bad effects of religion in everyday life, without offending my friend or myself.

I'd do the same with Islam. Make it a similar, but different philosophy. The tension of conversion/prejudice would be kept when dealing with Christian Africans, European Muslims, etc.


What do you guys think? Do you think that PGing things like that would be lame? Or is it worth it?

While we're at it... I just remembered that until 1492, Granada (southern Spain) was still Arab. As my campaign is just "somewhere" in the 1400's, they're still there "currently", but it just occurred me that the relations between Portugal, Spain (Castile/Aragon), Granada, Morocco and small Christian or Muslim kingdoms could be very interesting. Anyone has any fantasious ideas or historical sources that could help?

Cirin
2013-02-21, 10:11 AM
I made the mistake of putting real-world religion, meticulously researched, into a quasi-historic D&D game once.

The game an AD&D 2e game set during the 3rd Crusade, and it was pretty historically accurate (except for mythological monsters being real, and spellcasting existing albeit very uncommon).

Most players were quite fine with it. I actually got a lot of praise for the campaign as a whole and most players had a lot of fun

One of my players was an exception to this. He was a very devout Catholic (significantly more than he'd lead us to believe over the previous couple of years), and he was playing a Paladin. He kept suspecting one of his fellow PCs of Heresy (since he was a wizard, albeit one who had been making some efforts to conceal that this scholar from Cambridge was actually a 2nd level Wizard).

So, he decides to go to a local church and speak to a priest.

I had meticulously researched the practices, doctrine and rites of the Catholic Church circa the late 12th century.

He was a modern-day post-Vatican II Catholic who basically assumed the Church had pretty much always been exactly like it was circa 2000. . .except with Latin Mass and meat on Friday being forbidden at times other than during Lent.

Yeah, it was a train wreck. That little in-character discussion ended up crashing the session when he broke character to accuse me of mocking his religion, insulting his beliefs, and saying I was depicting that priest as being a bigger heretic than the party Wizard.

I tried to show him the historic research notes I'd made, the books on the medieval Church I'd read, the fact that I had made great lengths to get the religion right. (I had been working on a senior thesis for my B.A. in History regarding the 3rd Crusade, and had decided to turn that knowledge to making a period-accurate D&D game).

He still didn't like it, felt like it was insulting to him. He quit the game, and since he was my roommate, it made things very awkward between us.

The lesson learned? Before you start, have a talk with your players to make sure they are cool with it and explain in detail how religion is going to be handled.

Synovia
2013-02-21, 10:22 AM
Yeah, it was a train wreck. That little in-character discussion ended up crashing the session when he broke character to accuse me of mocking his religion, insulting his beliefs, and saying I was depicting that priest as being a bigger heretic than the party Wizard.

I tried to show him the historic research notes I'd made, the books on the medieval Church I'd read, the fact that I had made great lengths to get the religion right. (I had been working on a senior thesis for my B.A. in History regarding the 3rd Crusade, and had decided to turn that knowledge to making a period-accurate D&D game).

He still didn't like it, felt like it was insulting to him. He quit the game, and since he was my roommate, it made things very awkward between us.

The lesson learned? Before you start, have a talk with your players to make sure they are cool with it and explain in detail how religion is going to be handled.

You did talk to him about religion though. Like you said, he was more "devout" (I'm not sure thats really the right word) than you thought.

People are almost universally incapable of discussing their own religion in a completely rational manner. IMO, any time you use real religion in a game in mixed company, its a time bomb.

Mighty_Chicken
2013-02-21, 10:35 AM
Cirin, let me ask you something...

I know you did a lot of serious research. But History isn't hard science. Historians are always opinionated. This may be a wrong generalization, but I hope you understand what I mean: more often than not, historians take a side.

Actually, as a kind of a marxist myself, I don't believe it is possible to not take a side when studying history. You're either commiting to one historiographical theory or to another, for example. And, if there is not such thing as political Physics or Chemestry, there is not such thing as a Theory of History that isn't linked to some specific political view or philosophy.

So, neutrality is impossible; but one can clumsily try to give space to 2 interpretations at the same time. So even if his fellows are not convinced that he is neutral, they'll recognized he tried not to be loaded.

I don't know how your research was - actually I'm eager to ask you for sources and material in the future, if you don't mind - but I assume, and I'm sorry if I'm wrong, that you used the most frequent view, that exists both in the academia and in the common sense, that medieval structures were corrupt and, if not malevolent, surely worse and less human than our modern values. More or less the "dark ages" thing.

I don't have enough study of history to have "picked a side" yet, but I like the way some medievalists like Jaques LeGoff see the Middle Ages: as an alien time, yes, but also as the nest where modern humanism was born. They also see their values not as non-sensical, but as valid.

Ironically, I think we spend almost none of our cultural relativism to understand and justify the Middle Ages. I think the Middle Ages justify themselves, as out times justify themselves. I mean, do I really think like this? None, but this is a perspective I force myself to bear sometimes, as an exercise.

Finally, my question. "Historically accurate" doesn't mean "unloaded". You're a story teller and story tellers take sides. Are you sure you didn't take too much of a perspective that judged the medieval age, without redeeming or outright justifying it enough?

Peace :)

PS: my player plays a Pally too. Our cases are very like one another.

Beleriphon
2013-02-21, 10:47 AM
Maybe the solution is to mantain all the religious-political-cultural structures, but change names and details. I already said I don't believe politheism can do the trick. But maybe philosophy can.

I can change Christianity can be substituted a vague belief system where I don't have to talk about God or gods. Like the Light in Warcraft. Maybe that's how I'm calling it... the Light, or the Way, or something like that.


Actually a polytheistic structure can work quite well. The local clergy can invoke the entire (small) pantheon.

Don't think of polytheism like each deity having its own clergy, or rather not necessarily. Just like there are a number of ways to interpret monotheism (Christians don't entirely agree on what counts as God as an example). There are a number of polytheistic ideas you can work with. Henotheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism) is the idea you find in most RPGs, it basically means that there are many gods but you choose one to worship even if the others are also worthy of such a choice. The Forgotten Realms basically works this way, and so did the ancient Mesopotamian religions.

There is also kathenotheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathenotheism) which works on the basis of worshiping each deity in turn as supreme (either fully or in a particular aspect of life) but the pantheon as a whole is also venerated (Eberron's Sovereign Host (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_of_Eberron#Sovereign_Host) works on this basis).

You can also have monolatrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatrism) which is the veneration of a single deity who is worshiped above all others, and the others are not worthy of veneration. In essence the religion recognizes other deities exist, but that they are lesser or not equal to the one the religion follows. A real example of such a religion is Atenism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten) from ancient Egypt.

If you want to take a look at differing ways you can use polytheism check out the article about the fictional religions in Eberron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_of_Eberron). They cover the majority of the types of deific ideas one can find. Note that Eberron is NOT polytheistic as a whole, although certain religious orders might be.

That being said if you want the tone and rationale just file the serial numbers off a real religion and go with that. You still want to be careful since most players are smart enough to recognize what you're doing, so you might want to swap out some of the parts too. The thing you want to emphasize is the importance of a religion to a region rather than the specific practices of the religion. You don't need to call something Catholicism, or even work the same way, to impress upon the players the importance of high level religious authority in Obviously-Not-Sixteenth-Century-France.

Mighty_Chicken
2013-02-21, 11:43 AM
Actually a polytheistic structure can work quite well. The local clergy can invoke the entire (small) pantheon.

Don't think of polytheism like each deity having its own clergy, or rather not necessarily. Just like there are a number of ways to interpret monotheism (Christians don't entirely agree on what counts as God as an example). There are a number of polytheistic ideas you can work with.

Well, I know there are many forms of polytheism, just like there are many forms of deism, animalism and monotheism.

Religious authority, including it's effects in politics, can be mimicked by any of the above. A Pope can be substituted by a Grand Druid, a Matriarch or anything like that.

The cultural influence can, too. Including the shock with different religions. For example, a Zoroastrian-like polytheistic religion could label foreign religious experiences both as sacred or profane (as the Christian medievel explorers did).

But then again, there are still two problems left:

1) Conversion is a big deal in christian-muslim, christian-jew, christian-yoruba (Subsaarian Africa), christian-Amerindian and even christian-pagan (european) relationships. It wouldn't be - and in fact, historically it wasn't - that a big deal between 2 polytheistic religions. In my country, Amerindian and African religious blended very naturally. What's the problem if instead of 24 gods, there are 37? But in Christian and Muslim medieval thought, there is one God, and other things are either good-intended or bad-intended perversions of the truth.

This brings many issues.

a) Conversion of the heathens was both a true motivation and an excuse to spend money and human lives with the Navigations. I can't imagine any polytheistic religion giving as much importance to conversion as Christianity and Islam do. Navigations without a culture of conversion is like the French Revolution without famine. It just stops being historical.

b) Conversion is a big social thing. Non-muslims were officially second class citizens in the caliphates. Jews and Muslims suffered big pressure to convert in Christian lands. I intend to use this social issue in the campaign.

Solutions: conversion as social drama can be partially substituted for ethnicity alright... but without conversion the Navigations lose their context.


2) The Christian-Muslim world rivalry. It's not like Rome and Cartage. There's a different dynamic going on. I believe the Romans "humilliated" the Cartagen gods after their victory; but that was a national issue turned religious. In the Middle Ages it was just the opposite: religious issues turned political.

If it wasn't for the wars, Roman and Cartagen gods would eventually share the pantheon, at least in some places. But even at peace, you can't be at the same time Christian and Muslim, because ironically, Roman and Cartagen gods are totally different and non-exclusive, but the Abrahamic religions share the same God and have exclusive views on Him.

Solution: I could turn it simply into a political thing. A clash between superpowers. But I'd lose: a) the naturally hostile reaction to the Portuguese in the muslim-dominated Indian Sea and b) the difficulty to penetrate the Muslim world as a Christian and vice versa.

So, do you guys think those are really issues polytheism isn't enough to deal with, or am I wrong?

Another_Poet
2013-02-21, 12:53 PM
It's hard to mimic the dynamic between those two religions with politheistic pantheons. I can't imagine this kind of rivalry and urge to convert people from politheism.


Maybe the solution is to mantain all the religious-political-cultural structures, but change names and details.

I think this is a very good idea.

You can create fantasy monotheism traditions as easily as fantasy polytheism. In one of my favorite home brewed settings, all the human kingdoms worship one Sun Goddess, but half of them still burn a child as a sacrifice once a year and half of them have reformed. The reformed ones have a savior who was viewed as the daughter of the Sun Goddess, who stopped the sacrifices. They view her as a figure of mercy, whereas the traditionalists view it as heretical.

You can accomplish a lot by making factions of one religious framework.

Also, thank you for presenting this the way you did. I guess I have a thick skin about this topic. As a real-life polytheist, all fantasy worlds are basically a parody of my religion. You get used to it after a while, and it just brings the occasional eye-roll when it's done poorly. But for people who are not used to seeing their religion turned into a fantasy, I can see how it would be very upsetting.

It seems like you are dealing with it respectfully and trying to make it right for everyone involved.

BlckDv
2013-02-21, 02:35 PM
I'll chime in with the general notion that if you want to include any less than pristine artifacts from a religion's past or explore ideas that may be historically accurate (or even not.. just what people in historical eras THOUGHT was accurate) you probably want to file off the serial numbers. Most of History is not absolute, and if you use the version championed by Academic Theory X, but a player feels that theory is hostile to their faith, it is going to go poorly.

I ran a very successful game in which the religious portion was based around the idea that the beliefs of a real world religious sect that split off a major faith were right, and the mainstream version of the faith was wrong. The twist was that almost everyone in the game world still held the analogue of the mainstream view, and it worked well for society. I altered the names, and put in a back story by which the universe went from a classic D&D Polytheism to a Monotheism, and the players never got uncomfortable.

In fact, several of the players who follow the mainstream views in RL had PCs that came to uphold the splitter sect and crusaded to spread its beliefs, without ever feeling their real world faith was being disrespected or mocked.

I talked privately with some of the players I knew would be open to crazy ideas after the campaign was over, and they all agreed that having been told, the belief systems that had been used were clearly evident, but that they had never felt like the game was trying to reflect the real world, so had not tried to project their faith from the real world into the game.

If you "need" to keep the real world names, make a BIG DEAL that this is a fantasy alternate world in which the faiths may say and do things which would/did not happen in our world, and give the players a chance to express any element of specific faiths which would make them uncomfortable to have portrayed in the game. Maybe a player is OK with a fictional religious leader of their faith being portrayed as corrupt, but would not be okay with having a DM portray running a sacred rite of their faith, even fictionally. You need to know these things.

I would be really sure even if you DO file the names off to stay a mile away from portraying any element in game that mirrored a current hot topic or controversy for a specific faith unless every player had given a crystal clear 100% OK that they knew it was coming and were ok with exploring that content in a fictional setting.

Mighty_Chicken
2013-02-21, 02:43 PM
Hey Poet, nice to meet you. You made me think of a number of stuff.

First, heh, I don't have the thick skin you developed. The god-child sacrifice religion you described made me a little nervous.

Which is funny and brings me to the other thing: ow man. You tell me of how bad it feels when people use your religion for entertainment, just when I was starting to think about blaxsploiting Yoruba tradition? I respect this religion a lot but... no one in the party was going to get offended if I made things more colorful. But you just made me see that some things are just bad taste. The DM is the adult in the house and should care about it.

I confess I haven't think of the very simple solution of creating a fictious monotheist religion - like in Dogs in the Vineyard. The problem here is a) it loses the historical feeling and b) maybe my friend may no be just sensible to names, but also to the theme.

Anyway, bringing in a monotheistic religion has its own advantages. For example, in real life, Christianity is being questioned since the French Revolution. It's 300 years of deconstruction - there is no way a modern person can understand how medieval people saw their own faith and world without a lot of historical or religious knowledge. Can my players really understand how mad Christian were at Jews, how afraid they were of witches? Can they see Muslims as a threatening empire, instead of the depressing image TV gave us?

If I reintroduce all these things by new names, it is easier to make them see things in the way the Navigators saw them. Which is one of my impossible plot goals.

bonus tip: Christians are much more passionate about Jesus than about God - for reasons more complex than it seems. If you have a Christian in your group and doesn't want to offend him/her, mention a God, but don't mention a character that works exactly like Jesus Christ. Also, the OT/NT severity dichotomy is something nowadays Christians may get defensive about, so not the best thing to reference.

I don't have any polytheist friend in my group, but for good taste's sake, I'll accept tips about how to not disrespect polytheistic religions, if you kindly don't mind :)


So far, this whole discussion have been helping me to have a lot of spare ideas - so when I go talk to my player, I have a wide range of solutions I can present him.

EDIT:




I talked privately with some of the players I knew would be open to crazy ideas after the campaign was over, and they all agreed that having been told, the belief systems that had been used were clearly evident, but that they had never felt like the game was trying to reflect the real world, so had not tried to project their faith from the real world into the game.

If you "need" to keep the real world names, make a BIG DEAL that this is a fantasy alternate world in which the faiths may say and do things which would/did not happen in our world, and give the players a chance to express any element of specific faiths which would make them uncomfortable to have portrayed in the game. Maybe a player is OK with a fictional religious leader of their faith being portrayed as corrupt, but would not be okay with having a DM portray running a sacred rite of their faith, even fictionally. You need to know these things.

I would be really sure even if you DO file the names off to stay a mile away from portraying any element in game that mirrored a current hot topic or controversy for a specific faith unless every player had given a crystal clear 100% OK that they knew it was coming and were ok with exploring that content in a fictional setting.

Excellent advice.

Beleriphon
2013-02-21, 04:01 PM
But then again, there are still two problems left:

1) Conversion is a big deal in christian-muslim, christian-jew, christian-yoruba (Subsaarian Africa), christian-Amerindian and even christian-pagan (european) relationships. It wouldn't be - and in fact, historically it wasn't - that a big deal between 2 polytheistic religions. In my country, Amerindian and African religious blended very naturally. What's the problem if instead of 24 gods, there are 37? But in Christian and Muslim medieval thought, there is one God, and other things are either good-intended or bad-intended perversions of the truth.

There were several religions that had antagonistic views of other deities. Keep in mind the only thing you need to have polytheism is the different religions admitting there is more than one deity. They don't have to worship all of them, or even like the others. They just have to admit they exist. That was the thing with Atenism, it was monolatrism because Aten was the only god that could be worshiped, but the culture admitted there were other ones out there. It was even big on conversion, often at sword-point. Sure it only lasted a single generation since the Pharoh got himself a bad case of dagger-in-back but was still a conversion based polytheistic faith.

The idea of not having a problem with a multitude of deities is largely driven by Roman expansion in Europe. The Roman government just didn't care about religions as a whole, as long as you swore allegiance to Rome you could worship anything from the official state religion(s) to snail slime. That decision was entirely political as a means of expediting the conquering to new peoples.


This brings many issues.

a) Conversion of the heathens was both a true motivation and an excuse to spend money and human lives with the Navigations. I can't imagine any polytheistic religion giving as much importance to conversion as Christianity and Islam do. Navigations without a culture of conversion is like the French Revolution without famine. It just stops being historical.

b) Conversion is a big social thing. Non-Muslims were officially second class citizens in the Caliphates. Jews and Muslims suffered big pressure to convert in Christian lands. I intend to use this social issue in the campaign.

Solutions: conversion as social drama can be partially substituted for ethnicity alright... but without conversion the Navigations lose their context.

Conversions are easy, if you have a big enough base all you have to do is convince the locals that their religion is REALLY just a version of yours. In many cases this is exactly what happened, look at the Prose Edda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose_Edda) written by Snorri Sturluson. Its an Icelandic Christian's interpretation of Scandinavian religions and myths filtered through a 13th century view of history. It basically explains away Odin and the Aesir as Trojan expatriates. A Christian scholar write a clearly polytheistic religion into this own world view. The Romans did the same thing with the Greek gods to such a degree for a long time Romanized Greeks were the state religion of Roman.


2) The Christian-Muslim world rivalry. It's not like Rome and Cartage. There's a different dynamic going on. I believe the Romans "humiliated" the Cartagenian gods after their victory; but that was a national issue turned religious. In the Middle Ages it was just the opposite: religious issues turned political.

If it wasn't for the wars, Roman and Carthagenian gods would eventually share the pantheon, at least in some places. But even at peace, you can't be at the same time Christian and Muslim, because ironically, Roman and Carthagenian gods are totally different and non-exclusive, but the Abrahamic religions share the same God and have exclusive views on Him.

This is very true, although that was more of a policy of Rome than one of the religions. Its entirely possible to be a member of a polytheistic religion but not another one. For example I don't think most Aboriginal people of North America would consider themselves members of that group if they starting following Hindu traditions. Rome was super inclusive about this, but the religions were largely separate. Religions aren't static mind you and they can do absorb ideas from other belief systems.

As for rivalry a good portion of that was driven by politics not so much religion. Religion was used by both side to fire up the masses, but Romans did the same the Chinese could the same, even the Sub-Saharan Africans did the same. If you really think about conversion is just a way to get the other guy on your side without killing him. You can do that with a polytheistic religion as well. Look at the Forgotten Realms, you don't generally go from worshiping Sune to Shar without a reason. In many cases its an issue of sword-point conversions or somehow convincing the other guy that your version of "truth" is correct.

You could even present polytheistic religions as sharing the same set of deities but having very different views about what they actually mean. If one group worshiped Alpha as the chief and the others Beta and the other chief was viewed a betrayer then you have yourself a rivalry that you can work and use the same fictional pantheon.


Solution: I could turn it simply into a political thing. A clash between superpowers. But I'd lose: a) the naturally hostile reaction to the Portuguese in the muslim-dominated Indian Sea and b) the difficulty to penetrate the Muslim world as a Christian and vice versa.

So, do you guys think those are really issues polytheism isn't enough to deal with, or am I wrong?

Cirin
2013-02-21, 07:54 PM
Finally, my question. "Historically accurate" doesn't mean "unloaded". You're a story teller and story tellers take sides. Are you sure you didn't take too much of a perspective that judged the medieval age, without redeeming or outright justifying it enough?


Well, it started poorly.

He walked up to the priest, and started apologizing that he hadn't been able to confess his sins for three weeks.

He, in real life, went to confession every week, and was taught that it is improper to go more than one week without the sacrament of reconciliation.

Routine confession of venial sins was pretty clearly NOT a regular practice of the laity in the late 13th century. The entire concept of confession of sins as a regular requirement was only established about 80 years earlier, and even then it was only a requirement for the laity to confess once per year, typically undertaken around Easter.

A young knight walking in and gushingly apologizing that it's been almost a whole month since he's confessed would be quite out of place, conspicuously so. When I had the priest try to explain that unless he'd recently committed a mortal sin and needed absolution, he didn't need to confess every venial sin every week. . .that was the first time the player gave me an "oh please!" look.

It got worse when he tried to accuse the "scholar" of being a witch. (Well, he was a low-level Wizard, but he was very careful to be subtle about his magic).

He demanded the Inquisition immediately arrest the party "scholar" and torture a confession out of him. Of course, the very first inquisition had only been founded 5 years earlier, and it's focus was very specifically on the gnostic Cathar movement in southern France at the time, and wouldn't be authorized the use of torture for another 60 years.

Accusing a university scholar of heresy on the vague speculation that his scholarly books were heretical texts (i.e. he couldn't read the magical script, his character knew Latin and knew that wasn't Latin) and said that he was sure he was a "witch" since he'd said strange words on the battlefield and then their enemies had fallen comatose, like witchcraft (i.e. the wizard cast Sleep). The inquisition wouldn't even begin to go after witchcraft for around 300 years, witchcraft was NOT a significant concern of the Church in the 1180's.

On this whole issue, he got even angrier. He was certain that the Inquisition was almost as old as the Church itself, and it had been devoted since the beginning to stamping out witchcraft and heresy in all its forms, everywhere the Church existed.

The last straw was when the Priest tried to send him on his way with a perfunctory blessing. The Paladin kept trying to convince the Priest that the scholar was some heretical witch. The Priest just tried to shoo him on, and said he was going home because his wife and son were waiting on him.

Oh boy. That was a big one.

You see, the requirement that Priests be celibate was also only a few decades old at that point, was still controversial in the Church in the late 12th century as the practice was slowly being phased out, and there is lots of historic evidence that there were still the clergy for several decades, especially further out from Rome (since this particular incident happened in-game in England, pretty far out). The last married Pope was Clement IV, elected in 1265 (i.e. 76 years after that point in the campaign).

However, he was CERTAIN that the Priests had never been married, ever. Never mind that many historic records talked about Pope Clement IV being married after this point in time, about how the Second Lateran Council had only banned clerical marriage shortly before the campaign started and how records showed it was not widely obeyed for decades.

The idea that Priests would openly defy a Church Council (i.e. anybody married after this council had banned it) was something else he couldn't understand. When I explained that part to him, that without as regular communications that places further out from Rome tended to be much slower to fall into line with changes to doctrine. Out-of-game, he assumed his character knew about the Second Lateran Council in-game and then started calling the Priest a heretic and saying his marriage was obviously invalid.

. . .at about that moment he broke character to deliver a tirade about how I don't respect his beliefs and I've made a mockery of the Catholic Church: with married priests and inquisitors that don't immediately respond to accusations of witchcraft, and Priests that aren't dutifully taking everybodies weekly confession.

The entire incident was around 13 years ago, so that's the details the best I could recall them.

fusilier
2013-02-22, 05:54 AM
Well, it started poorly.

He walked up to the priest, and started apologizing that he hadn't been able to confess his sins for three weeks.

. . . snip . . .

. . .at about that moment he broke character to deliver a tirade about how I don't respect his beliefs and I've made a mockery of the Catholic Church: with married priests and inquisitors that don't immediately respond to accusations of witchcraft, and Priests that aren't dutifully taking everybodies weekly confession.

The entire incident was around 13 years ago, so that's the details the best I could recall them.

Wow, that's rough. You clearly studied your history very well, and to have a player not respect that must have been hard. Thankfully most of my players trust me when it comes to stuff like this. The only thing different that I might do is "break" character to explain that they are doing something that their characters wouldn't do (i.e. the characters would know better), then all them to retract their actions. But I don't think it would have mattered with the player you describe.

Slipperychicken
2013-02-22, 04:57 PM
The entire incident was around 13 years ago, so that's the details the best I could recall them.

Did you actually tell him any of that stuff, or did you just assume he knew? Because if you didn't tell him, it would have looked like you were just dissing his religion by making their priests into total heretical jerks.

EDIT: It also seems like the kind of information you'd want to include in the setting backstory. Even I didn't know half any of that stuff.

Cirin
2013-02-22, 11:10 PM
Did you actually tell him any of that stuff, or did you just assume he knew? Because if you didn't tell him, it would have looked like you were just dissing his religion by making their priests into total heretical jerks.

EDIT: It also seems like the kind of information you'd want to include in the setting backstory. Even I didn't know half any of that stuff.

Yeah, I tried to tell him these things.

He repeatedly insisted he knew Catholic doctrine, including historically. I told him there were substantial differences between 1990's Catholicism and 1180's Catholicism. He said that the differences were slight and that the fundamental truths of the Church was eternal and unchanging, he didn't need me to tell him the differences and could handle himself just fine.

Well, since he swore up and down that he knew all the differences, I didn't push the point. In retrospect, as I said, he basically presumed that everything from right after the Apostolic Era until the present day was the same Post-Vatican II Church, except with Latin Mass, an omnipresent heretic-torturing inquisition, and eating meat on Friday being a mortal sin.

I had my big campaign setting binder with maps (and NPC's written up in the DM section) and lots and lots of history and lore and culture notes, often with quotes from primary sources. There were sections in there on various aspects of culture if any player wanted to study up.

Most at least browsed through the binder, some had a few questions about the role of their character class in the setting or about their character background.

I also made it pretty clear I wasn't going to hammer people big for little cultural mistakes, I might gently correct them in-character, but I wasn't going to instantly hold it against a PC.

I wanted it to be a D&D game that had at least a little bit of an educational element to it. I'd learned a LOT about the era, and thought playing a D&D scenario in a fairly realistic version of the middle ages would be an interesting spin on the pseudo-medieval typical D&D setting: see the difference between a more realistic medieval and what the typical fantasy gamer thinks of as medieval thanks to classic D&D.

Since he presumed there were no substantial changes in the last 800 years of Catholicism, but didn't really let me know that (he just said he knew what the Church believed back then and knew the history of his own faith, and insisted he knew it better than I did).

With everybody else, it was a fun game that got praise. With him, he treated it as a personal insult to his religion, and no amount of historic evidence that these things were well established facts about the Church in the 12th century would change that.