Your beliefs? And how they shape what you might play

[randomhero00]

I'm wondering if there is a correlation between what you might believe in real life, and what you tend to play/favor in an RPG.

For instance, if you believe in the supernatural, life after death, or whatever, is it more likely you'd rather play a wizard over a fighter?

These days I'm none too sure what I believe in exactly. I do believe in life after death...but beyond that I'm not sure (like if actions affect what happens after death, etc).

I want to believe in the supernatural (ghosts, spirits, ESP, whatever) but just haven't seen any real evidence, well except for some crazy happenstances over my life. But statistics say that in a world of billions, crazy stuff will happen every day.

Anyways, that said, I do much much prefer the roleplaying of magic type using classes. I also put a lot of stock on brains and willpower IRL, and big surprise, I like the idea of Psion the best.

Now remember, this is what you like the idea of the most, not what class might be the most fun for you to play mechanically or the most powerful combo in game...strictly roleplaying.

[Grinner]

For instance, if you believe in the supernatural, life after death, or whatever, is it more likely you'd rather play a wizard over a fighter?

It's worth pointing out that wizards in most RPGs don't lend themselves well to a supernatural image. Think about it. They consistently produce certain effects through certain actions. Done correctly, there's very little chance of anything backfiring. Yet, when they start getting experimental, they end up making horrific monstrosities of all kinds. To top it all off, they're described as manipulating energy, a physical medium.

That's not magic. That's science.

[Morph Bark]

That's not magic. That's science.

You say that like something cannot be both.

Magic is simply a science, just like mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology.

[randomhero00]

Wizards are clearly supernatural to us humans. Science produces nothing of the sort of personal power a wizard could muster. Science has produced flamethrowers in the real world, but I'd say a scientist is a lot more akin to some kind of magical craftsmen or alchemist in an RPG than a wizard.

I'd also disagree that most wizards in RPGs are like the DnD wizard.

Anyways, that is kind of off topic as I am talking about beliefs, not job description or ways of discovering truth. Science is not a religion or a belief. It is a way of going about things to prove what is possible in our natural world.

[ghost_warlock]

Anyways, that is kind of off topic as I am talking about beliefs, not job description or ways of discovering truth. Science is not a religion or a belief. It is a way of going about things to prove what is possible in our natural world.

+1

As for me, although I'm sure that my personal beliefs/non-beliefs color my character choices, they don't dominate them. In terms of the supernatural I've played the gamut of characters from atheists to shamans to priests to gods themselves. Morally, I've played every alignment in D&D and in the other systems I've spent a good deal playing I've also played a number of moralities - from the saint to the murderous psychopath rapist. Granted, the most horrific acts usually take place behind the scenes, but not always since I usually play with other mature players.

[GenericMook]

Nope. My beliefs don't shape anything with my characters.

My experiences and inspiration from fiction tends to do that. Most of the time, I make a build and develop a character from there. I think about it for two/three days, and settle on what I like.

[Raimun]

No, not really. I can separate my character from myself.

... Unless you count my opinion that modern combat fought with modern weapons (guns, intercontinental missiles, etc.) isn't honorable. That's different from whether it's good or evil, mind you.
Anyway, that's part of the reason my characters tend to gravitate towards close combat and melee. Still, I've played plenty of characters who used guns.

[JoshuaZ]

For a while now I've wanted to play a necromancer with strong transhumanist attitudes. I have strong philosophical sympathy with transhumanists, but I don't think their goals are likely to be practically doable anytime soon. This SMBC is relevant.

But most of my characters are generally pretty far away from my personal beliefs.

[Grinner]

Wizards are clearly supernatural to us humans. Science produces nothing of the sort of personal power a wizard could muster. Science has produced flamethrowers in the real world, but I'd say a scientist is a lot more akin to some kind of magical craftsmen or alchemist in an RPG than a wizard.

I'd also disagree that most wizards in RPGs are like the DnD wizard.

Anyways, that is kind of off topic as I am talking about beliefs, not job description or ways of discovering truth. Science is not a religion or a belief. It is a way of going about things to prove what is possible in our natural world.

I dare say that D&D-world operates on slightly different physics, where such personal power is quite possible.

Besides, science, not strictly speaking, is very much a belief. I take it on the scientific community's word that the things they propose exist. I myself have never seen an atom up close, nor have I ever tampered with DNA. I don't know these things, I merely believe in them.

[BlckDv]

Thinking about this question made me aware of a line I had not previously been aware of in my own RP habits.

When playing a Modern or Future setting, I tend to enjoy settings which mimic my understanding of a world that fits my beliefs about our real world, whether or not my character believes as I do. I want a setting in which any divine force is mysterious and the world "makes sense" without demanding you believe, but belief in such a force exists among many of the inhabitants, I want a world that has laws of science which behave and are well mapped, even if those laws include forces not present in our experience (such as functional communication via telepathy, or FTL travel). Within that setting I may play an atheistic mercenary or a star hopping chaplain seeing God in the mystery of the stars; but I do not enjoy Modern/Future settings which establish outright "The Greek Gods are real and show up to swan hump you sometimes." (Now, a setting in which Aliens/Time Travelers/Etc. impersonated the Greek Gods either now or in the past a la Dan Simmons Illium novel setting would be fine)

When playing a Fantasy setting I want the opposite.. I want Magic that works and Gods that have met mortals. I want creatures that just flat out don't work by modern laws of biology, I want an afterlife that has tangible proof and in which being an atheistic naturalist would be at best borderline madness. In large part I want a Fantasy world that does not reflect the belief of any player at the table, so that we all agree that the made up story we tell is not being disrespectful or alternately evangelistic for any real world belief system. Because I want a world so definitely not my own, I don't find that my beliefs impact what sorts of characters I end up playing in those settings.

I've erased some more that originally followed, as going any further in my answer brings in too much concrete commentary on my real world faith and would invite debate which I think may quickly stress the forum rules.

[nedz]

I've occasionally ran moral quandary type plots which can be quite revealing.

There was one where I had an evil young cultist going around sacrificing children. After a lot of effort in tracking him down, they caught him and took him into custody. The locals formed a lynch mob which the party held off. They then took him off to the city for trial — well actually they allowed the Paladin of Horus to take him to his temple. The trial was brief, and the sentence capital. Apart from one player (the paladin as it happens) the rest of the party split along their real world views on this matter.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Yes, actually. I tend to avoid classes that more or less force religious overtones such as the paladin and the cleric. I don't really have issues with favored souls since they, according to the fluff, didn't choose their powers, the powers choose them. But classes that actively pray to a god for their powers just doesn't sit to well with me. I have no issues with others playing them, but for me personally? I'd rather steer clear of them.

[randomhero00]

BlckDv- Reading your post I realized I am quite similar. If you want we could discuss more in PM.

Grinner- I really don't want to get sidetracked here. But science is not a belief. Your examples, atoms and DNA, are not "science" they are a product of the scientific method met from observable facts through our natural world.

In other words, to use the simplest of examples, 1+1=2 is correct not because of any belief, but because that's the way it is in our universe. You can prove it. Whether you understand how you can prove it or not does not rely on ones belief in it.

[SamBurke]

My beliefs have about magic actually being a science have caused me to look at the game in a whole new way, and I am currently re-writing the entirety of the ruleset of DnD in order to promote the idea of science and roleplaying.

That is all.

EDIT: Must reply.

Grinner- I really don't want to get sidetracked here. But science is not a belief. Your examples, atoms and DNA, are not "science" they are a product of the scientific method met from observable facts through our natural world.

In other words, to use the simplest of examples, 1+1=2 is correct not because of any belief, but because that's the way it is in our universe. You can prove it. Whether you understand how you can prove it or not does not rely on ones belief in it.

Grievously incorrect. 1+1=2 is not provable to anyone who does not have a fundamental understanding of the number 2. In fact, all of math is built on a set of postulates (such as the law of non-contradiction), which in turn are formed out of traditional Western Logic. Thus, science, while not a "belief" in itself, is based on a system of belief. This belief is well-founded, of course, but it is nonetheless belief.

This is a fundamentally different pointing out of the belief, compared to what Grinner said. Nevertheless, I agree with him as well. You, personally, cannot know very much about the universe. I, presumably, know less. Nevertheless, we have a system of credibility in place (universities, scholarly reviews, peer reviewed journals, scientific testing et all) which allows us to be fairly confident that the unprovable parts of our world are as we believe them to be.

[Grinner]

Grinner- I really don't want to get sidetracked here. But science is not a belief. Your examples, atoms and DNA, are not "science" they are a product of the scientific method met from observable facts through our natural world.

In other words, to use the simplest of examples, 1+1=2 is correct not because of any belief, but because that's the way it is in our universe. You can prove it. Whether you understand how you can prove it or not does not rely on ones belief in it.

If they're not categorized as science, then what would you place them under?

The scientific method is the heart of science, but science itself seems to have grown beyond it, I'm afraid.

[prufock]

Well, if we want to be literal, everything you experience shapes everything you do. Whether that has a noticeable effect is a different matter.

I think that my beliefs absolutely shape the characters I play. I know my education does. I have a psychology degree, and every character I build has some sort of psychological rationale. Often I'll hone in on some psychological concept and build around that. I tend to do research for my characters.

Let's take the current character I'm playing as an example. I'm would classify myself as something of a humanist. I believe strongly in encouraging people, supporting people, and complimenting people - not falsely, but sincerely in a "look for the silver lining" way. I'm a pretty honest guy as well.

My current character: a bard that uses Perform: oratory as motivational speaking and pep talks. He tries to be everyone's friend and believes that all differences can be solved through diplomacy. Granted this isn't always true in the world of D&D, and sometimes he is forced into a more direct militaristic approach, but he'll always try talking first, and he always regrets having to hurt anyone. Everyone should make an effort to get along, or at least be civil to one another. After all, life is hard. No need to make it harder. He rarely lies (but is good at it if he chooses to; better to fix a situation through a harmless lie than violence). His cheerful mood also extends to objects and situations. He always has something good to say.

He will go out of his way to help people, he always has something cheerful to say, he's genuinely interested in people's stories, and he will give encouragement freely. He is, in many ways, what I try to be (though I don't have nearly as many ranks in the pertinent skills, and charisma is quite possibly my dump stat).

He would agree with the statement "Beginning today, treat everyone you meet as if they were going to be dead by midnight. Extend them all the care, kindness and understanding you can muster. Your life will never be the same again."

I've looked up things regarding motivational speaking, influence, likeability, and I try to portray those things through the character.

I've also played an atheist wizard who treated magic as a science, a force user/gambler that was a bit of a con man but always stood up for what he felt was right, and an Objectivist heroic cleric who would not help anyone that didn't help themselves (but would always take time for those who were willing to do the work). These reflect at least a part of my own beliefs.

Not all character concepts are so readily applicable though. I've even played some evil characters that don't reflect my beliefs at all, but they are still psychologically motivated.

[AuraTwilight]

Nah, not really. Feeding my own beliefs, whatever they may be, into an explicitly fictional setting different from reality seems sort of silly to me.

[prufock]

If they're not categorized as science, then what would you place them under?

The scientific method is the heart of science, but science itself seems to have grown beyond it, I'm afraid.

Science is a (set of) discipline(s). It has rules to govern how we seek out facts. It's a way to study the universe. Atoms and DNA could be classified as facts or objects.

[SowZ]

I'm a religous person in real life who leans towards freedom as the most important value. (I don't think we can name drop our religions/political parites?) Regardless, I can play atheist/occult/pacifists/new-age-everything-is-perception-its-all-a-dream characters and rebels/government-super-agents/fairly-oppressive-paladiny-types... no, I don't think so. If anything, I try and fairly explore new ideas and different ways of thinking when I make a serious character.

[randomhero00]

If they're not categorized as science, then what would you place them under?

The scientific method is the heart of science, but science itself seems to have grown beyond it, I'm afraid.

A product of science as I already said.

You are referring to the scientists who have jumped in to the pool of philosophy (i.e. quantum stuff and string theory and such but that is no longer science.)

SamBurke- you just spouted a bunch of goblygook (which no, I don't know what that means lol)... you seem to be postulating that an ignorance of 2 means that you must have a belief in it...well no, just because one does not understand something does not make it faith, belief, or any such thing. The laws of the universe are there whether we know them or not. 1+1=2 was true 60 thousand years ago before we even invented math, and it'll be true after the human race dies.

It's kind of analogous to the law. Just because you might have an ignorance of a law, does not make one not-guilty in court (unfortunately :D )

[Grinner]

Science is a (set of) discipline(s). It has rules to govern how we seek out facts. It's a way to study the universe. Atoms and DNA could be classified as facts or objects.

Then how would you respond to the trend towards theoretical sciences?

[prufock]

Then how would you respond to the trend towards theoretical sciences?

In what respect? Theoretical sciences still follow particular rules in studying the universe - falsifiability, replication, etc.

You are referring to the scientists who have jumped in to the pool of philosophy (i.e. quantum stuff and string theory and such but that is no longer science.)

I'd be careful about slamming that hammer down. Science started as a branch of philosophy, was even dubbed "natural philosophy", and theoretical sciences are still systematic in their approach to understanding phenomena. As long as they are still forming testable predictions, it's still science.

[Grinner]

In what respect? Theoretical sciences still follow particular rules in studying the universe - falsifiability, replication, etc.

In that they rely more upon rationalism than empiricism, thus being theoretical.

[JoshuaZ]

Grievously incorrect. 1+1=2 is not provable to anyone who does not have a fundamental understanding of the number 2. In fact, all of math is built on a set of postulates (such as the law of non-contradiction), which in turn are formed out of traditional Western Logic. Thus, science, while not a "belief" in itself, is based on a system of belief. This belief is well-founded, of course, but it is nonetheless belief.

Counting discrete entities is a basic aspect of reality, which even some non-human species, such as many ravens and crows can do. Curiously, other ancient cultures, not only the classical "Western" ones developed basic logic. India would be the most obvious example. It is however, possible that the issue being discussed is one that is more about definitions than anything else. What do you mean by belief? Do you mean that things aren't certain? If so, that's trivially true. I can't rule out (although it seems extremely unlikely) that 1+2=4 and the main reason I think that 1+2=3 is because I've just had a stroke. But this isn't a reason to disregard beliefs or see all statements as having equal validity. Thus, I can assign a higher probability to 1+1=2 than I do to Andrew Jackson being a President of the United States which has a higher probability than there having been an assassin on the grassy knoll, which has a higher probability than Jack the Ripper having been a time-traveling alien. Beware the fallacy of grey.

So the lack of provability in the strong sense really doesn't matter for much purpose beyond first year philosophy.

[prufock]

In that they rely more upon rationalism than empiricism, thus being theoretical.

I understand what theoretical science entails. What I mean is: in what way is this question related to what I said previously (and wasn't answered in my last post)?

[Moriwen]

I think my beliefs shape what I play, but only in a "play what you know" sort of way. It's fun to apply the ways that real-life religious people act, good and bad, to, say, a cleric of a deity of death and destruction.

They also, I think, shape my characters in a reverse way--I'm not likely to play a character whose beliefs are very close to mine, just as I don't play characters who look just like me or have the same interests or personality.

[randomhero00]

I'd be careful about slamming that hammer down. Science started as a branch of philosophy, was even dubbed "natural philosophy", and theoretical sciences are still systematic in their approach to understanding phenomena. As long as they are still forming testable predictions, it's still science.

Oh I know the first parts. And I was almost a philosophy major, there's nothing wrong with philosophy. But string theory and such, is not science. And that's the point, they are not forming testable predictions last I checked. Doesn't mean its useless, far from it. Its a great framework for when science does catch up. Just not science yet.

Philosophy also systematically approaches the human phenomenon and experience. Doesn't make it science.

[JoshuaZ]

You are referring to the scientists who have jumped in to the pool of philosophy (i.e. quantum stuff and string theory and such but that is no longer science.)

So I'm not sure what you mean by "quantum stuff"- quantum mechanics makes testable predictions which are used all the time in our everyday lives, such as with lasers. Heck, the computer you are reading this on now uses very small transistors whose behavior only makes sense and can only be designed using quantum mechanics. So if it is a lack of testability then "quantum stuff" doesn't fall into an sort of philosophical pool. Here I'm using a variant of Popper's notion that scientific ideas should be falsifiable/testable- this isn't a perfect criterion for what ideas are or are not scientific but it works as a good rough approximation.

Now, string theory is an interesting different case. The primary problem is that string theory seems to be as of yet not testable. However, this should not by itself cause one to dismiss something as not science if something simply isn't testable now. Often hypotheses are difficult or nearly impossible to test for decades after they are constructed.. That doesn't make the hypothesis non-scientific by itself (although if this goes on for a while this can be a serious warning sign).

[randomhero00]

QM yes. By quantum stuff I was more, editing for my current audience. I wasn't thinking too much on, more just about the quantum world in general. But yes, I know we use QM to quite a successful degree. My engineer friend just went back to school for it.

[pendell]

You say that like something cannot be both.

Magic is simply a science, just like mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology.

I don't believe that's the original concept. Let me steal from the intro to the Sorcerer RPG

THE STORY - Magic in roleplaying games and in much of modern fantasy fiction has become too nice. That's right: too nice. Wizards are sad-eyed fellows who say cryptic things . . . or they're Just Folks who raise cats or struggle for social reform. What has happened to Maleficent, to Elric, or to those wonderful fellows in black robes who wielded curved daggers and swore by Set? Whatever happened to the sorcerer as cosmic outlaw?

Magic in modern-day settings is the worst for this problem. The one element missing is the classical sorcerer who, by himself or herself, wields NO magic: no spells, no powers, no senses. He or she just knows how to call up demons (whatever THEY are) and how to bind them. That's all.

Demons are wonderfully versatile: the sorcerer may bind them into his or her own body or into the bodies of others, or directly send them at enemies or goals. And they can be subverted! Your own bound demon is easier to control, and someone else's bound demon is harder,
but it's not impossible to be served one day by the demon you were fighting the day before.

In this game, all of what other games call "magic" is a load of hogwash: fantasy, frippery, and swindling. But you play a person -- a normal person -- who knows how to summon and bind beings of horror and madness for personal purposes.

*Science* is the art of observing phenomena, forming hypotheses, and verifying the hypothesis via experiment. It assumes a natural world with natural laws. Most "magic" in modern fantasy is actually a branch of science. The world is different. There is a science where you can heat water by reciting certain words or making certain hand gestures. It's not really different from electromagnetism in that there is a natural method and natural laws for making this happen.

*Magic* is the art of dealing with things outside natural reality. Things that cannot be understood by scientific principles, because they are outside natural laws. It has a great deal in common with religion in that the truths are mysteries in the literal sense -- they cannot be discovered by observation or reasoning or repeated in experiment, but must be revealed by someone who already knows them.

Now, I am a religious believer IRL. I am also an intelligent person trapped in a handicapped body. This naturally leads me to gravitate towards wizard-type characters not because of any religious belief, but simply because it's far easier for me to want to be a character who can blow things up with his mind rather than with physical strength. Wish-fulfillment, you see.

However, because I DO have beliefs of various kinds, I attempt to make my fantasy "magic" as scientific and naturalistic as possible. Or I look at the part of my belief system that allows for miracles and try to put "magic" in the framework of "miracle-working". The word for "miracle-worker" is "Thaumaturgos", after all :). I do what I can to reconcile my real-world beliefs with the fantasy world without ruining the schtick that makes a particular fantasy world fantastic.

Y'see, there's a very good reason for fantasy, because it allows us to talk about these kind of issues in a "what-if" environment. And this is because when you start talking about the real world you have to bring in a lot of tired old men to make sure what you are teaching is as orthodox as possible, ruining any conceivable value as a thought experiment.

It's why David Drake set what would have been a novel for Rome in the city of Carce , instead. The way he explained it, when he wrote stories about Rome he got truckloads of nitpicking fanmail taking exception, at length, to his portrayal of Roman society. The role of slaves and of women. Anachronism. The specific wood used to make the shields, for heaven's sake.

So Drake renamed his world "Carce". That way, he explained, if he wanted the Carcean legions to march into battle with top hats and parasols, no one could complain.

That's dealing with geeky historians and wargamers. When you get away from that and start bringing in real-life religious issues, well, you can imagine the disaster.

Which is why in-game I would rather play a cleric of Tyr than a cleric of <your-name-here>. Because if I decide to reinvent Tyr to be closer to my own personal ideals, or to bring him closer to my real-life beliefs, or if I want to make a new deity called Aslan or Unknown God or what not, we can still play together without breaking the game's framework. Whereas if I tried to insert a factual belief with all the religious baggage that entailed, it would offend everyone at the table who did not share that viewpoint and it would also introduce a serious discrepancy between game crunch and fluff.

Games, in short, are a place for me to step outside my normal beliefs and explore a what-if world, whether that is for simple wish-fulfillment or for the purpose of learning. It is because I wish to learn that I do not restrict myself to my real-world beliefs or my real-world alignment. I consider myself neutral good. But I would play a CE necromancer as a one-off purely to exercise my acting skills and to have an opportunity to learn how that kind of character ticks. The best way to learn empathy for another human being is to walk a mile in their shoes, and games are one of the best ways to do that.

This doesn't mean I completely abandon my real-world views and beliefs when gaming. But it does mean I strive for a certain creative tension between them. If the game corresponds exactly to my idea of the real world, I might as well be in the real world. There is no room to grow, no element of what-if. Likewise, if there is NO correspondence with the real world, then what purpose is there to playing? What do I learn? If it does not reflect on my real life and real choices, what value does it have to *me*?

That's the way I roll, anyway.

Respectfully,

Brian P.