Question on the reaction of gamers...

[Tiefling]

Well that's good. Hiding behind a cliche is generally safe.

 

[Golem Joe]

Why exactly would you be making the Catholic Church and the Knights Templar villanous? Seems to me if you are going to design and publish a campaign setting based on Medieval Europe, you should at least present things in a historical context. While I don't believe the church approves of Magi in Ars Magica's setting, they aren't presented as villanous.

Seems to me it would actually be a bolder move to make those organizations heroic! It seems every other RPG set in the "real world" tries to make villians out of the catholic church and similar institutions (usually to appeal to the PC/counter culture crowd). Better to go the other route, or at least put their villanous ways into a specific context. To just make the church out to be a villain is, IMHO, a waste of time and paper.

 

[Wormwood]

Seems to me it would actually be a bolder move to make those organizations heroic! It seems every other RPG set in the "real world" tries to make villians out of the catholic church and similar institutions (usually to appeal to the PC/counter culture crowd).

The Catholic Church, Straw Man of a Thousand Campaings.

 

[Lizard]

If I (or someone else) were to writing a setting that was basically fantastic Europe, and major religious organizations such as the Catholic Church, the Knights Templar, etc. were often villains, would people get offended? Actually, people are sure to get offended, but what's important is would those people be among the target demographic (gamers)?

To the best of my knowledge, no one has their knickers in a twist over Ars Magica, which is basically just that.

 

[Zappo]

*shrug*

Anything offends someone. And the most offensive stuff is usually what sells better, provided its offensiveness is within reasonable limits. Go for it.

From a more artistic POV, I think making the church outright and evidently evil is a tired old cliche. It was a monstrously big organization, even by today's standards - it was bound to have good and bad times, people and aspects.

Now of course, being "the villains" doesn't mean being evil. If you were thinking about a setting where the characters's goals and motivations conflict with those of the church - well that's a nice idea.

As for the idea of making it good. Uhm... a setting where the most powerful and active (by far) organization in existance is good and does the right thing sounds a little boring for PCs. Besides, if you state that the church is right, it implies the crusades are right. Which implies arabs are wrong, and deserve death. Which is far beyond the "reasonable limits of offensiveness" mentioned above.

 

[tabrumj]

Why exactly would you be making the Catholic Church and the Knights Templar villanous?

I would guess Tiefling is making them villanous because he has read the history of the times. The Templars were far from an organnization of heroes. Off the top of my head I know they were innvolved in the slave trade and there are several incidents where they converted a village of heathens by raping, massacuring and looting while selling the survivors into slavery. Addmitedly the organization was never entirely bad but it's policues as a whole tended to be.

The Catholic church was a much more grey organization. On the lower end the everyday priests tended to be good and holy men. But when you reached the upper ranks the Clergy tended to be power hungry and more than a bit amoral. Much of the upper Clergy did not ascend through the ranks, instead the purchased their position with hard cash. AMong other things the Catholic church operated brothels, bilked pesants, started wars and organized massacers of anyone who disagreed with them.

Certainly neither organization is wholly villanous, but a reasonable look at the timesin a game should definetly paint the organization's in shades of grey.

 

[drothgery]

As for the idea of making it good. Uhm... a setting where the most powerful and active (by far) organization in existance is good and does the right thing sounds a little boring for PCs. Besides, if you state that the church is right, it implies the crusades are right. Which implies arabs are wrong, and deserve death. Which is far beyond the "reasonable limits of offensiveness" mentioned above.

You could make a strong argument that in a d20 Wheel of Time game, the most powerful and active organization -- the Aes Sedai -- are mostly good and usually do the right thing. But that's hardly makes Jordan's world boring, and they'll often cause problems even for PCs strongly allied with them.

There are Black Ajah around, though nobody wants to admit it, and unless you're running an evil game, they're going to be enemies. The Aes Sedai are culturally very tradition-bound, so the radical things that PCs like to try are not well thought of. They strongly diapprove of others meddling in things that they consider 'their affairs' (in Jordan's world, anything to do with magic). And if it's clear that you're on good terms with the Aes Sedai (most likely because one of the PCs is one of them), then you're a walking target for their enemies.

And that's about how I'd portray a Catholic Church-analogue. For the most part, they're good people trying to do the right thing (probably sitting on the edge between LG and LN in alignment, if this is for D&D). But they've got corruption and rogue elements to deal with. They're very tradition-bound. They don't like non-clergy speaking out on matters of faith, and even then differences on dogma should be discussed within the church, and only explained to the leity after a decision is made. The Church's enemies (whether people of completely different faiths or of splinter sects that reject the church heirarchy) will try and make things difficult for those who are closely allied with the Church.

 

[Tsyr]

You could make a strong argument that in a d20 Wheel of Time game, the most powerful and active organization -- the Aes Sedai -- are mostly good and usually do the right thing. But that's hardly makes Jordan's world boring, and they'll often cause problems even for PCs strongly allied with them.

There are Black Ajah around, though nobody wants to admit it, and unless you're running an evil game, they're going to be enemies. The Aes Sedai are culturally very tradition-bound, so the radical things that PCs like to try are not well thought of. They strongly diapprove of others meddling in things that they consider 'their affairs' (in Jordan's world, anything to do with magic). And if it's clear that you're on good terms with the Aes Sedai (most likely because one of the PCs is one of them), then you're a walking target for their enemies.

And that's about how I'd portray a Catholic Church-analogue. For the most part, they're good people trying to do the right thing (probably sitting on the edge between LG and LN in alignment, if this is for D&D). But they've got corruption and rogue elements to deal with. They're very tradition-bound. They don't like non-clergy speaking out on matters of faith, and even then differences on dogma should be discussed within the church, and only explained to the leity after a decision is made. The Church's enemies (whether people of completely different faiths or of splinter sects that reject the church heirarchy) will try and make things difficult for those who are closely allied with the Church.

The White Tower is _NOT_ a "good" group. They are closer to neutral with good tendancies, really... And many people (Like, oh.. ANY male channeler) would probably scoff at even that notion. We are talking about people who basicly kill people because of how they were born. People who get stilled/gentled almost invariably die. Is it justified? They would like us to believe so, but we have some evidence that the madness can be held at bay... look at Taim, for example.

 

[drothgery]

I don't want to totally hijack this thread, but...

The White Tower is _NOT_ a "good" group. They are closer to neutral with good tendancies, really... And many people (Like, oh.. ANY male channeler) would probably scoff at even that notion. We are talking about people who basicly kill people because of how they were born. People who get stilled/gentled almost invariably die. Is it justified?

Consider that the Sharans, Seanchan, and Sea Folk kill men who can channel outright, and the Aiel send them on suicide missions. It's pretty clear that the Aes Sedai treat male channelers with far more compassion than anyone else does; they at least give the man a chance to live, however slim.

They would like us to believe so, but we have some evidence that the madness can be held at bay... look at Taim, for example.

Taim's pretty clearly a Darkfriend. Not a relevant example.