Wanting players to take in-game religion more seriously

[l0lzero]

[MENTION=6855137]l0lzero[/MENTION] Jump to conclusions much?

The DM has one expectations, and from what he has said, his players have a different expectation of the game. This is causing the DM some frustration and he came here looking for advice. Instead he gets a bunch of people jumping all over him telling him that he's bullying them, forcing religion down their throat, or forcing them to play "lip-service" to things that are badwrongfun. Have you considered that not everyone ponders every possible solution before asking for help. He was frustrated and asked for help. Whether that help is "here are some ways that may get your players more involved" which fits more inside the box he was asking about; or more about "have you considered that your players want a different style of game" which is more outside the box that he may have considered.

Regardless, he asked for advice. If your advice is perhaps you should try a different style of game, that is great. But calling him a bully or saying that he's forcing things down his players throat is an over-reaction at best and very bad advice at worse.

OP,
Talk to your players and if they don't want a more serious game but that is what you want to run, then perhaps you could simply step down from the the DM chair and let someone else run a game for a while. If the players decide they want a more serious game then you can take the reigns again. Either way, don't try to DM a game that isn't fun.

You may want to re-read my first post on the topic, I specifically stated that I don't think the OP is a bully, I think he's engaging in bullying behavior. Do you think everyone who has every employed bullying tactics is a bully? No, a bully is a person who habitually employs bullying tactics. You seem to infer from my posts things which I have explicitly said I don't think. You can smoke a cigarette and not be a smoker, you can smoke a pack of cigarettes and not be a smoker, you can't smoke a pack of cigarettes every day of your life and not be a smoker. It's about degrees. There is nuance in the world. If I said you were being reckless would you assume that I meant you were a reckless person, or that a particular action you took was reckless? Hopefully it's the latter because if it's the former, then I can't help you.

I stated my advice, and was careful to explicitly state I did not think the OP was a bully, but that I think the tactic of using punishment to compel compliance with his objective is a bullying tactic.

If you're going to attempt to characterize what I'm saying, it would be helpful to actually read what I've posted, rather than yourself jumping to conclusions, especially when those conclusions are specifically contrary to what is plainly stated. Here, let me quote it for you:

When I say it's bullying, I don't mean that I think the OP is a horrible person who is a bully, I mean that the tactic of trying to impose out of character behavior is analogous to bullying the same way that peer-pressure is a kind of bullying, it's unintentional.

I even give an example of bullying behavior where the people doing the bullying are not themselves bullies.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I want to make a meat-grinder style megadungeon setting now and have that guy be like Cain from diablo, but know crap about the PCs he shouldn't (I love the idea that this total stranger is like, "Hey Jim, how's Marcy and Dale?" so the player can be like, "HTF do you know Marcy and Dale? How did you know my name, I just got here? Are you a spy? Have you been spying on me? Where's your scrying tools, I'm breaking that crap!"), and then have them have to interact with him every time they come back to town; he's just there, at the city gates, asking them questions about specific events from the dungeon that he couldn't possibly know about, and the whole point of the character is just to mess with the players...

You are cruel. I like it.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'd like my players to take their characters' in-game religions more seriously, along with that of NPCs, rather than treating the various gods like spell vending machines and clerics as no different from wizards. Any tips, that aren't too heavy handed? I've broached the subject out of character, but haven't achieved what I'm hoping for.

Basically, the characters treat any show of devotion to the gods as a joke. Obviously I'm not offended on behalf of these fake gods, I just want a different tone.

The problem is that D&D's in-game religions are a joke.

Look at the dictionary definition of faith:

strong belief, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof​

Basically what this means is that there cannot be any real devotion, any real faith, as long as the gods are patently real, as there is iron-clad proof of their existence through the manifestation that is spells and miracles.

Combine this with how many gods are depicted as Viking Asar, or Greek Olympians. That is, little more than actual men, with all their shortcomings and weaknesses.

While gods that are petty, jealous, vindictive and boisterous make for a real good history lesson or Xena episode, there is a reason those religions have few followers today. It is poor soil for anything resembling contemporary belief.

I suggest you save your wish for your players taking in-game religion more seriously, for a game that takes its in-game religions more seriously.

Best regards

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I want to make a meat-grinder style megadungeon setting now and have that guy be like Cain from diablo, but know crap about the PCs he shouldn't (I love the idea that this total stranger is like, "Hey Jim, how's Marcy and Dale?" so the player can be like, "HTF do you know Marcy and Dale? How did you know my name, I just got here? Are you a spy? Have you been spying on me? Where's your scrying tools, I'm breaking that crap!"), and then have them have to interact with him every time they come back to town; he's just there, at the city gates, asking them questions about specific events from the dungeon that he couldn't possibly know about, and the whole point of the character is just to mess with the players...

Consider this idea stolen.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The problem is that D&D's in-game religions are a joke.

Look at the dictionary definition of faith:

strong belief, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof​

Basically what this means is that there cannot be any real devotion, any real faith, as long as the gods are patently real, as there is iron-clad proof of their existence through the manifestation that is spells and miracles.

Combine this with how many gods are depicted as Viking Asar, or Greek Olympians. That is, little more than actual men, with all their shortcomings and weaknesses.

While gods that are petty, jealous, vindictive and boisterous make for a real good history lesson or Xena episode, there is a reason those religions have few followers today. It is poor soil for anything resembling contemporary belief.

I suggest you save your wish for your players taking in-game religion more seriously, for a game that takes its in-game religions more seriously.

While I generally hate the idea of mixing "gods" in with D&D, this thread has got me thinking about ways to do it that wouldn't break my sense of disbelief. If you go back to real old-style polytheism, it could be that the "gods" of the setting are mostly famous for inflicting disasters on those who fail to appease them. And the appeasement need not take the same form as Christianity-inspired worship. In fact, maybe it's the case that Methuel/Demogorgon/Orcus/Archer/Erskine/et al. don't even care what you do with your life or how you treat other people, as long as they get their tribute.

You could make an interesting campaign along the same lines as Dominions 4: the Pantokrator (supreme god) has vanished, and various nations are each ruled by pretender gods who vie for dominance. Each of them demands gold/magical components/slaves/sacrifices from the lands they conquer, each of which serves to feed the gods' power (and appetites) and that of their high priests. The PCs can either hook up with the resistance (dare I call it the Veiled Alliance? ;-)) and try to keep freedom alive despite the gods' oppression, or they can join one or more of the teams. Either way, as the campaign goes on, devastation grows and everything gets progressively worse. Perhaps the PCs can even seize the Thrones of Ascension for themselves and become the new God Of Everything!

The thing that appeals to me about this setting is that it's taking the core logic of D&D "gods" (i.e. powerful beings who differ only quantitatively, not qualitatively, from warlords or even the PCs themselves) to its logical and plausible extreme while avoiding anachronisms like benevolent gods who want you to follow their teachings. And you don't have to care whether or not anyone thinks the pretenders are genuine deities or not or how the players define the term "god" in their own minds. They're just powerful creatures who want power and flattery.

It goes without saying here that the vast majority of the gods are going to be evil, from a human perspective. (Otherwise there is nothing to do in the game.)

 

[Olrox17]

The problem is that D&D's in-game religions are a joke.

Look at the dictionary definition of faith:

strong belief, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof​

Basically what this means is that there cannot be any real devotion, any real faith, as long as the gods are patently real, as there is iron-clad proof of their existence through the manifestation that is spells and miracles.

Combine this with how many gods are depicted as Viking Asar, or Greek Olympians. That is, little more than actual men, with all their shortcomings and weaknesses.

While gods that are petty, jealous, vindictive and boisterous make for a real good history lesson or Xena episode, there is a reason those religions have few followers today. It is poor soil for anything resembling contemporary belief.

I suggest you save your wish for your players taking in-game religion more seriously, for a game that takes its in-game religions more seriously.

Best regards

On the other hand, having patently real gods that:

- are immensely powerful;
- regularly grant spells and boons to their servants;
- often meddle with the affairs of mortal in a decisive way;
- can be petty, vindictive or even downright cruel against mortals that slight them;

well...I'd say those are all good reasons to take them more seriously. At least for the characters living in the game world. I mean, seriously, if you had solid proof that the greek olympians actually existed in the real world, would you mock them?

No sane character would openly mock the gods, when there's proof that the gods are very real, very powerful and possibly very flawed. If you're RPing an insane person, I guess it'd be okay, go for it. Otherwise, it's just bad roleplaying.


Anyway, there's probably a DM-players disconnection here. The OP's players are RPing as hardcore atheists in a campaign setting where hardcore atheists shouldn't exist. If they're not willing to adapt how they roleplay their characters to the setting, the only solution is to find new players, or to change setting (Dark Sun would be a great fit).

 

[Derren]

You can flesh it out all you want, but as long as the players don't "buy in" and instead see the gods simply as something you have to decide on during character creation it won't help.

Imo the problem is that CapnZapp said the depiction of gods in D&D is a joke, but for another reason. You do have a polytheistic pantheon, but in all source and fluff books characters are basically monotheistic and only follow their patron god. I once made a character who loaded himself up with lots of holy symbols (not a cleric btw.) and prayed to whoever he thought he needs favour from or he displeased in his mind (quantity worship so to speak). But that concept was seen as utterly strange by the other players, yet I think would be the norm in a polytheistic world.

Another things that is problematic is that there is so little info in the deities in D&D. Many of them are in some form or another war gods and there an absolute lack of information about their faith except "Smite X". No holidays, no commandments and special prayers, etc. And in the fluff books faith has hardly an impact on everyday life (or at least is not shown because its considered not relevant for adventurers). That a village has a temple of X is the most information you get. But what does it mean? How does that effect the people of that village, what holidays they observe or what customs do they follow? And more importantly how can the PCs participate in it (or offer alternative services)?

 

[Umbran]

Not wanting to get into a politics/religious discussion regarding this, but who you are attracted to isn't a choice, so I don't see how the player could impose their "values" (I don't think sexual preference is a value, it's a fact of a person's traits) in this instance. In this analogy the DM is trying to punish the player for the player's choices.

I think you crossed the streams. In the *religion* example, we are afraid of the GM imposing his own "values" (they aren't values in any moral or ethical sense - they are game-preferences, no more a
"value" than pepperoni on a pizza). The GM has a thought that in-game religion should be taken seriously. The players, apparently have the value that in-game religion should be ignored and mocked (someone can correct me if that's not the right impression - it is a long thread, after all).

Well, if the GM forces the players to play his or her way, that's imposing on them. If the players force him/her to run the game their way, they are the ones imposing. Imposing can go either way, is the point.

Absolutely, but the OP was looking for ways to compel his players to, effectively, enjoy his style of play. I think that's wrong and an inappropriate way to do things.

Whether or not it is "approriate" (that connotes a moral/ethical judgement I'm not passing right now), I think it is an *ineffective* way to go about it that it fraught with pitfalls.

But he's not having this discussion with his players, he's asking for advice from us.

Yes, but then our advice should then be a repeated, "have a talk with your players," rather than lectures on bullying.

He said he already talked to his players and they made no progress in this regard

Yeah, on page one, they mentioned having, "broached the subject out of character." Not a whole lot of detail, and I don't see anyone thought to ask about that conversation before making bully accusations. That makes those accusations seem.. more than a tad premature.

and so now he wants to find a way to, effectively, punish them in game to change the player's behaviors out of game.

No, he doesn't. Post #68, by the OP: "My goal is to create a campaign that everyone enjoys, and certainly not to browbeat anyone into playing "my way". I'd like a more serious game, so it sounds like I should talk to my players more directly."

So, really, cut the OP some slack already, please.

I understand he has a desire to tell a particular story in a particular style, but desiring something is not justification for imposing something the players clearly don't want on them.

With respect, did you ask about the conversation? I didn't see you do so, but maybe I missed it. I don't see the OP talking about it in depth. So, I don't think you can say anything was done, "clearly". and I would suggest you reassess.

Managing this aspect of games is a skill. It is something you learn. The first couple times, maybe you don't realize what is clear, and what isn't, what communication works, and what doesn't. So, you end up in an unsatisfactory situation, and turn to others to help, and maybe you wind up asking the wrong questions. Dumping a load of accusation on those wrong questions probably doesn't help the GM find their way.

 

[Yaarel]

One can dream.

I would appreciate the entire astral plane and outer planes - and all of their gods - removed from the core D&D rules.

Split it off, so the optional Planescape setting consolidates all of this D&D tradition. Probably also merge the Deities & Demigods splatbook into this setting as well.

That way, players who feel gods are less fun can lack the rules that shove them down their throats.

Meanwhile, players who love the gods have easy access to them. As a separate setting, Planescape can emphasize them.

 

[intently]

I think I've read all the responses in this thread...

Much of the discussion here has been quite helpful. One thing I've realized is that I'm a much more experienced gamer than my players (all of whom I know very well), and I *think* they'd enjoy playing a more serious game if they'd "let themselves". Some people don't have much experience with role-playing, and it can feel very goofy at first. Some people even use humor as a defense mechanism to avoid deeper engagement (like me!).

So... having a direct conversation with my players is a good idea, but part of me wants the joy of serious role-playing to hit them like a flash of revelation. Does that make sense? Like the joy of any other discovery. It would be more fun to draw them in slowly than to just ask them to be more serious because I'd enjoy it more. Has anyone ever seen that happen? Seen a new player suddenly cross some inflection point and really "get it"?