Wanting players to take in-game religion more seriously

[doctorbadwolf]

You might be misunderstanding me then.

I'm definitely not denigrating historical people believing in Zeus or Wodin.

I'm talking about how difficult it is to ask contempory people, your players, to treat the uniquely shallow treatment of such religions that is D&D seriously.

First and foremost difference: real people have no way of proving the existence of the gods. Hence, they could believe in them. It's not only that we know our game is pretend, we also know there can be no actual faith in our game world, since the existence of the gods is not up for debate. They are absolutely concretely there.

Second difference: we look at polytheistic religions from the vantage point of monotheistic religions; religions that do not anthropomorphize their god. That's a pretty hard sell all by itself.

This discussion isn't about people that actually believe in Zeus or Wodin, neither then nor now. This discussion is about contemporary D&D players having a hard time taking D&D religion seriously.

Please do not think I'm trying to bring real-life religion into this. I'm really not crapping on your religion; if you think I do, please think again.

I'm merely advancing the argument that perhaps you'd be better served by going with D&Ds strengths and avoiding its weaknesses. Save your wish for players treating religion with reverence for a game that's actually treating religion with reverence.

And instead use D&D for what it was meant to do: to kick in doors and bash some dungeons, and just perhaps have a Paladin paying lip service to the notion of faith - mostly to make him stand out compared to the other murderhobos in the gang. Really, that's okay too. After all, it's just a game.

I didn't misunderstand a thing. You seem to not understand that people today worship those gods. I don't know much about modern neo-Hellenic paganism, but Norse/Germanic neo-paganism is a sizable and growing faith. In your post, you insulted our gods and those of us who worship them, in order to make a point that certainly required no such insulting language to make.

Rather than further bringing insult insult with your "think again" crap, maybe just recognize that regardless of intention, you spoke insultingly, and apologize.

 

[Yaarel]

Well, not exactly the opposite. That's like saying the opposite of the middle is the end: it's kind of true, if you squint, but most people would say that the opposite of the end is the other end.

Faith is an intermediate state--it is the belief in things which are not seen, which are true. As such, there is fundamentally no difference between D&D and real life when it comes to epistemology; the inhabitants of a D&D world can be as certain or uncertain about their reality as you or I. (Non-religious example: when a D&D character reasons "cogito, ergo sum", is his logic invalid? But his conclusion is wrong.) The only difference is that the DM is in a position to objectively evaluate whose faith is grounded in reality and whose is founded on falsehood; but the DM's knowledge isn't shared by the PCs or NPCs.

The point is, religion is not opposed to certainty. Some religions actively seek it. "...and [after witnessing proof] he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting."

Sure. But even in this worldview, ‘faith will pass away’, while ‘love endures forever’, meaning knowledge of the Divine will become objectively obvious, and no longer require seeking and trust.

 

[Arial Black]

Faith is an intermediate state--it is the belief in things which are not seen, which are true.

Point of order!

Intermediate state or not, faith can certainly also be the belief in things which are not true!

There is nothing about faith itself, belief, which means that it it limited to the reality of the situation.

Even limiting 'faith' to mean 'religious faith', it cannot logically be the case that faith = truth. If a person has faith that a particular god exists, and the very fact that he has faith means that the god must exist, then the result is that every single god ever thought of as real, does exist!

And while this in and of itself could be true, the trouble is that monotheists also have 'faith' that their god is the only god that actually exists, and this would mean that this faith must also be true!

It cannot simultaneously be true that 'all gods ever worshiped actually must exist' AND 'only my god actually exists' when all these people are talking about different gods.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I guess I'm just open to the possibility D&D is the only rpg game the OP plays.

I'm cautiously trying to whisper "there's plenty of games better suited to games with a significant religious component". These games can still be fantasy games about killing people and taking their stuff. But with a more subtle or nuanced treatment of the divine.

Basically, you want a game written by somebody that actually understands what you need for real faith, for believable religious characters. At its core, there need to be a seed of uncertainty.

D&D is much too absolute to be that game.

I could offer actual suggestions, but I won't. The subject is contentious as is, and naming any examples would likely only derail the discussion.

So I'll settle for having stated my suggestion solution plainly and clearly: switch games. Now back to other possible solutions

Double posting because this is entirely separate from the other post.

Uncertainty is not not required to have genuine religious devotion. You seem to take that as axiomatic, and it simply isn't.
For many ppl, it isn't even mildly challenging to rp dnd characters with genuine devotion to their gods.
Faith, despite the definition you quoted, is more than believing in something's existence in spite of a lack of evidence. It is also about devotion, dedication, etc. I have faith in people. The inarguably exist, so it isn't about that. Rather, I have faith that they are worth caring about, helping, and giving the benefit of the doubt. I have plenty of evidence that my faith is well placed, but it is still faith, just like a Paladin of Correlon can have faith that Correlon is worth serving, that He cares about His people, that his faith is well placed and will be rewarded, etc.

IME, even when I was still a card carrying Lutheran, or when I lost all faith and became imbittered about the idea of faith, role playing faithful characters was never made challenging by the unusual nature of dnd gods. I can see how RPing a devout character could be challenging for someone who has never been any kind of devout, but that has nothing to do with the nature of dnd gods.

So, I think the "switch games" advice is a bit misguided. Even if we accept your premise, the much simpler solution is to read Eberron for a different way to build the divine part of the setting.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sure. But even in this worldview, ‘faith will pass away’, while ‘love endures forever’, meaning knowledge of the Divine will become objectively obvious, and no longer require seeking and trust.

Yes. Since you obviously know what you're talking about here, I suppose I must have misunderstood your original point. Or maybe I was getting your point mixed up with CapnZapp's belief that "people doubting the existence of the gods, and even the existence of goodness itself... is precisely what you need for the [existence of] religiously devout characters." Doubt and religious devotion don't necessitate each other. Doubt and religious freedom, however, do.

Which brings us back to the DM. Since a primary objective of a good D&D session is to maximize (as much as possible) the players' freedom to engage with the gameworld in the way which is most fun for them--D&D is better if you avoid cramming the DM's ideas down the players' throats. It is awesome if the players get onboard with the DMs' ideas voluntarily though; and I hope that this thread has provided some ideas to DMs who are looking to make their worlds a little bit more engaging and/or realistic, while still maximizing player freedom.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Even in polytheistic cultures, you had prominent spiritual traditions, like Socrates and Buddha, who explained why the gods were ridiculous and unworthy of worship.

Various Greek philosophies, associating with Cynicism, Stoicism, Epicurianism, and so on, could be explicitly atheistic.

There are tombstones across the Greek-speaking world, whose inscriptions are explicitly atheistic, sometimes with Stoic wisdom, and sometimes with heart-wrenching grief.

In the Norse world, disregard for the Aesir sky spirits is prevalent, while viewing Odinn as outright treacherous. Indeed, the tradition anticipated the doom of all the Aesir, and encouraged humans to ‘make their own fates’. It is a remarkably rugged worldview.

Moreover, abstract monotheism is everywhere, from India to Iceland, and in the Americas if you count concepts like the Great Mystery. In China too, if you count concepts like the Dao.



The point is, a D&D campaign setting feels more realistic, and in my view becomes more aesthetic, when religious diversity prevails, and different communities focus on unique ways of life. This especially goes for players deciding their own worldviews for their own character concepts.

This is mostly a good post, but could you provide evidence to back up the claim of a prevalent disregard for the Aesir, and esp the view of Odin as "outright treacherous"? As someone who has studied the Norse culture and world views for rather carefully since I was a kid, and corresponded with PHD experts in the US and Europe about them, I have never seen any evidence supporting that idea.
Ive seen the claim before, but mostly from atheists and monotheists with an interest in dismissing Norse/Germanic paganism, and never with any better support than some uncritically quoted sections from Snorri's Prose Edda, and like...the existence of the Ragnarok myth, as if an "everything ends" myth "proves" that people didn't respect the gods.

Now, people did tend to focus their day to day worship on the land and home spirits, but even that varied by region and individual, and there is no evidence that it involved any disregard whatsoever for the Aesir.

 

[Arial Black]

Sure. But even in this worldview, ‘faith will pass away’, while ‘love endures forever’, meaning knowledge of the Divine will become objectively obvious, and no longer require seeking and trust.

May I ask if your objection to gods in D&D stems from your atheism; you just can't abide the idea of humans worshiping things that do not exist?

Or does it stem from your real-life religious faith in a jealous God who will punish, yea even unto the seventh generation, those who worship another god before Him?

(BTW, the 'gods' in D&D are not actually 'worshiped' by the players at all, and so it doesn't make sense to be offended either way)

 

[Yaarel]

May I ask if your objection to gods in D&D stems from your atheism; you just can't abide the idea of humans worshiping things that do not exist?

Or does it stem from your real-life religious faith in a jealous God who will punish, yea even unto the seventh generation, those who worship another god before Him?

(BTW, the 'gods' in D&D are not actually 'worshiped' by the players at all, and so it doesn't make sense to be offended either way)

I might characterize my worldview as a scientific rationalist with a mystical streak. So, I sympathize with both theists and atheists, and admire animists.

My objection to D&D gods is mainly ethical.

I feel adamantly that to "worship" a "god" that is a bully or a tyrant is all kinds of wrong.

And even if a "saint" wanted to be worshiped, then by definition, such a person would no long be a "saint".

And the D&D gods are kinda dumb.

 

[Olrox17]

Guys I hate to be annoying, but if you want to talk about your personal beliefs or real life religion, I don't think this thread is the right place for it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

May I ask if your objection to gods in D&D stems from your atheism; you just can't abide the idea of humans worshiping things that do not exist?

Or does it stem from your real-life religious faith in a jealous God who will punish, yea even unto the seventh generation, those who worship another god before Him?

There's a third option: real-life religious faith that makes offensive the idea of children of God worshipping things that don't exist or have no power to save/exalt. You see this attitude throughout the whole Old Testament: Elijah mocking the priests of Baal; Jeremiah virtually tearing his hair out over the Israelites bowing down before treestumps and rocks that cannot save them.

It's not even clear to me what D&D "worship" is supposed to entail. Real-life worship* is veneration and faithful emulation of someone you respect and admire. "Worship" as discussed in WotC products and D&D forums doesn't seem to have anything to do with that; there's barely any effort at all to make the gods worthy of admiration in the first place, and even less emphasis on emulation; and the fact that the gods are neither omniscient nor omnipotent makes them in fact unable to keep their promises and unworthy of true worship. To the extent that "worship" in D&D exists in forum talk/WotC forums, it seems more like a political campaign ("Vote Mystra now!") than anything I recognize as worship.

* As the term is used in my personal experience, religious and non-religious ("he practically worships his wife"). I'm aware that throughout human history and across the globe, worship has taken on other forms, some purely materialistic ("give money to the priests") and some purely impersonal.