Wanting players to take in-game religion more seriously

[l0lzero]

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.

I would concede that the players are imposing their play style on the DM, I just don't find it to be as egregious an act given that the players already cede everything but their character's actions to the DM's whim. DM gets more authority and in exchange tries to tell a story that the players enjoy.

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.

I was make an ethical judgement on the use of punishment to compel players' cooperation. I agree that it's also ineffective, I just happen to also think it's unethical, and since I'm not a mod I don't have to remain neutral.

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

From the information I had, I didn't think that advice was effective, especially given the comment that he had attempted it before and it produced no change. I type a lot, if you think that's a lecture, I'm sorry, I'm going for my 2nd degree and am used to fluffing the word count and trying to be specific about concepts and ideas, tends to make me wordy. Not trying to lecture, I apologize.

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.

The only details I saw as relevant was that they had attempted to have a talk, and that the behavior continued. Sounds like enough information to assume that such a talk won't likely have any different results since it was attempted before. Apparently (evidenced by the OPs later posts) the talk was not at all in-depth. I was wrong on my assumption, my bad.

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."

When I say effectively, I'm characterizing. If you think that's an unfair characterization, that's fine, but to outright dismiss it as though I am supposedly quoting him is (I use quotes to quote, just sayin') is inaccurate. Looking back at HIS specific wording, yes, that was an unfair characterization, I apologize.

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

<.< I didn't think I was being mean to anyone. Did I call him names? I specifically said I don't think he's a bully, and that I didn't think it was intentional. I'm explaining why the "punish the players for defying your setting/story/whatever" method is bad and bullying behavior. It was a LOT of the suggestions in the thread up to that point, that's a BAD suggestion.

With respect, did you ask about the conversation? I didn't see you do so, but maybe I missed it.

Nope, I didn't, you didn't miss anything, I had read he had talked to them about it but the behavior continued, assumed it was a dead end path.

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.

You're right, and I have reassessed, I was writing from memory not direct quotes, so my recollection was skewed by the plethora of posts urging him to punish the players into complying with the tone he was looking for. My bad.

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.

I wasn't trying to dump on the OP, I was dumping on the idea that you should punish players for not playing the way you want them to. As DM you already have control over LITERALLY everything else in the game world; demanding certain behaviors from your players under threat of punishment is bullying (it's just like someone demanding your lunch money from you, except in this instance the DM would be the bully and the lunch money is the happiness gained from participating in a hobby). I think DMs who think that way need to take a step back and think about what it is they're really asking of the players at that point; will you sit here and roll and speak for this character for me while I run a game for myself?

Look, I'm not mad at anyone here, and I am definitely wordy, so if post-length is associated somehow with aggressiveness in people's minds, I can't really help that but I'm not trying to be aggressive. I don't think the OP, or anyone suggesting those tactics, are bad people, I just think that they haven't really thought about what they're actually doing when they do such things. It's not like the players came in and killed all the towns-folk and tried to "accost" their corpses, they just didn't take it all that seriously. If you get so offended at someone not playing the game the way you want it to be played that you would be willing to attempt to ruin their fun to spite them, I think that's the wrong, and unethical, approach. I don't think ANYONE here is evil, so if my posts came across that way, I sincerely apologize, but I can think particular actions aren't good. If me voicing my opinion on such a topic comes across accusatory, my bad. Clearly it's a fairly common behavior, and I'd have to think a lot of people were bad people just because I disagreed with them, which is a terrible way to live life.

My whole intention was to offer why I thought that method was wrong, and then suggest a different approach; to run a different style of game. Mayhaps I should spend more effort espousing the different idea than poo-pooing the ideas I disagree with (I still don't think an "adult conversation" is going to be all that effective, but that's clearly intuition as my interpretation of his comments were off-base).

Sorry for the super-long posts, like I said, I'm still stuck in college mode and it makes me vociferous.

To The OP ( [MENTION=6783980]intently[/MENTION] ):

If you felt like I was attacking you personally, I'm sorry, that was not my intention. I thought I had made it clear that I didn't think you were a bad person, and if it came across that way, my bad man. I just don't think the punishment route is going to produce results that you are at all interested in, and I feel like the conversation route is also unlikely to be all that effective because people all have different preferences.

I do think it might be possible for you to have a serious tone to your game, but I think it boils down to what the players themselves take seriously; people have to be able to identify with their characters and if they don't find particular topics (religion, politics, economics, etc.) to be interesting or view them as serious topics, I don't see the players being able to identify well enough to participate in a serious fashion. You might consider talking to them about what kinds of themes and ideas they do take seriously (maybe they don't particularly care about politics, but they all value freedom as a concept, so your serious game could revolve around dismantling a network of slavers, or they value innocence, so you could run a more serious game around a cult that targets children, or something along those lines).

If your group enjoys sports, you could easily have them play characters who are athletes and they'd be, in my estimation, more likely to take such a game seriously. The game starts with them in their starting town, they are atheletes, they compete a few games to nail down the rules of the sport and make sure the sport plays well. Then they win some regional tournament, and then are sent off to some far-flung major city to participate in some grand tournament. Bandits, rival teams, bookies, etc. could all try any number of ways to sabotage them, and the players could engage in social/combat encounters to thwart such plans. Basically, the sports are the context in which the players are drawn into the fictional world enough to take it seriously, and the game itself is the bookies and rivals and whatnot trying to stop them from winning the tournament or whatever.

Once they've gotten accustomed to playing in games which are serious in nature, then you can then branch out and begin incorporating other themes and concepts that they were not previously amenable to. I do understand the desire to get this campaign played given the relatively short life-span of editions, so I can understand if you're not in favor of such a suggestion, I just think it would work better now, and in the long run, if you reworked the game to focus on the players' areas of interest, rather than the world that you have made.

Again, I would totally play in such a world because I happen to have an interest in religions, so don't take this to mean I think "your campaign sounds dumb, you're dumb" because I don't think that AT ALL, I just don't think your players particularly care about it given the information available. You can keep trying to make the world work, more power to you, I just think you'll be beating your head on the wall for a while until you can find some way to tie your setting to things they care about. If your players are amenable to a retcon, you could easily incorporate the sport storyline into the world and use that as a jumping off point, a lot of sports originated from religious practices and festivals, so I think the two tie-in rather nicely, if you think that might get them more involved in your world in a way that you would prefer.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

That is certainly true. On the other hand they are not really respectful stories though more, as you say, cautionary tales of worship them or you will get turned into a Medusa.



The problem is that when they turn up they usually end up acting exactly like Athena in your story and then some mortal hero comes to kick their ass so it is hardly the cautionary tale you would expect.


I am pretty sure this is why gods don't have stats in 5e or Pathfinder.

 

[Shasarak]

I am pretty sure this is why gods don't have stats in 5e or Pathfinder.

Nah, that is just the 5e release schedule.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, they have. Individuals vary of course. But I agree that your point is valid.

As an aside, since we're talking about people in general, I'll note that people are strangely reluctant to admit that these fallible beings whom they worship are in fact flawed or fallible. About the most you can get them to do is a "Yes, but" acknowledgement, as in "Yes, but this other guy is even worse," which is really just an attempt to change the subject. Here's an extreme example of self-worship:

View attachment 77016

Yeah, I've never understood that behavior. I'm not saying I'm immune to it, i'm just saying it is mind bogglingly weird.

Like...the gods I worship have flaws. When I was a Lutheran, I saw more than one flaw in that God, and I never bought the idea of God as literally the definition of perfection. I also held a handful of other heretical beliefs, so maybe it's no surprise I left the church when I was about 18, content to be an undefined Agnostic Theist for many years.

Same deal with heroes. Personal or cultural. I roll my eyes at people who dismiss the idea of having heroes, but I roll them just as much at people who will fight you if you suggest their hero has literally any minor flaw of any kind.

IDK. People are strange.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Setting aside RL or metaphysical/spiritual 'truth,' the idea that belief creates reality, specifically deities, like that has been explored in fantasy fiction (Tanith Lee & Michael Moorcock) and in RPGs (like M:tA). Untenable thought it might seem, it could work in a D&D setting.

Maybe only positive faith is true, just as you can't prove a negative, you can't have faith in nothing?

Faith can create, but cannot destroy?

Makes sense to me.

I see no reason, working from the "faith creates gods" premise, that a belief that other gods are fake would interfere at all with their existence.

 

[Caliban]

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.

Engage in some good old fashioned LARP'ing. Next time they need a divine spell from an NPC cleric, have the cleric ask them to kneel down and pray with him/her and spend several minutes RP'ing the part of the cleric as they beseech their deity for their divine gifts. Do this enough times and they won't find it funny at all.

 

[Arial Black]

The problem is that when they turn up they usually end up acting exactly like Athena in your story and then some mortal hero comes to kick their ass so it is hardly the cautionary tale you would expect.

I was thinking about The Forgotten Realms during The Time Of Troubles, when the gods actually came down and fought each other.

Collateral damage? Oh, yes!

The NPCs remembered that all right! Not much doubt about their existence then either!

 

[Arial Black]

As an aside, since we're talking about people in general, I'll note that people are strangely reluctant to admit that these fallible beings whom they worship are in fact flawed or fallible. About the most you can get them to do is a "Yes, but" acknowledgement, as in "Yes, but this other guy is even worse," which is really just an attempt to change the subject.

The ancient Greeks knew all too well that the gods they worshiped were imperfect.

Actually, it's hard for polytheists to believe that their gods are all perfect.

As for how pious the ancient Greeks were, it varied over time. It also varied on how much leisure time they had to think about such things. Then, as now, the tendency is that the richer, better-educated folk are more likely to be unbelievers than poorer, less educated folk.

Whatever the tendency may be, individuals could be pious or impious, education level and wealth notwithstanding.

 

[Shasarak]

I was thinking about The Forgotten Realms during The Time Of Troubles, when the gods actually came down and fought each other.

Collateral damage? Oh, yes!

The NPCs remembered that all right! Not much doubt about their existence then either!

There was one character, Adon, who worshiped Sune then lost his faith after actually meeting her. So you know what they say about meeting your heroes.

 

[Imaculata]

I'll use Moradin for an example. He'll be the deity of dwarves. He Defends the clans and Creates exemplary things.

The dwarves know and love their deity, like a grandfather/best drinking buddy. They all know he's looking out for them. Perhaps, when in a holy site, Dwarves take half damage from all sources, as Moradin's desire is to Defend them. Maybe forges will be adorned with symbols of Moradin, because he guides their hands when they craft. They know it, they feel it. They take it seriously, even if they've never met him.

When your players encounter dwarves, refer to these phenomenon, casually an conversationally. "This shield is twice the price. It was forged by Arik Firehand, and she's got Moradin's blessing on her - this one won't splinter or crack, I'll bet my beard."

You reinforce the religious components with tone, with some in-game noticeable and measurable effects, and you build credibility.

This is great advise. In my campaign I show my players how the various beliefs are part of every day life. It is what brings life to the setting.

But I also show them that some beliefs have an effect on the world around them. A holy symbol may repel certain undead, and even the avatar of an evil deity can not set foot on a ship dedicated to an opposing deity.

Since the setting of my campaign is one of many gods, I allow my players to worship many gods as well. Clerics do not need to be dedicated to just one god. Instead, I show my players that if you want something specific done, you pray to the relevant deity.

But this varies from country to country. For example, when my players visited the island of the Speakers of the Dead, they discovered that this cult of pirate-witches all worship their ancestors, and they attribute various god-like things to them. It was a custom to pay tribute to the most important pirate queens, in the form of jewelry, coin, gems, gold, teeth or bones, for a safe voyage.

And because one of my players paid tribute, they indeed had a safe voyage that day.