Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289Okay, you ignorant boomer fuck, how about this: how would you like it if I used Christianity in my D&D setting and made them out to be the villains all the time, treating your deity (presuming you are, of course, Christian) like the asshole that atheists often portray him as, then telling you to suck it up because it's just elf games?

Now you wouldn't like that very much, I imagine, primarily because you get pissy with people and accuse them of being some variety of leftist when they say something you don't like, which strikes me as "boomer conservative chic."

So how about we not include anything resembling real-world religions, hmm? And don't give me the whole "oh these are ancient heathen religions no one cares," because guess what, jackass: I fall into the Asatru camp. This shit fucking matters way more than what you think is good fun for stupid elf games, and I'd appreciate it if you treated it with some degree of respect.

This is why we stay well away from things even beginning to look like they're real world religions, modern or ancient. I'm sorry you have all the imagination of a fucking gopher, build your own fucking fantasy religion(s). Shit, I'll even allow thinly-veiled expies. Using the real world as inspiration for your own stuff is a given, as well: it's the only model we have for culture, so I don't see a problem with using it as inspiration or as a model. But straight-up ripping religions out of reality and including them in fantasy games? Fucking absolutely goddamn retarded, full stop.

No real-world politics, no real-world religion. This isn't fucking rocket science.

None of this applies, obviously, if you're doing a historical thing. Those are weird and not my cup of tea, but since real-world religions are part of real-world history, they are going to come up. I avoid them precisely because of this problem, but if you can do it and not be a dick about it, then you do you, I guess.

I think you are doing a fine job of showing how you are unable to handle it, but that doesnt mean everyone has the same hangups. For some gamers (and nongamers too), what you are decrying as badwrongfun is nothing of the sort.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118302The point is that people tend to take their religions seriously, and fictionalized portrayals are going to irritate someone (this is not a matter of "if," but "when"). Elf games in particular are susceptible to this because it's a very participatory thing; if a movie or book is portraying your religion in a way you don't like, you put it down. If your buddy the DM is portraying your religion in a way that's disrespectful, it's significantly worse because you know the person in question doing the thing (whereas the author of a book or director of a movie is most likely not in your monkeysphere so it has less impact).

This is further amplified by the fact that deities in D&D are typically a lot more active than we see in the real world. It just... it's a mess.

Unless you're doing a real-world modern or historical thing - and maybe there are some other weird cases, as well - there's not really a good reason to wholesale import real-world religions in a D&D game. There's just not.

I 100% agree that people do tend to take their religion seriously. 100% agree.

Where I think we disagree is on whether using fictionalized religions makes it any better. I don't think it does. I think *any* religion in an RPG is going to offend those who want to be offended.

Let me give you two examples.
1) People who dislike Christianity dislike Chronicles of Narnia. There is no explicit mention of God, Jesus, or Christianity in any of the books, but we all know what's what; and people with negative sentiments towards Jesus feel the same way towards Aslan.
2) People who like Christianity dislike His Dark Materials. Again, there is no explicit mention of Jesus or Christianity in any of the books, but again we all know what's what; and people with positive sentiments towards Jesus are annoyed at Pullman's portrayal.

Based on those cases (and many others), I conclude that people who get offended about religion in RPGs will be offended whether I use the real-world religion or an ersatz version that is inspired by or analogous to it (TV Tropes "https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCounterpartReligion"). Perhaps they wouldn't be offended by a truly unique religion that is unlike anything ever in the real world...but I've honestly never ever seen such a religion in any fantasy material ever.

Since I think religion is an important part of mankind's history, I always include religions in my game. Since I know this will annoy some people, my solution therefore is not to game with people who are annoyed by it.

E.g. your position is:
1. I want to include religion in my game.
2. It's not fun to have people be offended in your game.
3. If I use real-world religion, I will offend some people.
4. If I use fantasy religion, I will not offend those people.
5. Therefore I should use fantasy religion. The problem is real world religion.

And mine is:
1. I want to include religion in my game.
2. It's not fun to have people be offended in your game.
3. If I use real-world religion, I will offend some people.
4. If I use fantasy religion, I will still offend those people.
5. Therefore I should not play with those people. The problem is the people.

So we agree on 1, 2, and 3, but our difference in 4 means we reach different conclusions for 5.

Quote from: Zalman;1118257In my world, orcs, goblins, bugbears and the like are monstrous spawn born of evil souls that emerge from pits of black ooze. No "society" or other "ecology" required. I've never been comfortable with the idea that every monster has to conform to some real-world notion of reproductive evolution (but if you do go that way, then Kyle Aaron's analysis regarding R-selected species is awesome).

Getting kind of bored with the tangent, so I'm going back to this. ^^^

See, this is the kind of thing I can get behind. Having an actual explanation for why certain races(if they can even properly be called that) aren't actually sapient moral agents is something I'd totally accept if done well. There might still be some philosophical issues - I don't expect the average game designer to be a philosopher, after all - but I can suspend disbelief easily enough and not let that bother me. Whether you go this route or you go the route of giving the various races actual culture, all I'm really wanting is a decent explanation. In the former case, I can see my character not exactly being happy with mowing the monstrous humanoids down, much like how they wouldn't feel good about putting down a rabid dog. It's necessary, but you don't have to like it. If the latter, then . . . well, that's when things get more complicated(but IMO usually more fun).

I really liked how Earthdawn handled certain things. One great example is the Ork's gahad, which is where their reputation for violence comes from. It's a physiological condition that occurs in states of extreme emotion. The Ork must act on it or their brain literally begins to boil. It can be done, but doing so always causes pain and too much will shave years off of their already-short lives. Fellow Orks understand, but members of other races often don't get it or don't think it's as serious as it is and have no idea just what they're asking of an Ork when they say "just keep it in" or "just ignore it" or whatever. A very cool detail on its own, I think, but even better for its explanatory power. You can see why Orks get marginalized a lot, and why even people sympathetic to them might still be wary since every Ork is different and you don't always know what's going to set off a specific person's gahad.

That's just one example of some good worldbuilding using a race normally considered "monsters" in other games. Earthdawn does this a lot. It takes something from older games(mostly D&D, let's be real) and builds an explanation around it. In this case, the Ork's perceived penchant for various types of violence. If they are sapient, and if they aren't evil, then why do they blow up like they do? Answer: physiological reason that pushes them to action lest they incur internal injuries and possibly shave years off of their lives. This then hurts other races' perceptions of Orks, making them more likely to do or say something to set off gahad, and thus a perpetuating cycle is born.

I might not care for the rules that much, but I really loved reading the lore stuff in Earthdawn. Good stuff.

Quote from: Shasarak;1118292I would say, of course having you even met a Catholic?  Evil to the bone.

This Catholic will pray for you.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289Okay, you ignorant boomer fuck, how about this: how would you like it if I used Christianity in my D&D setting and made them out to be the villains all the time, treating your deity (presuming you are, of course, Christian) like the asshole that atheists often portray him as, then telling you to suck it up because it's just elf games?

Assuming that I am not being forced to play in your game (I imagine that would be excruciating in and of itself) go for it, why should I care what you do in your game? Sure I and others in other discussions advocate for the things that have been found to be fun for a lot of people. But every DM is welcome and expected to do his own thing at his own table.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289Now you wouldn't like that very much, I imagine, primarily because you get pissy with people and accuse them of being some variety of leftist when they say something you don't like, which strikes me as "boomer conservative chic."

Thanks for the compliment I am a boomer conservative. I tend to get upset when people try to paint me with any of the leftist perversions which I do not ascribe to. Just like leftist get upset about good morals and decent behavior.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289And don't give me the whole "oh these are ancient heathen religions no one cares," because guess what, jackass: I fall into the Asatru camp.

I'm sorry, I hope you get some help with that. I have gamed with people who claimed to believe in all kinds of pagan stuff, I had fun gaming with them, but I never for a moment believed they were stupid enough to believe any of the nonsense they were spouting.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289No real-world politics, no real-world religion.

We'll have to disagree on that, I use both. OH and yea, I do file the names off and use my own names, but the basics I leave alone and use as is. When you want a really evil religion, it is really hard come up with something more evil than the real thing.

Quote from: Shasarak;1118292I would say, of course having you even met a Catholic?  Evil to the bone.

I wasn't expecting that, ice tea came out my nose, at least I avoided the keyboard.:cool:

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1118294I hope you never discover Yrth. You'll have an aneurysm.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118296It's a stupid, bad idea.

Start a new thread about Yrth so that he can avoid it.

Quote from: amacris;1118305E.g. your position is:
1. I want to include religion in my game.
2. It's not fun to have people be offended in your game.
3. If I use real-world religion, I will offend some people.
4. If I use fantasy religion, I will not offend those people.
5. Therefore I should use fantasy religion. The problem is real world religion.

And mine is:
1. I want to include religion in my game.
2. It's not fun to have people be offended in your game.
3. If I use real-world religion, I will offend some people.
4. If I use fantasy religion, I will still offend those people.
5. Therefore I should not play with those people. The problem is the people.

So we agree on 1, 2, and 3, but our difference in 4 means we reach different conclusions for 5.

Nailed it!

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1118315Getting kind of bored with the tangent, so I'm going back to this. ^^^

See, this is the kind of thing I can get behind. Having an actual explanation for why certain races(if they can even properly be called that) aren't actually sapient moral agents is something I'd totally accept if done well. There might still be some philosophical issues - I don't expect the average game designer to be a philosopher, after all - but I can suspend disbelief easily enough and not let that bother me. Whether you go this route or you go the route of giving the various races actual culture, all I'm really wanting is a decent explanation. In the former case, I can see my character not exactly being happy with mowing the monstrous humanoids down, much like how they wouldn't feel good about putting down a rabid dog. It's necessary, but you don't have to like it. If the latter, then . . . well, that's when things get more complicated(but IMO usually more fun).

I really liked how Earthdawn handled certain things. One great example is the Ork's gahad, which is where their reputation for violence comes from. It's a physiological condition that occurs in states of extreme emotion. The Ork must act on it or their brain literally begins to boil. It can be done, but doing so always causes pain and too much will shave years off of their already-short lives. Fellow Orks understand, but members of other races often don't get it or don't think it's as serious as it is and have no idea just what they're asking of an Ork when they say "just keep it in" or "just ignore it" or whatever. A very cool detail on its own, I think, but even better for its explanatory power. You can see why Orks get marginalized a lot, and why even people sympathetic to them might still be wary since every Ork is different and you don't always know what's going to set off a specific person's gahad.

That's just one example of some good worldbuilding using a race normally considered "monsters" in other games. Earthdawn does this a lot. It takes something from older games(mostly D&D, let's be real) and builds an explanation around it. In this case, the Ork's perceived penchant for various types of violence. If they are sapient, and if they aren't evil, then why do they blow up like they do? Answer: physiological reason that pushes them to action lest they incur internal injuries and possibly shave years off of their lives. This then hurts other races' perceptions of Orks, making them more likely to do or say something to set off gahad, and thus a perpetuating cycle is born.

I might not care for the rules that much, but I really loved reading the lore stuff in Earthdawn. Good stuff.

I've never looked at Earthdawn, I will have to look around and see what I can find, that sounds like a very good inspirational resource.

Quote from: Zalman;1118257This is how I treat PC races for sure. "Humanoid" is an interesting term, and I often wonder exactly where each person draws the line. In my mind, not everything with two arms and two legs needs to be culturally, psychologically, or even otherwise physically similar to humans in any way.

In my world, orcs, goblins, bugbears and the like are monstrous spawn born of evil souls that emerge from pits of black ooze. No "society" or other "ecology" required. I've never been comfortable with the idea that every monster has to conform to some real-world notion of reproductive evolution (but if you do go that way, then Kyle Aaron's analysis regarding R-selected species is awesome).

There's an even simpler solution.

Nits become lice. At what point do you deal with the problem?

Volo's Guide to Monsters, for D&D 5E

Monster Codex, for Pathfinder 1E

Are both great sources for building upon the typical Monster Manual / Bestiary content.

Are people still laying down the law on the internet like they have some kind of authority? And people responded with "Fuck You I won't do what you tell me!". And then, like, they doubled down and shit?

Weird.

If you'll excuse me, I have to touch up some of the saints in my Catholic religion simulacrum. They need more... controversy I think. Happy Gaming!!

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1118315I really liked how Earthdawn handled certain things. One great example is the Ork's gahad, which is where their reputation for violence comes from. It's a physiological condition that occurs in states of extreme emotion. The Ork must act on it or their brain literally begins to boil.

This reminds me of the Ramian from Jorune... giants who occasionally grow tusks and go on violent binges.

I find it ironic (and sad) that this thread has devolved into bickering about not including IRL religions in Elf games started by someone purporting to be Asatru, which is the religion from the culture that got us elves in fantasy games. :rolleyes:

I used to consider myself neo-pagan. I would not care about people including elements of IRL paganism in games, but would welcome it. I doubt many Christians would care about portraying Christianity in game either.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1118353I used to consider myself neo-pagan. I would not care about people including elements of IRL paganism in games, but would welcome it. I doubt many Christians would care about portraying Christianity in game either.

So long as you're not pulling your interpretation of Catholicism from Chick Tracts, sure.

For example, I actually didn't mind how it was portrayed in Vampire the Masquerade lore (there was a bit about how a Catholic Priest with the True Faith merit could consecrate the cup and, provided the vampire could make the humanity check, a vampire could actually drink and regain blood points from drinking it... they're also likely to pick up the True Faith merit themselves and things like not being able to feed on Catholic clergy or even practicing Catholics if this is a recurring thing). I thought the "Wormwood" ending in the Gehenna book with God offering one final shot at redemption before wiping away vampires entirely (including His reasons for holding off final judgement for so long) had some solid religious themes and exploration that were set up to be explored (the one time I saw it actually run, the GM dropped a last minute "would you sacrifice your salvation for an old dying homeless man?" on the group and only those who went to help ended up actually being saved).

The key for me is; if you're going to include a religion in your game then respect that religion. Don't treat it as a joke or as a caricature. You don't have to sugar-coat things; by all means throw in things like the anti-popes and the wars associated with trying to suppress the Protestant Reformation. But don't exaggerate them or paint things that happened a dozen or more generations ago as what defines the religion today.

It also doesn't hurt to actually study how various religions were really practiced. One GM I know has a hard time depicting pagan religions (this one supposedly a Greco-Roman expy) as anything other than in the Christian framework where each god is its own Protestant-style denomination with regular Sunday worship and Ministers/Priests who act just like Christian ones do. They simply have no other frame of reference for religion.

If you're going to do a genuinely Roman expy then study up on the real thing and how it intersected with daily life for the citizens so you don't look ignorant (point number one being; the Roman Way was a STATE religion; the leadership were the religious leaders and you participated on pain of death... Judaism got a pass because it was older than the founding of Rome, but the main reason for persecuting the Christians was they refused to participate in the state religion).