|
I love Erastil. In a setting where the vast majority of the population lives in traditional rural agricultural villages, I'm glad there's a god who takes that lifestyle seriously.
I'm also a fan of Pharasma, and especially of her conflict with the other "deathy" gods. It's great to have an anti-undead goddess of death.
Of the "bad guys", I have a soft spot for Asmodeus (he's just misunderstood!) and especially Norgorber. I'm intrigued that he used to be a mortal, just like Iomedae and Cayden.
And for minor deities, I like Milani, especially her cool symbol. If I submit stuff for RPGS next year, I think it's going to be Milani-themed. :)
|
I'll also point out that the whole "Irori as Buddha" thing in this thread is a total surprise to me. Yes, Irori is mostly based on Buddhist self perfection philosophy, but that doesn't make him Buddha-with-a-different-name any more than Shelyn would be Aphrodite-with-a-different-name because they're both goddesses of love.
Self perfection through meditation and discipline is a common enough concept that it makes sense to have a Golarion deity based on it, even if he has nothing else in common with Buddha.
|
|
Agreed. That there's some tiny segment of people out there who worship Zeus and probably doesn't care if Zeus is recognized by Pathfinder shouldn't be a deterrent to using Zeus as Pathfinder deity. If anything, it would be good publicity for Zeus worshipers since Zeus is basically a bad-ass force for good in the old Deities and Demigods.I don't advocate making Jesus, Mohammed, or Bhudda into Pathfinder deities, but why not use extinct or near-extinct deities?
Because they're not extinct or near-extinct-- they're just not as commonly worshiped as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic versions of "God". If you're going to say it's okay to use Gods/Heroes from one faith, it ought to be okay to draw them from all faiths-- yet, that's exactly what you're saying isn't okay.
Care to explain to me why it's okay to offend some people because they're a minority and maybe you can get away with it, but it's not okay to do anything that might offend a larger group?
|
|
I'll also point out that the whole "Irori as Buddha" thing in this thread is a total surprise to me. Yes, Irori is mostly based on Buddhist self perfection philosophy, but that doesn't make him Buddha-with-a-different-name any more than Shelyn would be Aphrodite-with-a-different-name because they're both goddesses of love.
Self perfection through meditation and discipline is a common enough concept that it makes sense to have a Golarion deity based on it, even if he has nothing else in common with Buddha.
Fromper--
On this point, I agree. Taishaku has already pointed out that Irori's not a good representation of 'Buddhist' philosophy anyway.There are others who have made the point, or tried to, that Irori was sort of like Buddha, so that part did deserve an answer. But, as a fictional deities, Irori and Shelyn are good examples (IMO) of what the game setting should be including.
|
The only two I like in Golarion are Milani and Regathiel. I almost like Desna, but she is both way over used and dosn't actually have much in the way of half her portfolio for her Clerics. Imodae is pretty generic. Sarenrae might be okay if we could get more western sides to her. I don't know, none of them really do anything for me, but some come almost close, just all to generic and mechaniclly don't really fit well with fluff.
Because they're not extinct or near-extinct-- they're just not as commonly worshiped as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic versions of "God". If you're going to say it's okay to use Gods/Heroes from one faith, it ought to be okay to draw them from all faiths-- yet, that's exactly what you're saying isn't okay.
Care to explain to me why it's okay to offend some people because they're a minority and maybe you can get away with it, but it's not okay to do anything that might offend a larger group?
First off, I don't think it's ever okay to purposefully-offend someone.
And I see your point about the unfairness of treating different religions differently, but you can't cater to every extreme-minority group that cries foul. At some point, you have to draw the line between groups that are large enough that they're worth catering to and groups that are not. I think that line is somewhere between offended Muslims/Christians/Buddhists and offended Zeus-worshipers.
For instance, would you remove animals from the game because some PETA people found the imaginary killing of animals offensive? Do you think it was right to remove devils and demons from the game because some fundamentalist Christians find them offensive? Where do you stop?
I don't know about you, but I think it's unreasonable to cater to such extremist groups just as I think it's unreasonable to think RPG players should cater to some obscure, hypothetical population of people who both worship Zeus and are extreme enough to get upset that an RPG references Zeus as deity.
To water down the game because you might offend some overly-sensitive extremists is the real sin, IMO.
We already have Asmodeus. That was a Jewish Demon. I lived in the 80's where mothers were against D&D for the supposed Devils and Demons in it.If someone is offended at the gods from mythology being represented slightly off, that is nothing compared to the publicity battle that D&D went though in the 80's.
I will take the real world gods. Something will always offend someone, and after D&D survived the Mothers going after them in the 80's they could easily survive it now. People should understand it is a game and not a literal interpretation.
Carl--
I was around in the '80s when those PR battles went down. If that is your feeling though-- When/if a game comes out that does use Christian/Muslim theology in the thoroughly-altered and not exactly the same thing way I described above-- if you say it's okay to use the Pagan gods that way, and then object to borrowing and bending Judeo-Christian-Islamic gods that same way-- I am going to call you on that blatant double-standard (I'll call anyone else on it, who does the same sort of thing). So long as you don't hold that double-standard (Okay to take some people's beliefs, but not okay to make similar use of other people's beliefs)-- at least you're consistent (if not necessarily respectful or disrespectful of the source material)and I can respect that.What I particularly object to (and the point I was really after in the earlier post, although I guess I didn't quite hit the target as intended), is the all-too-common feeling that "it's okay to do whatever you want with all of these mythologies, but don't you dare take anything from my actual religion" that I have run into many times over from Christians, and Muslims, and Jews. Those who do that, IMO really need to rethink their position. For my part, I will NOT tolerate someone who shows such intolerance towards others on racial, religious, sexual, etc., grounds.
One word.
The world has not ended. And Paizo hasn't been struck by any plagues or jihads.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yahweh, LE God of Retribution, Death, and Punishment
Domains: Darkness, Death, Destruction, Law, War, Weather
Favored Weapon: Longsword
Jesus, NG God of Redemption, Healing, and Salvation
Domains: Community, Good, Healing, Liberation, Protection
Favored Weapon: Club
Holy Spirit, CN God of Nature and Fate
Domains: Animal, Charm, Luck, Plant, Travel, Weather
Favored Weapon: Quarterstaff
|
One word.... Testament.
Also Kult (kinda sorta) and In Nomine (more explicitly). RPGs that stat up entities from Judeo-Christian faith aren't exactly new. Nephilim, on the other hand, didn't do a whole lot more than borrow a word or two, it seems.
And, hey, there's Rabbi Loew's golem! and, uh, angels!
Comic-books and Disney movies take it to 11, portraying figures like Ares, Hades, Loki or Set as *super-villains to beat up.* (Hades being particularly ill-treated, since he's more 'no fun to be around / kinda emo' than actually evil.) An issue of Dr. Strange had him get in a fight with Damballah, one of the major loa in Voudon faith (whom he characterized as an uppity demon who got pretensions of godhood, because he 'had a few worshippers'), and get distracted mid-fight, and leave his magic cloak and amulet to kick the butt of a major god of a relatively large religion, while he flitted off to deal with 'something more important.'
Neopagan faithful have spent decades watching the media, all the way down to comic books and children's cartoons, treat their figures of devotion with about as much respect as South Park shows in their 'Santa Claus beats up Jesus' episode.
South Park at least has a disclaimer that it's *deliberately* offending people, 'cause that's kinda their schtick.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, I don't think it's ever okay to purposefully-offend someone.
Since I can see that the rest of your post, does not agree with the first line of your post, I already do not believe you. For my part-- I don't think it's possible to get through life without offending at least some people. I think it's worthwhile to not offend people unnecessarily-- and I definitely think it's worthwhile to treat people equally, with respect. And yes, that means those high American ideals we like to cling to-- equal opportunity, equal rights, equal privileges, equal treatment-- at least on the bases of race, ethnicity, color, creed, religion/faith, sex, gender, etc. People are of course, not entirely equal (no matter how much we'd like to believe that everyone is exactly equal)-- some are smarter and stronger than others, some have different talents, some people do work harder than others, some people do get born into money and are treated differently as a result... but at least on the basic issues of humanity and human life (listed above) and the things that you're usually born into and cannot change (race, ethnicity, color, sex, gender...) and the things we usually believe someone should not have to change (religion/faith, creed)-- we can treat people equally and fairly. Yet we don't-- and judging by your own words in the post that follows, you think discrimination is okay on religious grounds.
And I see your point about the unfairness of treating different religions differently, but you can't cater to every extreme-minority group that cries foul. At some point, you have to draw the line between groups that are large enough that they're worth catering to and groups that are not. I think that line is somewhere between offended Muslims/Christians/Buddhists and offended Zeus-worshipers.
You either don't see my point, or you're supporting blatant hypocrisy here. I'm not talking about extremist groups, or 'every little group that cries foul'-- I'm talking about basic human respect and treating people equally. You're talking about how 'some animals are more equal than others.' About catering to groups because there's a lot of people in them, while being quite willing to offend other groups, because (as I said in the first post) they're a minority, so evidently it's okay with you. It either is okay to draw ideas/personalities/heroes/events from real-world religions or it isn't (any other approach is blatant hypocrisy). If it is okay, it's okay to draw these things from ALL religions (any other approach is blatant hypocrisy). ALL religions-- includes Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism. Giving their beliefs a free pass while looting from everyone else, is blatant hypocrisy.
At some point you have to draw a line between whether you support 'tyranny of the majority' or whether you actually believe there IS such a thing as human rights, separate from what the majority wants to allow minorities to have.
For instance, would you remove animals from the game because some PETA people found the imaginary killing of animals offensive? Do you think it was right to remove devils and demons from the game because some fundamentalist Christians find them offensive? Where do you stop?
PETA, and other extremist groups, have the same rights to hold their beliefs and exercise freedom of speech as any of the rest of us do. The problem with genuine extremist groups is when they try to actions that infringe on the rights of others. That's where I, and I think most other reasonable people, draw the line. The further problem with PETA, is that most of us (with the exception of PETA's fanatics) do not believe that a non-human/non-sentient animal = a human being. So far, there is no ethical or moral standard (other than in PETA's fantasies) that gives non-sentient animals human rights. Since we have depended on animals for food and labor for millennia, I'm afraid PETA's ideas conflict with historic human survival... and that gives reason enough to run the risk of pissing off PETA by refusing to allow them to dictate what everyone else's rights will be.
Regarding devils and demons in D&D? On the one hand, I'm inclined to think that retaining them was perhaps an example of offering unnecessary offense, when it's still a good game without them. However-- yes, I think it was wrong to remove them, when all the other pieces of real world faiths and beliefs were left in place. I say again-- if it's okay to fictionalize and use elements from one religion, it's okay to use elements from all-- yes, you're going to offend some people that way-- I find it more acceptable regardless if you treat all faiths equally, and the argument that it's just a game, nothing personal is meant by it, is much more convincing (and acceptable to folks like me) if it's clear that you are not singling out some religions for special treatment (i.e., leaving out the stuff that offends the Christians, but keeping everything else).
The question isn't where do I stop? It's where do you even start respecting people, instead of pandering to one group because of your fear that a backlash from them might affect you?
I don't know about you, but I think it's unreasonable to cater to such extremist groups just as I think it's unreasonable to think RPG players should cater to some obscure, hypothetical population of people who both worship Zeus and are extreme enough to get upset that an RPG references Zeus as deity.
I do think it's unreasonable to cater to extremist groups. I also think your position that it's okay to discriminate against Pagans because they're a minority, while you pander to Christians because they're common, is unreasonable. The point that I'm 'upset' about, is the blatant double-standard you're espousing as reasonable and okay.
To water down the game because you might offend some overly-sensitive extremists is the real sin, IMO.
I've already told you and others what I think the real sin is, and yes, I think you're guilty of it. I don't think you need to water down the game-- I do, however, think that you need to treat all people with equal respect, and that includes equal respect for their real-world faiths and beliefs.
|
|
One word.
Testament.
The world has not ended. And Paizo hasn't been struck by any plagues or jihads.
Score one for 'TheAntiElite'-- not sure how much screaming there has been about this game or not, but it looks like an interesting setting. And the point to me isn't that 'Testament' should be considered wrong-- it's that, if you include all the Pagan, Shinto, etc, stuff in games... stuff like Testament should be okay to have in games too.
|
|
Saying that you have to 'draw a line' to decide which groups it's acceptable to offend and calling minorities 'extremist' is itself offensive. I think it's much better to just treat everything the same regardless of which mythological beliefs someone holds.
HappyDaze--
Thank you for posting that. Your second sentence is, nice and short-- basically the same message I'm trying to get across. :)And, Kthulhu-- Hmmm.... interesting write-ups. I'm going to have to think about some of those...
I don't know, ladies and gents . . . the story of Aroden is rife with Judeo-Christian elements throughout, and some of that story is incredibly offensive to that story, especially when you think about the ramifications behind Aroden being the one god they decided to permanently kill and how that could be a symbolic slight to Judeo-Christian beliefs today. I know that biblical connections to Aroden's story were intentional, though I highly doubt the symbolism of his permanent death was.
Being Christian myself, I tend to understand that the creators of these worlds tend towards using real-world inspiration to fuel their creation. None of the gods of the Golarion pantheon exactly match their real-world counterparts, as was pointed out with Irori, and the same holds true of Aroden. Being alive means making choices. If a design decision about religions in the fictitious game world upsets or offends someone, I'd say they certainly have the right to speak out their displeasure and not support the game with their money. That's about as far as I'd go with this one, I suppose.
And Kthulu, I think my only real objections to your stats on the Trinity would be the alignments of all three (especially Yahweh and the Holy Spirit) and the giving of a favored weapon to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as neither would need of such.
|
|
I'd say PF in particular is much more offensive to Christianity, Islam, Buhddism, (but not really at all) than any pagan faith. Pagan faiths do not have near universal accepted beliefs, codes, stories, etc. . . They do not typially hold ther deity(s) as personal friends to get angry at people for misusing. Also, pagan faiths dont tend to have the same (at least modern) social moralities intertwined into secular society te same way. So saying this about Zeus in a game generally only offends people looking for a way to be offnded, because their is no accepted belief structure or method of proper faith and worship outside thier own head or local group. So it really isn't the same thing.
Now an arguement could easily be made that Sarenrae exists in PF for the sole purpose of giving Allah the finger and stereotyping middle easterners, or to slight Christianity.
|
|
And yeah, for my writeup of the Christian gods, I didn't really have any ideas for favored weapons. All three were basically me picking something at semi-random. Maybe Jesus' favored weapon should be the whip...didn't he beat the crap out of some foiks with his belt?
I thought about including Satan as well, since by the preachings of some fundamentalist types, he's at least on the same level as the other three. Probably go with NE for him.
Anyhow, they're all weaksauce compared to Thor. After all, he's had his own (fairly popular) comic book since the mid-60s. The closest that Jesus can claim to that is that he's been in a bunch of Jack Chick tracts.
|
|
Beckett--
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are much more widely spread than any of the Pagan faiths are now; but none of these groups is even close to 'universal' acceptance of their beliefs and their creed. For that matter, even within each of these major belief systems-- codes and creeds are not universally accepted between all sects. And personal relationship with one's deity, or impersonal relationship with one's deity, depends on the Pagan.
So-- no, I'm not going to agree with you that "it really isn't the same thing."
I think we need to treat all real-world faiths and beliefs, and people who follow those faiths and beliefs, the same-- no double standards. No special treatment for some religious groups, while denying that respect to others.
Oh, and fiction? Needs to stay fiction-- even if some of these fictional deities in Golarion borrowed some ideas and development from real-world faiths-- I think slapping a 'Hollywood-style' "Any resemblance is purely coincidental..." would go far to ensuring that people of any faith (Christians and Muslims included) don't have any reason to take things the wrong way.
Sub-creator--
Nice post. You raise a few connections I hadn't thought about. I don't have a problem with most of PF's handling of things (even Aroden), because although one can try to pull out similarities, at least these are clearly fictional beings (with two possible exceptions: Lamashtu and Asmodeus...) rather than pulling in real-world mythology lock-stock-and-barrel... the stuff on Aroden that resembles the Christian faith could just as easily make him Mithras. Irori is clearly fictional, whatever real-world resemblances people choose to see. Pathfinder is being consistent, and treating these matters equally as far as real-world people are concerned-- which is my main concern.
On Kthulhu's posting, especially if one looks at what the Canaanites and Egyptians probably would have said about Yahweh... I realize that attaching a LE alignment to Yahweh would offend a lot of Judeo-Christian believers-- but there is every bit as good an argument for making Yahweh "Evil" as there is for making Hades (the God, not the place) "Evil"... kinda shows the problem (IMO) in bringing in real-world Gods for a fictional game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finn K, you keep disagreeing with people who seem to be saying the same thing as you. You all seem to keep saying it's ok to ignore and offend "extremist groups", as long as you don't offend "real world religions". The difference between you and others is where you draw the line between those two groups.
Personally, I've never heard of real world Zeus worshipers. How many are there? How many people does such a group have to have to be considered a real world religion, rather than an extremist group? If 3 guys on my street get together and found their own religion, should we go out of our way to avoid offending them? Or should we just dismiss them as extremists and ignore them?
That said, I disagree with your premise. I don't think we should walk on eggshells trying to avoid offending people, especially when it comes to religion. Not that I think we should go out of our way to piss people off, but I have no problems with including any real world religion in a game, and not caring who it offends. But I'm also the type who laughs at South Park's depiction of Jesus, and got pissed at Comedy Central for censoring South Park's Islam episode.
That said, I also have no problem with Paizo avoiding the issue by inventing their own pantheon.
But as an old school AD&D player, I learned a lot about ancient mythology from the first edition Deities and Demigods. It even inspired me to do a report on the Greek gods for a history report in high school. So I obviously have no problem with including real world religions, especially those that don't seem to be active, in a game.
I don't know, ladies and gents . . . the story of Aroden is rife with Judeo-Christian elements throughout, and some of that story is incredibly offensive to that story, especially when you think about the ramifications behind Aroden being the one god they decided to permanently kill and how that could be a symbolic slight to Judeo-Christian beliefs today. I know that biblical connections to Aroden's story were intentional, though I highly doubt the symbolism of his permanent death was.
Being Christian myself, I tend to understand that the creators of these worlds tend towards using real-world inspiration to fuel their creation. None of the gods of the Golarion pantheon exactly match their real-world counterparts, as was pointed out with Irori, and the same holds true of Aroden. Being alive means making choices. If a design decision about religions in the fictitious game world upsets or offends someone, I'd say they certainly have the right to speak out their displeasure and not support the game with their money. That's about as far as I'd go with this one, I suppose.
And Kthulu, I think my only real objections to your stats on the Trinity would be the alignments of all three (especially Yahweh and the Holy Spirit) and the giving of a favored weapon to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as neither would need of such.
I don't personally see anything wrong with an RPG depicting religions or deities from the real world as long as there is at least an attempt to do so accurately and to be true to the historical facts and/or the self-understanding of the faithful. I think Testament made that attempt - though it offered no suggestions as to how to reconcile Jewish monotheism with its assumed setting having many gods (or if it did make suggestions I don't remember them, and it is probably best for the gaming group to decide what they are comfortable with).
Also, I noticed that Sun Wu Kong is listed as a deity in the Dragon Kingdoms. Well that is a figure from Chinese folklore (actually a 17th century novel if I remember right) and is not a deity made up by Paizo for Golarion. Now no one actually worships Sun Wu Kong but he is certainly a key figure in many East Asian dramas and movies and television series and comic books and so on. I think he was also the inspiration for Dragonball Z, or so I've heard. Also, Sun Wu Kong may not be considered a deity by East Asian Buddhists, but the author of "Journey to the West" was perhaps inspired by the monkey general Hanuman, who in the Hindu epic the Ramayana is an ally of Vishnu's avatar Rama. Hanuman is revered by many Hindus to this day (not sure if I should say he is worshipped exactly, Hinduism is not my area of expertise).
As for putting up alignment, domains, and favored weapons for the Christian trinity - eh, suppose you could do that if you were running a game set in Europe but it is not true to the setting or Christian self-understanding. To separate the three would be heretical. All three would have to be Lawful Good and all would be under God's domain ultimately. Also, the only weapon Jesus ever used was a whip, with which he drove out the moneylenders in the temple. In all seriousness, if I were to run a medieval European campaign using Pathfinder rules I would do this - Christians would all worship (or claims to worship) the One God but their domains would be determined by their areas of interest and mediated by saints or archangels with coinciding interests. Evil domains would actually be the purview of infernals like Asmodeus. I would also rule that corrupt clergy and inquisitors would secretly be receiving power from the infernal forces though they would obviously hide their true allegiance. Maybe they would even be self-decieved, thinking that they are serving God when in actuality their venality and cruelty has put them in the power of the other side. That is how I would do things.
Is it possible this thread has gotten derailed?
|
|
Finn K, you keep disagreeing with people who seem to be saying the same thing as you. You all seem to keep saying it's ok to ignore and offend "extremist groups", as long as you don't offend "real world religions". The difference between you and others is where you draw the line between those two groups.
Seem to be saying the same thing I am? Hmmm... I'm reading your posts, and I'm not getting that impression-- some of the divisions between my view and the ones I'm disputing aren't huge, but there are differences between the opinions you've been setting down in writing, and the opinions I've been setting down.
I draw the line when a group attempts to impose their views on others in violation of others' rights. I recognize that opposing what they see as their right/mission/whatever to impose their views on the world is going to offend them, and at that point-- I'm okay with offending them over that. I'm okay with people getting offended over differing views-- it's gonna happen, and it doesn't abrogate their or my rights of freedom of speech and freedom of thought. I recognize that holding strong opinions means people are sometimes going to be offended by the ideas that I express. That's reality-- and while I'm strongly disagreeing with you (and some of the others on here), and I find some of the views expressed here highly offensive-- I'm not telling you you have to shut your mouth, nor am I attempting to tell you you have no right to speak. Those are some of the ways in which I draw the lines.
In that light-- I don't think I have the right to tell you that you must stop using things drawn from particular real-world faiths, but not from others... but I certainly have the right to tell you that I don't approve of it, and I don't think that such actions are right or that they should be considered morally acceptable. I can take action in the form of choosing not to associate with people who exhibit bigoted behavior, choosing to continue to express my disapproval-- not only to the persons displaying the offensive attitudes, but also to others expressing my judgement of someone else's offensive behavior, and give my advice/opinion that the offensive person should not be accepted and associated with. Within my rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association-- just as others are free to form such opinions of me and act on them, so long as they do not infringe on my rights either. I don't play "double standards".
With regard to extremists, and the extreme end of possible behaviors in this area (NOT saying it goes this far with anyone posting here), we don't have laws saying you can't be prejudiced, a racist, or a bigot in the USA... I'm not even going to suggest that the lack of such laws is unfortunate-- because the consequences of having laws allowing for official "thought police" would be far worse than the consequences of allowing people to be ignorant, prejudiced, and/or willfully stupid.
Personally, I've never heard of real world Zeus worshipers. How many are there? How many people does such a group have to have to be considered a real world religion, rather than an extremist group? If 3 guys on my street get together and found their own religion, should we go out of our way to avoid offending them? Or should we just dismiss them as extremists and ignore them?
Some links for you:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/01/religion.ukhttp://www.thyrsos.gr/englishindex.html
http://www.elaion.org/
http://www.hellenion.org/
http://homepage.mac.com/dodecatheon/21F.html/
http://ysee.gr/index-eng.php
http://hellenismos.us/f/YaBB.pl
http://tropaion.blogspot.com/
http://www.ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq
http://web.archive.org/web/20040104091251/
http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/international.cfm?id=1049692003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6285397.stm
I don't know where you draw the line. So long as they are not trying to impose on the rights of others, I say respect them-- even if it's only a few people.
I don't think it's a matter of "going out of your way not to offend them"-- simply treat people equally, with equal respect for their various beliefs and faiths-- so long as you do that, and you are generally treating people decently-- if they still take offense at that point, it's on them (If everyone's taking offense to your attitude and treatment of them-- then maybe you should reevaluate your behavior). The problem comes in (IMO, and what I've been saying here) when you treat some religious groups one way, and treat others in a very different way.
And by continuing to dismiss that a particular, real faith even exists anymore-- you are treating people unequally and being overtly and unnecessarily offensive.
That said, I disagree with your premise. I don't think we should walk on eggshells trying to avoid offending people, especially when it comes to religion. Not that I think we should go out of our way to piss people off, but I have no problems with including any real world religion in a game, and not caring who it offends. But I'm also the type who laughs at South Park's depiction of Jesus, and got pissed at Comedy Central for censoring South Park's Islam episode.
See paragraph above this one of yours. I don't think you need to walk on eggshells, and I don't think I ever said something quite like that that should have given you that impression. On the other hand-- is it really so hard to understand the idea that you should treat people equally on these matters, instead of having different standards for how you treat people of different faiths?
If you get that concept, and you actually apply it in your life, you're really not being very clear in saying so. Except in this paragraph-- where you do say something about being an 'equal opportunity offender'-- but which does not address your earlier statements entirely dismissing the existence and sincerity of modern Greco-Roman Pagans.
That said, I also have no problem with Paizo avoiding the issue by inventing their own pantheon.
Paizo's decision is one I like-- it does seem to avoid all these questions of equal respect to others, rather than leaving it an open question.
But as an old school AD&D player, I learned a lot about ancient mythology from the first edition Deities and Demigods. It even inspired me to do a report on the Greek gods for a history report in high school. So I obviously have no problem with including real world religions, especially those that don't seem to be active, in a game.
And much of what you learned from 'Deities and Demigods' was wrong. Regarding your last sentence-- lemme know when you include one of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions in your game-- especially if your group includes someone from one of those faiths-- lemme know how it goes. Then at least you'll be consistent in your treatment of various faith groups and religions.
|
|
I don't personally see anything wrong with an RPG depicting religions or deities from the real world as long as there is at least an attempt to do so accurately and to be true to the historical facts and/or the self-understanding of the faithful. I think Testament made that attempt - though it offered no suggestions as to how to reconcile Jewish monotheism with its assumed setting having many gods (or if it did make suggestions I don't remember them, and it is probably best for the gaming group to decide what they are comfortable with).
This is actually one of the critical problems-- which sect's view do you use as the correct one? The self-understanding of the "faithful" often depends on who you deem to be the true faithful.
As for putting up alignment, domains, and favored weapons for the Christian trinity - eh, suppose you could do that if you were running a game set in Europe but it is not true to the setting or Christian self-understanding. To separate the three would be heretical. All three would have to be Lawful Good and all would be under God's domain ultimately. Also, the only weapon Jesus ever used was a whip, with which he drove out the moneylenders in the temple. In all seriousness, if I were to run a medieval European campaign using Pathfinder rules I would do this - Christians would all worship (or claims to worship) the One God but their domains would be determined by their areas of interest and mediated by saints or archangels with coinciding interests. Evil domains would actually be the purview of infernals like Asmodeus. I would also rule that corrupt clergy and inquisitors would secretly be receiving power from the infernal forces though they would obviously hide their true allegiance. Maybe they would even be self-decieved, thinking that they are serving God when in actuality their venality and cruelty has put them in the power of the other side. That is how I would do things.
Here comes the part about what is and is not heretical, depending on who the "faithful" are whose opinions you're considering. I think in being respectful, you probably have to take what people in the faith think their faith is and what it represents; rather than take the views outsiders hold of that faith (lots of people have very low views of Christianity and the Christian version of God)-- but (although it's not well-known or acknowledged in America), theology in the Orthodox church is different from theology in the Catholic and Protestant Churches...
According to Orthodox Christians (at least from the understanding I got from many Orthodox Serbs while I was in Kosovo), there is only one God-- "God the Father" as he is known to Christians in the Western Traditions. Jesus was perfect, and was the perfect sacrifice to redeem mankind-- but he was created by God according to the Orthodox view, and is the perfect and foremost servant of God-- he is not the same thing as God 'the Father' himself. The "Holy Spirit" is likewise not God, and as I understood the explanation from the Orthodox view-- there is no such separate being as the Holy Spirit, the way the Western Churches view the Spirit as part of the Trinity-- these effects attributed to the 'Holy Spirit' are emanations of God's Will, not a separate being. In short-- there is no "Trinity" in the Orthodox Christian Faith as practiced in Serbia (unless I was thoroughly misunderstanding the explanations I was given by Serbian faithful-- which is of course possible, so if there is someone from one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches-- please correct me if I misunderstood the views of your faith). Heresy is in the eye of the beholder...
And views of Saints and Archangels/Angels are wildly different, depending on which branch/sect of Christianity's beliefs you're basing your portrayal of Christianity on.
I worship the Pathfinder pantheon, and I DEMAND that Paizo create new deities that so that don't risk offending me!
Tell them, Finn K, how they must treat all of our religions equally!
|
|
I worship the Pathfinder pantheon, and I DEMAND that Paizo create new deities that so that don't risk offending me!
Tell them, Finn K, how they must treat all of our religions equally!
You know, there are religions with thousands of years of evolution and history. Not all of it is popular or mainstream now, but they are part of the sum the experince of everyone who has lived on this planet.
Even if you don't like a particular faith (and there are several I don't), they are part of the human experience. That should be respected.It's also how you would like your belief to be treated if it were in the minority.
Then there is stuff people on the internet come up with when they want to take arguements to a silly extreme, for example claiming to worship the Greyhawk deities or the fly spaghetti monster for no other reason than to win an argument.
That seems like a very good answer as to 'where the line' is.
|
|
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are much more widely spread than any of the Pagan faiths are now; but none of these groups is even close to 'universal' acceptance of their beliefs and their creed. For that matter, even within each of these major belief systems-- codes and creeds are not universally accepted between all sects. And personal relationship with one's deity, or impersonal relationship with one's deity, depends on the Pagan.
No, but you may notice a said near universal, which those faiths do hve some of. Practically every muslim, regardless of culture, believes that there is only one deity, that deity created everything, is perfect, is eternal, etc. . . There is no equivalent in the various pagan beliefs besides very generic statemnts that do not describe the faiths much at all. For the most part, Christianity believes that it is wrong to kill someone, or that if it must be done, it is ok or less wrong under these circumstances. No equivalent in pagan faiths, as some teach do what you want, some teach treat others are you want treated, so are all about killing, and Wica is all about mixing it all up.
So-- no, I'm not going to agree with you that "it really isn't the same thing."
I think we need to treat all real-world faiths and beliefs, and people who follow those faiths and beliefs, the same-- no double standards. No special treatment for some religious groups, while denying that respect to others.
I don't agree where the double standard is, not that there isn't one. Basiclly, for your overall arguement to be right, we would need to start treating te non-pagan beliefs witht he same respect/coverage/etc. . ., not the otherway around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Errr aaaah... I like Saranrae?
Fights evil, looks sexy?
|
|
I don't agree where the double standard is, not that there isn't one. Basiclly, for your overall arguement to be right, we would need to start treating te non-pagan beliefs witht he same respect/coverage/etc. . ., not the otherway around.
Hmmm.... treating the other beliefs the same way that Pagan beliefs have been treated ever since Christianity became a majority religion and forgot its founder's guidelines... Sounds good-- where do we start?
Um.....while the topic of what and how RPGs( and by extension other forms of media)should borrow and steal from real world religions is very interesting it is off topic. Why not start it's own thread someplace else?
Anyway back on topic I really like all the Golarion deities. I like how they have pantheons that have spread beyond the racial or ethic groups. It is hard pick my favorites...as all of them a very interesting.
I worship the Pathfinder pantheon, and I DEMAND that Paizo create new deities that so that don't risk offending me!
Tell them, Finn K, how they must treat all of our religions equally!
Sorry but they got the copyrights.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but you may notice a said near universal, which those faiths do hve some of. Practically every muslim, regardless of culture, believes that there is only one deity, that deity created everything, is perfect, is eternal, etc. . . There is no equivalent in the various pagan beliefs besides very generic statemnts that do not describe the faiths much at all. For the most part, Christianity believes that it is wrong to kill someone, or that if it must be done, it is ok or less wrong under these circumstances. No equivalent in pagan faiths, as some teach do what you want, some teach treat others are you want treated, so are all about killing, and Wica is all about mixing it all up.
Also, you are both over- and under- generalizing, when you say there are no equivalents-- actually, it depends on which Pagan faith you're dealing with-- they are not all the same, and some do have rules. As far as universals go-- nearly all Wiccans believe in some form of the 'Wiccan Rede'-- commonly recited in a lot of ways, usually trying to be cryptic or 'Old-English-y', but translates well into modern English as "Do as you will, so long as it harms no-one." (usually extended to mean "do what you will, so long as it harms no-one, including yourself.")
Rather simple rule... but understanding the ramifications of it, does lead one to understand that Wiccans pretty much universally believe that killing someone is wrong (obviously that harms someone), and that the only excuse for doing so is if you have to in order to prevent a greater wrong (it's still a wrong, but most Wiccans accept the idea that if a situation leaves you with a choice between lesser evils, you take the lesser evil-- especially since most Wiccans believe that choosing to do nothing IS making a choice, therefore if doing nothing leads to greater evil than doing something... you do something). We could also talk about Crowley's rules, from Thelema (often misinterpreted and under-appreciated: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," AND "Love is the law- love under will."-- seems like it excuses almost anything, until you actually study Thelema and realize that what Crowley and others like him mean by 'Will' is NOT what it generally means to people outside of Thelema, and the laws don't work or apply-- according to Thelemites-- unless you're considering them in accordance with Thelema's definition of 'will'.
Most Wiccans, and a lot of other Pagans, have some pretty strong beliefs about 'karma' and the idea of 'what goes around, comes around'-- some of them believe that whatever you send out into the world, good or bad, will come back on you three-fold. Those things you dismiss as 'generic statements' (or worse yet, those things you aren't even aware of while you're dismissing them) can and are expanded into some pretty solid codes of ethics.
On the other hand, the things Christ himself said were the most important things, in the Gospels, boils down to a few simple things... yet in practice, one often sees these things being the parts of Christianity most easily forgotten and not followed. There are two greatest commandments, according to Jesus, btw: "Love the Lord Your God with all of your heart, mind, and soul," and "Love your neighbor as yourself"-- addendum being what Jesus really means by 'neighbor' as he himself explains elsewhere is all of your fellow human beings on Earth. He also says, in so many words in the Gospels, that EVERY other commandment flows from these two commandments. Some would dismiss these two statements as simple generalizations, but they are profound statements about how you ought to live your life.
|
|
Um.....while the topic of what and how RPGs( and by extension other forms of media)should borrow and steal from real world religions is very interesting it is off topic. Why not start it's own thread someplace else?
Anyway back on topic I really like all the Golarion deities. I like how they have pantheons that have spread beyond the racial or ethic groups. It is hard pick my favorites...as all of them a very interesting.
Apologies for hijacking the thread, from one of the guilty parties.
Dunno-- maybe we're about done beating the bloody pulp that used to be a horse carcass by now... not quite counting on it yet, but it's getting there.
|
|
All three would have to be Lawful Good...Unless, you know, you bother to take the Old Testament into account.
An arguement can be made for LN or N, but can we not get into this yet again. I swear I've see this a billion times already, and it is purely a matter for point of view, and tends to get insulting, honestly.
|
|
Forgotten Realms: Torm, the deity that got the bad taste of Lawful Stupid out of my mouth, and the Red Knight, a war deity that doesn't come from the "raging berserker" model.
Heck yeah, you picked not only two of my favorites, but my exact reason for liking them!
For the Realms, Lleira, Torm and Tymora were probably the most used at the table, in our games. The faith-specific spell 'Tymora's Touch' didn't help, since it was ridiculously awesome.
In Greyhawk, it was Heironeous (the right and proper axe using Heironeous, not that charlatan in 3.0 core!), Trithereon and Wee Jas (the less said about her brother Hugh Jass, the better).
Scarred Lands, Madriel (who'se pretty much Sarenrae), Corean (Heironeous with a dash of Torag) and Tanil (Mielikka / Ehlonna - esque).
We didn't play enough Eberron to get much into gods, although, from a min-max perspective, playing a cleric of Onatar snagged one the Warforged Domain, and power to rebuke and command constructs, including the ubiquitous warforged (and funky variant homonculi). Nothing messes with a Xendrik Expeditions DM like usurping control of one of the encounters (with warforged) and sending them ahead of the party as damage-sponges for the rest of the session. :)
All three would have to be Lawful Good...Unless, you know, you bother to take the Old Testament into account.
Dude.
Seriously, I know you're not trolling.
Cut that out.
I'm as bloody well heretic as it gets, and *I* think that's in poor taste.
One of the most controversial aspects of looking at the Lord in d20 System game terms is determining his alignment. In Testament, the Lord is considered to be lawful good, promulgating a code of strict laws with sometimes harsh punishments, but tempering them with love for his Chosen People. He is considered a greater god. The Lord’s domains are: Good, Heaven, Law, Knowledge, Protection, and Strength. The Lord’s favored weapon is the longsword.
Can we PLEASE try to be at the very least tactful?
|
|
I actually didn't like FR until 4E, but if I'd have to pick a few favorate deities:
Ilmater - probably the only unique and interesting deity out there, and at the same time, probably the most powerful in his own way. Most are cookie-cutter, but something about Ilmater stood out, and it also seemed like his followers where the most rare. Practically NPC only.
________ - Whoever finally killed Mystra. I always houserulled it was a big mystery, but Kelemvor got together with Cyric, Bane, and a few other players from the Avatar series and finally gutted her for being so annoying.
Kelemvor was ok. Seemed a hugely different person in the novels and then in the game. I was less impressed with his "I'm a not-evil god of death" than seems to be so popular, but I didn't hate him so much.
|
|
Yahweh, LE God of Retribution, Death, and Punishment
Domains: Darkness, Death, Destruction, Law, War, Weather
Favored Weapon: LongswordJesus, NG God of Redemption, Healing, and Salvation
Domains: Community, Good, Healing, Liberation, Protection
Favored Weapon: ClubHoly Spirit, CN God of Nature and Fate
Domains: Animal, Charm, Luck, Plant, Travel, Weather
Favored Weapon: Quarterstaff
If you really examine the mythology of Yahweh I believe he really would have ALL domains considering he is the creator of everything. His Preferred weapon would probably be a Sickle sword or Sling
Jergal. I place him on the Astral plane, in a several dozen mile long hallway several stories tall. It is filled with undead scribes who spend the afterlife writing the truenames of the dead. The novices are tasked with the most simple, trivial job- Writing the names deities who die. After that, outsiders who meet a truly permenant end. Then, the long corridor of sentient races. Next come the nonsentient vertibrates, then the invertibrates, the massive length of plants and fungi, and then the final half of the hallway is reserved for the most prestigious scribes, writing truenames of individual bacteria and microscopic organisms. Jergal himself sits in his office at the end of the hall, writing 30% of these names for a given day, all day, all night.
The only thing that strikes me as weird about the major pantheon is that the majority of the good gods are female, including the top crusading warrior goddesses (Iomedae and Sarenrae). I usually prefer good characters, but I can't picture myself playing a cleric who worships a dwarf god or rural god, so that leaves only Cayden Cailean as the only major good male god that I'd pick. I'm ok with picking the females - my first two clerics worship Sarenrae and Desna - but given that the ancient real world religions were all so patriarchal, it does strike me as odd not to have a dominant male leader anywhere on the good side of the pantheon.
Given that the world of Golarion (and pretty much every other fantasy campaign these days) is considerably less patriarchal than the societies that you are referring to, this seems more like an "appropriate" thing than a "weird" thing. Nobody in Golarion looks askance at a young girl who dreams of crusading in plate armor because hey, the 'lil tyke just wants to be like Iomedae.