some help please (druid)

[D***@gmail.com]

I was hoping some people could give me some leaping off points for a
druid characters background? Ive already established her personality
(vis a vis character flaws, achiles heel, and other 'weaknesses') but
comming up with a good history is proving difficult.

I was hoping some group brainstorming could help... any ideas provided
a 14 year old female druid of human descent and an intense elven/asian
societal background.

So far all I;ve got about her background is that shes an avid player of
go (wikipedia 'go game')

Many thanks in advance!

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by D***@gmail.com
I was hoping some people could give me some leaping off points for a
druid characters background? Ive already established her personality
(vis a vis character flaws, achiles heel, and other 'weaknesses') but
comming up with a good history is proving difficult.
I was hoping some group brainstorming could help... any ideas provided
a 14 year old female druid of human descent and an intense elven/asian
societal background.

Can you give us some of that characterization stuff? It's hard
to suggest a background in a vacuum.

Raised by (animal/savage race of your choice) and then forcibly
civilized can be an interesting background: the genteel go-player
who reverts to savagery under certain conditions.

Fourteen, female, and a druid suggests that either her parent(s)
were druids too, or something happened to break up the expected
pattern of her life: orphaned? given to the druids in repayment
of a debt of honor? runaway? taught by a mysterious stranger
within the community?

Did she have some life-changing encounter with forces of nature?
Life saved by an animal/fay/nature spirit? lost overnight in a
holy grove?

Conversely, did she rebel against some other path laid out for
her, like a marriage, a profession, or a priesthood?

Just some starting points.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[D***@gmail.com]

thats a nice start actually, thanks!

some of her characterization;

-arrogance
-superiority complexe
-apathetic with regards to fighting
-dislikes adventureing for the sake of others.
-dislikes people who carry large mean looking blades.
-burning interest in games or strategy.
-dislikes mention of 'chance' or fate.
-atheist

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by D***@gmail.com
I was hoping some people could give me some leaping off points for a
druid characters background? Ive already established her personality
(vis a vis character flaws, achiles heel, and other 'weaknesses') but
comming up with a good history is proving difficult.
I was hoping some group brainstorming could help... any ideas provided
a 14 year old female druid of human descent and an intense elven/asian
societal background.Can you give us some of that characterization stuff? It's hard

to suggest a background in a vacuum.
Raised by (animal/savage race of your choice) and then forcibly
civilized can be an interesting background: the genteel go-player
who reverts to savagery under certain conditions.
Fourteen, female, and a druid suggests that either her parent(s)
were druids too, or something happened to break up the expected
pattern of her life: orphaned? given to the druids in repayment
of a debt of honor? runaway? taught by a mysterious stranger
within the community?
Did she have some life-changing encounter with forces of nature?
Life saved by an animal/fay/nature spirit? lost overnight in a
holy grove?
Conversely, did she rebel against some other path laid out for
her, like a marriage, a profession, or a priesthood?
Just some starting points.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by D***@gmail.com
thats a nice start actually, thanks!
some of her characterization;
-arrogance
-superiority complexe
-apathetic with regards to fighting
-dislikes adventureing for the sake of others.
-dislikes people who carry large mean looking blades.
-burning interest in games or strategy.
-dislikes mention of 'chance' or fate.
-atheist

Is there anything in that list which will tend to connect her with
the other PCs? There certainly seem to be several things which
would push her away, and if this is a multi-player campaign, that could
be troublesome.

She sounds like someone with a strong need to see herself as in
control of her own future (I see why she likes go, which has no
luck in it). That could come from having been completely *out* of
control earlier in her life. Perhaps her life had been planned
out for her (by her parents? Her community?) but that plan was
violently disrupted (by people with large mean looking blades? :-))
and now she is determined to make her own choices.

The "not for the sake of others" suggests that she was being
raised for a role that involved a lot of self-sacrifice. Maybe a
literal sacrifice, maybe just doing a job that would give her no
outlet for her own needs and desires--being an oracle locked in a
cage, for example.

Hm. I rather like the oracle idea. Treated from childhood as
someone with superior wisdom and knowledge, but also as someone with
no say in her own future at all, the helpless pawn of her destiny.
And then the shrine was destroyed by armed force, freeing her but
slaughtering everyone she knew. Now she's on her own, and determined
never to be helpless in that way again. But she retains the
air of superiority, the sense that she knows more than the people
around her and is really a superior form of being.

Anyway, take whatever is helpful, leave the rest. Sounds like you
have a pretty clear idea of her personality, which is probably more
important at the start than her background.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Will in New Haven]

Post by D***@gmail.com
thats a nice start actually, thanks!
some of her characterization;
-arrogance
-superiority complexe
-apathetic with regards to fighting
-dislikes adventureing for the sake of others.
-dislikes people who carry large mean looking blades.
-burning interest in games or strategy.
-dislikes mention of 'chance' or fate.
-atheist

How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
miracles everywhere one looks? Of course your setting may differ and
the question may not mean anything vis a vis this particular character
but I have seen people simply ignore all the deities in a D&D campaign
and I wonder how they think their character can do it. I'm an athiest
myself but my characters in fantasy games have the reality of the gods
shoved in their faces and I have no problem playing deists.

Will in New Haven

--

Post by D***@gmail.com

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by D***@gmail.com
I was hoping some people could give me some leaping off points for a
druid characters background? Ive already established her personality
(vis a vis character flaws, achiles heel, and other 'weaknesses') but
comming up with a good history is proving difficult.
I was hoping some group brainstorming could help... any ideas provided
a 14 year old female druid of human descent and an intense elven/asian
societal background.Can you give us some of that characterization stuff? It's hard

to suggest a background in a vacuum.
Raised by (animal/savage race of your choice) and then forcibly
civilized can be an interesting background: the genteel go-player
who reverts to savagery under certain conditions.
Fourteen, female, and a druid suggests that either her parent(s)
were druids too, or something happened to break up the expected
pattern of her life: orphaned? given to the druids in repayment
of a debt of honor? runaway? taught by a mysterious stranger
within the community?
Did she have some life-changing encounter with forces of nature?
Life saved by an animal/fay/nature spirit? lost overnight in a
holy grove?
Conversely, did she rebel against some other path laid out for
her, like a marriage, a profession, or a priesthood?
Just some starting points.

- Show quoted text -

[Thomas Lindgren]

Post by Will in New Haven
How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
miracles everywhere one looks? Of course your setting may differ and
the question may not mean anything vis a vis this particular character
but I have seen people simply ignore all the deities in a D&D campaign
and I wonder how they think their character can do it. I'm an athiest
myself but my characters in fantasy games have the reality of the gods
shoved in their faces and I have no problem playing deists.

Pure atheism in such a setting seems like denial, but one can always
refuse to worship.

Best,
Thomas

[Eric P.]

Post by Thomas Lindgren

Post by Will in New Haven
How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
miracles everywhere one looks? Of course your setting may differ and
the question may not mean anything vis a vis this particular character
but I have seen people simply ignore all the deities in a D&D campaign
and I wonder how they think their character can do it. I'm an athiest
myself but my characters in fantasy games have the reality of the gods
shoved in their faces and I have no problem playing deists.

Pure atheism in such a setting seems like denial, but one can always
refuse to worship.
Best,
Thomas

Just as in the real world *shrugs*

- E

[Nicole Massey]

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by D***@gmail.com
thats a nice start actually, thanks!
some of her characterization;
-arrogance
-superiority complexe
-apathetic with regards to fighting
-dislikes adventureing for the sake of others.
-dislikes people who carry large mean looking blades.
-burning interest in games or strategy.
-dislikes mention of 'chance' or fate.
-atheist

How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
miracles everywhere one looks? Of course your setting may differ and
the question may not mean anything vis a vis this particular character
but I have seen people simply ignore all the deities in a D&D campaign
and I wonder how they think their character can do it. I'm an athiest
myself but my characters in fantasy games have the reality of the gods
shoved in their faces and I have no problem playing deists.

I've done it quite effectively.

Here are the assumptions:

Magic is magic. All spellcasters are some form of mage.

Gods are just people who have achieved lots of power and immortality, not
some kind of supernatural being.

The priesthood is a cabal of mages that propagate a lie to the populace in
order to both increase their influence over the people too gullible to see
the truth and also to keep certain magical skills protected in their group,
most commonly healing magics. There is also some type of psychic vampirism
involved that gives these mages more power by tapping into the energy of
their followers.

When I played the character with these beliefs, it really got the priests
wound up in the game. (I was doing a chat based online game with about a
hundred players) My character took this to mean that they were hostile
because their secret was discovered.

It was a lot of fun to play. I'm not an Atheist myself by any stretch of the
imagination, but I am an Iconoclast, so it was a good way to keep people on
their toes.

[Arthur Boff]

Post by Nicole Massey

Post by Will in New Haven
How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
miracles everywhere one looks? Of course your setting may differ and
the question may not mean anything vis a vis this particular character
but I have seen people simply ignore all the deities in a D&D campaign
and I wonder how they think their character can do it. I'm an athiest
myself but my characters in fantasy games have the reality of the gods
shoved in their faces and I have no problem playing deists.

I've done it quite effectively.
Magic is magic. All spellcasters are some form of mage.
Gods are just people who have achieved lots of power and immortality, not
some kind of supernatural being.

I like it! I've seen people do similar things before - I think it works
well in fantasy games because all too often, the gods just boil down to
Big Dudes with Loads of Magic and the priests are just spellcasters in
cassocks. It's rare to find a religious system devised for RPGs which
feels like an actual religion which could satisfy the spiritual and
emotional needs of its adherents - Glorantha being one of the few
exceptions.

[Eric P.]

Post by Arthur Boff

Post by Nicole Massey

Post by Will in New Haven
How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
miracles everywhere one looks? Of course your setting may differ and
the question may not mean anything vis a vis this particular character
but I have seen people simply ignore all the deities in a D&D campaign
and I wonder how they think their character can do it. I'm an athiest
myself but my characters in fantasy games have the reality of the gods
shoved in their faces and I have no problem playing deists.

I've done it quite effectively.
Magic is magic. All spellcasters are some form of mage.
Gods are just people who have achieved lots of power and immortality, not
some kind of supernatural being.

I like it! I've seen people do similar things before - I think it works
well in fantasy games because all too often, the gods just boil down to
Big Dudes with Loads of Magic and the priests are just spellcasters in
cassocks. It's rare to find a religious system devised for RPGs which
feels like an actual religion which could satisfy the spiritual and
emotional needs of its adherents - Glorantha being one of the few
exceptions.

A different mechanic could be used for divine power than for arcane
magical power, to more clearly differentiate the two. Also, there's
nothing particularly wrong with having divine beings in a game setting
who are capable of granting "miracles" to their faithful
followers/supporters. If you have a setting where no gods exist, there's
no sense in having any religions/faiths in that setting, either.

- E

[Arthur Boff]

Post by Eric P.

Post by Arthur Boff
I like it! I've seen people do similar things before - I think it works
well in fantasy games because all too often, the gods just boil down to
Big Dudes with Loads of Magic and the priests are just spellcasters in
cassocks. It's rare to find a religious system devised for RPGs which
feels like an actual religion which could satisfy the spiritual and
emotional needs of its adherents - Glorantha being one of the few
exceptions.

A different mechanic could be used for divine power than for arcane
magical power, to more clearly differentiate the two. Also, there's
nothing particularly wrong with having divine beings in a game setting
who are capable of granting "miracles" to their faithful
followers/supporters.

True, but in our world religions manage to get plenty of adherents
despite the fact that only a tiny, tiny minority of them will ever
witness a miracle.

Post by Eric P.
If you have a setting where no gods exist, there's
no sense in having any religions/faiths in that setting, either.

There's no cast-iron evidence that gods exist in our world - certainly,
we don't have priests casting Cure Light Wounds by the bucketload - and
yet we have religions by the plenty. Religion fills an important niche,
a niche which doesn't necessarily disappear if you say "gods don't exist
in this world".

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Arthur Boff

Post by Eric P.

Post by Arthur Boff
I like it! I've seen people do similar things before - I think it works
well in fantasy games because all too often, the gods just boil down to
Big Dudes with Loads of Magic and the priests are just spellcasters in
cassocks. It's rare to find a religious system devised for RPGs which
feels like an actual religion which could satisfy the spiritual and
emotional needs of its adherents - Glorantha being one of the few
exceptions.

A different mechanic could be used for divine power than for arcane
magical power, to more clearly differentiate the two. Also, there's
nothing particularly wrong with having divine beings in a game setting
who are capable of granting "miracles" to their faithful
followers/supporters.

True, but in our world religions manage to get plenty of adherents
despite the fact that only a tiny, tiny minority of them will ever
witness a miracle.

Post by Eric P.
If you have a setting where no gods exist, there's
no sense in having any religions/faiths in that setting, either.

There's no cast-iron evidence that gods exist in our world - certainly,
we don't have priests casting Cure Light Wounds by the bucketload - and
yet we have religions by the plenty. Religion fills an important niche,
a niche which doesn't necessarily disappear if you say "gods don't exist
in this world".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

That's all true in this world. What is also true is that there were
many times and places in this world where openly being an atheist
could get your killed. And most of those times and places resembled
game settings much more than the times and places where being open
about atheism is safe. I don't understand how it is safe in a world
which resembles those periods and in which there is some, although not
conclusive, evidence that the gods exist.

I think many moderns, including deists, strike the atheistic attitude
in game settings because they are uncomfortable with being worshippers
or followers of a game-world god. It doesn't help that many game-world
pantheons have very unnatractive or silly gods. I speak as the creator
of Duster, the Dwarven god of beer, who looks llike a Hobbit disguised
as a Dwarf, so I know silly gods when I see them. Duster, on the other
hand, has many player-character worshippers, so maybe this is all
wrong.

Will in New Haven

[Thomas Lindgren]

Post by Will in New Haven
I think many moderns, including deists, strike the atheistic attitude
in game settings because they are uncomfortable with being worshippers
or followers of a game-world god. It doesn't help that many game-world
pantheons have very unnatractive or silly gods. I speak as the creator
of Duster, the Dwarven god of beer, who looks llike a Hobbit disguised
as a Dwarf, so I know silly gods when I see them. Duster, on the other
hand, has many player-character worshippers, so maybe this is all
wrong.

Also, note that polytheism normally isn't into following a single god
out of the bunch. Doing that would be like using the same patron saint
for all your beseeching. It would be like calling the DMV for your tax
returns, not to mention everything else that has to do with
government. The gods get cranky when you do that (except maybe if you
know someone on the inside). So, people, let's just use the right god
for the right task.

(Practical tip: those of you in college could always ask your hindu
class mates for pointers on how to do polytheism. Note that their
views might differ from this one.)

Best,
Thomas

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Thomas Lindgren

Post by Will in New Haven
I think many moderns, including deists, strike the atheistic attitude
in game settings because they are uncomfortable with being worshippers
or followers of a game-world god. It doesn't help that many game-world
pantheons have very unnatractive or silly gods. I speak as the creator
of Duster, the Dwarven god of beer, who looks llike a Hobbit disguised
as a Dwarf, so I know silly gods when I see them. Duster, on the other
hand, has many player-character worshippers, so maybe this is all
wrong.

Also, note that polytheism normally isn't into following a single god
out of the bunch. Doing that would be like using the same patron saint
for all your beseeching. It would be like calling the DMV for your tax
returns, not to mention everything else that has to do with
government. The gods get cranky when you do that (except maybe if you
know someone on the inside). So, people, let's just use the right god
for the right task.

Actual dialog:
<Sound of thunder, waves, ship creaking and rocking>
Borg Bjorni'sson: Odin, keep that storm away
<repeated many times at the top of his lungs (because of the storm)>
Odin: Why are you bothering ME about the weather? I gave that job to
my son before you lot EXISTED.
BB: Sor-ree
Odin: Sorry won't cut it. You bothered me, now ask for something
aPROpriate
BB: um, Odin, send me ENEMIES
<Sound of pitched battle on shipboard during a terrible storm>

True that

Will in New Haven

--

Post by Thomas Lindgren
(Practical tip: those of you in college could always ask your hindu
class mates for pointers on how to do polytheism. Note that their
views might differ from this one.)
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."

[psychohist]

Thomas Lindgren posts, in part:

Also, note that polytheism normally isn't into following
a single god out of the bunch.

Depends on the type of polytheism, and on the status of the
individual.

Athena was goddess of wisdom, but she was also protector of Athens.
An Athenian might well pray to her for all sorts of things, not just
for wisdom.

Priests and priestesses might well be dedicated to a single god or
goddess, as well.

Warren J. Dew

[Neelakantan Krishnaswami]

Post by Thomas Lindgren
Also, note that polytheism normally isn't into following a single god
out of the bunch. Doing that would be like using the same patron saint
for all your beseeching. It would be like calling the DMV for your tax
returns, not to mention everything else that has to do with
government. The gods get cranky when you do that (except maybe if you
know someone on the inside). So, people, let's just use the right god
for the right task.
(Practical tip: those of you in college could always ask your hindu
class mates for pointers on how to do polytheism. Note that their
views might differ from this one.)

Most Hindu prayers contain invocations of numerous gods. The ones that
invoke single deities invoke many different aspects of the
god. According to advaita philosophy, the basic idea is that
experience is essentially misleading as to the nature of reality.

Praying to a god is a discipline that helps you understand how things
genuinely are, and hence enables you to act according to dharma (ie,
correctly/ethically), because gods are symbolic representations of
ultimate reality. So when you pray, you should naturally invoke many
different gods, because a prayer has an arc to it. The beginning of a
prayer will normally have an invocation of Ganesha, because he is the
god of positive enterprise, devotion, and beginnings, and those are
the attributes you need to begin a prayer. This kind of worship is
usually called karma worship.

However, in addition to being abstract symbols, gods are also concrete
beings. When you pray to a god, you can also engage in a devotional
relationship with that god (in much the same way that an evangelical
Christian might claim a personal relationship with Jesus). Then, you
will try to emulate the god you look up to and who blesses you, and
since they are benevolent this will help you act rightly. This is
called bhakti worship, and is usually directed at the various aspects
of the mother goddess (eg, Durga or Kali), or to incarnations of
Vishnu (in particular Krishna and Rama).

Mythology helps mediate these two attributes. The myths about the gods
both demonstrate the transcendent principles they embody, helping with
karma worship, and also color them with understandable personalities
humans can identify with, facilitating bhakti worship.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Will in New Haven
I think many moderns, including deists, strike the atheistic attitude
in game settings because they are uncomfortable with being worshippers
or followers of a game-world god. It doesn't help that many game-world
pantheons have very unnatractive or silly gods. I speak as the creator
of Duster, the Dwarven god of beer, who looks llike a Hobbit disguised
as a Dwarf, so I know silly gods when I see them. Duster, on the other
hand, has many player-character worshippers, so maybe this is all
wrong.

You can go at least two ways with game-world gods. You can make them
silly, so there is no way that the player's religious (or non-religious)
real-world attitudes will be engaged. But it may be hard to take a PC
or NPC seriously if s/he worships a goofy god. Or you can make them
worthy of being taken seriously, and run the risk of getting into a fight
about player-world religions, or just plain making the players
uncomfortable.

Also, if such-and-such god is really the exemplar of Heroic Virtue, a
lot is being asked of the GM's depiction--it only takes a few less-than-Heroic
decisions on the GM's part to make the god look like a cheat. It's a subset
of the whole problem of playing characters who are extremely smart, or
virtuous, or wise. Of course, if the god stays offstage this doesn't arise
directly, but you may still have to show holy books/teachings/traditions
which live up to the god, and that can be awfully hard.

I try to go the second way anyway, because I find religion one of the most
interesting things in a gameworld, and would feel cheated if it had to be
trivialized. And luckily my own religious beliefs aren't very sensitive about
this. But it's a tough act to manage.

Glorantha stands head and shoulders above anything I've seen published
in terms of providing "real" game-world religions, even though it also
descends into silliness in spots. Most other published work that deals
in religion in any detail goes for the "religion is a power-grabbing
scheme run for the benefit of either priests or gods", as in _The Primal
Order_, which I don't find interesting at all. Playing a sincerely
religious character in such a setting is an invitation to disappointment
and disillusionment, which is interesting to see once in a while, but
not as an inevitability.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by Will in New Haven
I think many moderns, including deists, strike the atheistic attitude
in game settings because they are uncomfortable with being worshippers
or followers of a game-world god. It doesn't help that many game-world
pantheons have very unnatractive or silly gods. I speak as the creator
of Duster, the Dwarven god of beer, who looks llike a Hobbit disguised
as a Dwarf, so I know silly gods when I see them. Duster, on the other
hand, has many player-character worshippers, so maybe this is all
wrong.

You can go at least two ways with game-world gods. You can make them
silly, so there is no way that the player's religious (or non-religious)
real-world attitudes will be engaged. But it may be hard to take a PC
or NPC seriously if s/he worships a goofy god. Or you can make them
worthy of being taken seriously, and run the risk of getting into a fight
about player-world religions, or just plain making the players
uncomfortable.

I guess I take a mixed approach then. The Dwarven gods, the Deep Eight
and their lesser companions, are a mixed lot but Duster is the only
one who isn't fairly serious. One or two are so distant in aspect that
no one directly worships them and the rest cover the spectrum of Dwarf
interests and activities. Of course, Dwarven gods are not going to
cause much player discomfort.

The Church of the Faceless God is the major religious path for most of
the areas where my player-characters operate. The idea of religious
tolerance is just a non-starter with the Church, so the players do
have some problems with it. At the same time, most of the virtues
found in real-world religions are reflected in the Church. A great may
of my player-characters, certainly many more than the demographics of
their homelands would make likely, are secretly worshippers of the old
pantheon that was worshipped prior to the spread of the Church. Still
others, openly when they can, worship the Norse pantheon of the
neighboring nations. Still, a majority of PCs have been members of the
Church.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
Also, if such-and-such god is really the exemplar of Heroic Virtue, a
lot is being asked of the GM's depiction--it only takes a few less-than-Heroic
decisions on the GM's part to make the god look like a cheat. It's a subset
of the whole problem of playing characters who are extremely smart, or
virtuous, or wise. Of course, if the god stays offstage this doesn't arise
directly, but you may still have to show holy books/teachings/traditions
which live up to the god, and that can be awfully hard.

It is clear to veteran players of my game, but not to many of their
characters, that the Faceless God himself is not as bigoted as certain
recent developments in his Church would indicate. Overzealous and
simply corrupt followers have taken the Church out of the path of
virtue but there are others who struggle to move it back on track.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
I try to go the second way anyway, because I find religion one of the most
interesting things in a gameworld, and would feel cheated if it had to be
trivialized. And luckily my own religious beliefs aren't very sensitive about
this. But it's a tough act to manage.

It's easier for me. I'm not religious at all.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
Glorantha stands head and shoulders above anything I've seen published
in terms of providing "real" game-world religions, even though it also
descends into silliness in spots. Most other published work that deals
in religion in any detail goes for the "religion is a power-grabbing
scheme run for the benefit of either priests or gods", as in _The Primal
Order_, which I don't find interesting at all. Playing a sincerely
religious character in such a setting is an invitation to disappointment
and disillusionment, which is interesting to see once in a while, but
not as an inevitability.

I played a couple of campaigns in Glorianthan settings. Aside from
liking RuneQuest a lot, I found the setting brilliant. The way my
first DM, a mideavalist grad student at Yale, set up the religious
situation in that first D&D campaign has influenced me a lot as well.

Will in New Haven

[Eric P.]

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Arthur Boff

Post by Eric P.

Post by Arthur Boff
I like it! I've seen people do similar things before - I think it works
well in fantasy games because all too often, the gods just boil down to
Big Dudes with Loads of Magic and the priests are just spellcasters in
cassocks. It's rare to find a religious system devised for RPGs which
feels like an actual religion which could satisfy the spiritual and
emotional needs of its adherents - Glorantha being one of the few
exceptions.

A different mechanic could be used for divine power than for arcane
magical power, to more clearly differentiate the two. Also, there's
nothing particularly wrong with having divine beings in a game setting
who are capable of granting "miracles" to their faithful
followers/supporters.

True, but in our world religions manage to get plenty of adherents
despite the fact that only a tiny, tiny minority of them will ever
witness a miracle.

Post by Eric P.
If you have a setting where no gods exist, there's
no sense in having any religions/faiths in that setting, either.

There's no cast-iron evidence that gods exist in our world - certainly,
we don't have priests casting Cure Light Wounds by the bucketload - and
yet we have religions by the plenty. Religion fills an important niche,
a niche which doesn't necessarily disappear if you say "gods don't exist
in this world".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

That's all true in this world. What is also true is that there were
many times and places in this world where openly being an atheist
could get your killed. And most of those times and places resembled
game settings much more than the times and places where being open
about atheism is safe. I don't understand how it is safe in a world
which resembles those periods and in which there is some, although not
conclusive, evidence that the gods exist.
I think many moderns, including deists, strike the atheistic attitude
in game settings because they are uncomfortable with being worshippers
or followers of a game-world god. It doesn't help that many game-world
pantheons have very unnatractive or silly gods. I speak as the creator
of Duster, the Dwarven god of beer, who looks llike a Hobbit disguised
as a Dwarf, so I know silly gods when I see them. Duster, on the other
hand, has many player-character worshippers, so maybe this is all
wrong.
Will in New Haven

Many real-world gods might be said to be unattractive or silly, but have
worshippers nonetheless.

- E

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Arthur Boff
There's no cast-iron evidence that gods exist in our world - certainly,
we don't have priests casting Cure Light Wounds by the bucketload - and
yet we have religions by the plenty. Religion fills an important niche,
a niche which doesn't necessarily disappear if you say "gods don't exist
in this world".

An interesting possibility which I don't think I've seen explored
in an RPG: if the theistic (god-based) religions stop filling that
niche, maybe something else will necessarily arise to do so. So you
could have the theistic faiths, which have become mainly propritiation
and power-worship, and something like Buddhism or Taoism growing up
around them, quietly, outside their notice, to satisfy the human needs
which religions tend to meet.

The RPG theistic religions seldom seem to spend much effort meeting
those needs, after all: a few holidays, maybe a burial or marriage
ceremony, but not much more.

I can think of a few examples of this in SF/fantasy, but none in RPGs.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[psychohist]

Mary Kuhner posts, in part:

So you could have the theistic faiths, which have become
mainly propritiation and power-worship, and something like
Buddhism or Taoism growing up around them, quietly,
outside their notice, to satisfy the human needs
which religions tend to meet.

I'm curious - what needs do you see them as meeting?

Note that I'm not denying that there are such needs, I'm just
wondering if you are thinking of the same needs as I am - or perhaps
more accurately, which ones I'm failing to consider.

Warren J. Dew

[Arthur Boff]

Post by psychohist
So you could have the theistic faiths, which have become
mainly propritiation and power-worship, and something like
Buddhism or Taoism growing up around them, quietly,
outside their notice, to satisfy the human needs
which religions tend to meet.
I'm curious - what needs do you see them as meeting?
Note that I'm not denying that there are such needs, I'm just
wondering if you are thinking of the same needs as I am - or perhaps
more accurately, which ones I'm failing to consider.

I'd be interested to see Mary's answer as well, but here's what I was
thinking of in my previous post on the subject:

- Spiritual reassurance. The idea that human beings are meaningless
insects grubbing about on the surface of a ball of dirt in cold empty
space isn't particularly comforting. A religion needs to say people "the
world makes sense, there is a greater meaning behind apparent chaos, and
even if you are suffering now, there is hope for you if you have faith."

- Social glue. A coherent moral philosophy, some basic laws, perhaps
even backing the political status quo (or, in the case of Judaism or
Christianity during the times when those faiths were persecuted, keeping
a community together through a common faith when everything else had
been taken away from them).

- A focus for the community. Everyone's busy working away at their own
affairs in Average Medieval Village X, but no matter who you are, come
Sunday you come to church and worship together with everyone else in
your village. Even if you don't understand the Latin mass - heck,
chances are your village priest doesn't - it's nice to have a chance to
catch up with your neighbours.

[psychohist]

Arthur Boff posts regarding the needs that religions fill:

I'd be interested to see Mary's answer as well, but here's
what I was thinking of in my previous post on the subject:

What particularly made me wonder was Mary's mention of Buddhism and
Taoism, which I tend to think of as religions, and the lack of mention
of Confucianism, which I see as a nonreligious philosophy.

- Spiritual reassurance. The idea that human beings
are meaningless insects grubbing about on the
surface of a ball of dirt in cold empty space isn't
particularly comforting. A religion needs to say
people "the world makes sense, there is a greater
meaning behind apparent chaos, and even if you
are suffering now, there is hope for you if you have
faith."

This is something that Confucianism doesn't offer, and that Buddhism
and perhaps Taoism do; it may be related to why I consider the latter
two religions and the former not.

- Social glue. A coherent moral philosophy, some basic
laws, perhaps even backing the political status quo (or,
in the case of Judaism or Christianity during the times
when those faiths were persecuted, keeping a
community together through a common faith when
everything else had been taken away from them).

Confucianism does provide this part, and from my perhaps biased
viewpoint, Buddhism and Taoism don't particularly. Perhaps the key
here - at least for the nonminority philosophies - is the underlying
moral philosophy, which can be provided by nonreligious philosophies
as easily as they can be by religions. I'm curious as to how you see
the moral philosophy and legal framework as relating to what keeps
minority communities together, though.

- A focus for the community.

I guess I don't see this as an issue of either religion or
philosophy. I agree that churches can fulfill this role, but it seems
to me that the keep or manor house may do so equally well.

Does that seem a reasonable analysis of the difference of your three
items?

Warren J. Dew

[Arthur Boff]

Post by Arthur Boff
- Social glue. A coherent moral philosophy, some basic
laws, perhaps even backing the political status quo (or,
in the case of Judaism or Christianity during the times
when those faiths were persecuted, keeping a
community together through a common faith when
everything else had been taken away from them).
Confucianism does provide this part, and from my perhaps biased
viewpoint, Buddhism and Taoism don't particularly. Perhaps the key
here - at least for the nonminority philosophies - is the underlying
moral philosophy, which can be provided by nonreligious philosophies
as easily as they can be by religions.

I'd argue that Buddhism offers a very strong moral philosophy, as well
as a haven for opponents of, say, the Hindu caste system. (Buddhism, at
its simplest, being all about hopping off the wheel of karma, while
Hinduism is about riding it to the top.)

Post by Arthur Boff
I'm curious as to how you see
the moral philosophy and legal framework as relating to what keeps
minority communities together, though.

It's a matter of saying "We're the Jews/Christians/whatever, we believe
that this and this and this are the right thing to do, we conduct our
worship in this this and this way to show we're all part of the
brotherhood".

Post by Arthur Boff
- A focus for the community.
I guess I don't see this as an issue of either religion or
philosophy. I agree that churches can fulfill this role, but it seems
to me that the keep or manor house may do so equally well.

All it takes in that case is for the current lord of the manor to be an
antisocial cur who doesn't want the unwashed masses running about in his
house for the community focus to be lost.

Conversely, to continue the medieval Europe analogy, churches pretty
much have to let people come and worship unless they're under a Papal
interdict.

Post by Arthur Boff
Does that seem a reasonable analysis of the difference of your three
items?

More or less.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by psychohist
So you could have the theistic faiths, which have become
mainly propritiation and power-worship, and something like
Buddhism or Taoism growing up around them, quietly,
outside their notice, to satisfy the human needs
which religions tend to meet.
I'm curious - what needs do you see them as meeting?
Note that I'm not denying that there are such needs, I'm just
wondering if you are thinking of the same needs as I am - or perhaps
more accurately, which ones I'm failing to consider.

Some random thoughts:

Sense of purpose or meaning in life.

Explanations of issues which are emotionally important but
can't be settled by direct experience, like "What will happen to
me when I die?"

Emotional community with other believers; membership in a cohesive
group. This can also extend to material obligations to other
group members: you may be able to count on your co-religionists
to raise a barn with you or look after your orphans. (Cf player
world institutions like pilgrim-houses and godparents.)

An outside referent for moral intuitions, to help resolve situations
where indviduals' moral intuitions differ, or where someone doesn't
seem to have any.

A framework in which to understand numinous experiences. (This
is probably the main use of my own player-world religion.)

Structuring life: rites of passage, seasonal holidays, myth
re-enactment, etc.

A context for spiritual education and training.

A context for celebration and ecstasy.

A means to support specialists in various "service" professions whom
the society otherwise wouldn't have: counsellors, therapists, etc.
Also a context in which to divide "licit" from "illict" practitioners.

External absolution from guilt: Catholic confession, Hawai'ian
City of Refuge, etc.

Taboos and strictures which help society manage problems where
self-interest is not enough (kapu in Hawai'i, dietary or
grave-working restrictions in several cultures, etc.) I'd expect
this to be even more important in a society overrun with
supernatural phenomena. For example, a priesthood which
claimed sole ability to identify lycanthropes might be a greatly
preferable alternative to lynching of anyone suspected of being
a lycanthrope.

A way to support scholarship relatively disinterested scholarship
and to support dedicated scholars economically.

In my experience most D&D clerics are just not providing the bulk of
these services at all. Gloranthan priests do more of this, or at least
can be played that way readily (there is rules support). Numinous
experiences for non-priests are a particularly striking missing element.
It's only vaguely apparent that most D&D deities in most settings I've
seen have lay worshippers at all, much less providing, say, the
equivalent of the Elusinian Mysteries for them.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:55:25 +0000 (UTC),

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by Arthur Boff
There's no cast-iron evidence that gods exist in our world - certainly,
we don't have priests casting Cure Light Wounds by the bucketload - and
yet we have religions by the plenty. Religion fills an important niche,
a niche which doesn't necessarily disappear if you say "gods don't exist
in this world".

An interesting possibility which I don't think I've seen explored
in an RPG: if the theistic (god-based) religions stop filling that
niche, maybe something else will necessarily arise to do so. So you
could have the theistic faiths, which have become mainly propritiation
and power-worship, and something like Buddhism or Taoism growing up
around them, quietly, outside their notice, to satisfy the human needs
which religions tend to meet.

FWIW, when I converted my Etan game from AD&D to TFT (back when TFT
first came out - 1981, IIRC) I decided to fast-forward the world 1000
years, and also to kill off all the deities.

This left the obvious question for the gameworld's population: "The
gods are all dead. Now what?" The answers I worked out involved a
number of different "new religions." I tried to develop them as things
that would meet human needs, but I didn't put much effort into them.

"The ghosts of some gods still linger, and on some glorious future
day, the gods themselves will return. And those who remembered them
will be rewarded."

"Beyond the gods that were is the Hand of Fate. Submit to the fate
that the Hand places upon you and to the teachings of the Nameless
Prophet. Then you will be happier, both in this life and in the next."

"The great gods never had much time for ordinary mortals. The
*important* immortals are the various tribal, totem, and clan spirits.
Their power will protect you, and their teachings will guide you."

"The Emperor is the true Heir of the Gods. Obey Him, His laws, and His
bureaucrat-priests."

"The world is a womb. Only when one dies, when one's spirit passes
through the Gates of the Dead on the god-plane will one's real life
begin."

"Secular wizardry and scholarship can provide the answers we formerly
asked the priests to give."

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
The RPG theistic religions seldom seem to spend much effort meeting
those needs, after all: a few holidays, maybe a burial or marriage
ceremony, but not much more.

I'm pretty irreligious myself, so I no doubt underestimate the need
most people have for such things. After all, *I* get along just fine
with "a few holidays, maybe a burial or marriage ceremony, but not
much more," and thus I don't have much motive for my fictional &
game-world religions to provide much more than that.

[Eric P.]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:55:25 +0000 (UTC),

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by Arthur Boff
There's no cast-iron evidence that gods exist in our world - certainly,
we don't have priests casting Cure Light Wounds by the bucketload - and
yet we have religions by the plenty. Religion fills an important niche,
a niche which doesn't necessarily disappear if you say "gods don't exist
in this world".

An interesting possibility which I don't think I've seen explored
in an RPG: if the theistic (god-based) religions stop filling that
niche, maybe something else will necessarily arise to do so. So you
could have the theistic faiths, which have become mainly propritiation
and power-worship, and something like Buddhism or Taoism growing up
around them, quietly, outside their notice, to satisfy the human needs
which religions tend to meet.

Makes sense that any source of power would attract a body of
worshippers, whether or not the worship is deserved.

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
FWIW, when I converted my Etan game from AD&D to TFT (back when TFT
first came out - 1981, IIRC) I decided to fast-forward the world 1000
years, and also to kill off all the deities.

Did quite a bit of conversion in the same manner, myself :)

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
This left the obvious question for the gameworld's population: "The
gods are all dead. Now what?" The answers I worked out involved a
number of different "new religions." I tried to develop them as things
that would meet human needs, but I didn't put much effort into them.
"The ghosts of some gods still linger, and on some glorious future
day, the gods themselves will return. And those who remembered them
will be rewarded."
"Beyond the gods that were is the Hand of Fate. Submit to the fate
that the Hand places upon you and to the teachings of the Nameless
Prophet. Then you will be happier, both in this life and in the next."
"The great gods never had much time for ordinary mortals. The
*important* immortals are the various tribal, totem, and clan spirits.
Their power will protect you, and their teachings will guide you."

This has good potential.

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
"The Emperor is the true Heir of the Gods. Obey Him, His laws, and His
bureaucrat-priests."

That's a very typical approach with an empire situation.

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
"The world is a womb. Only when one dies, when one's spirit passes
through the Gates of the Dead on the god-plane will one's real life
begin."

I really like this one :)

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
"Secular wizardry and scholarship can provide the answers we formerly
asked the priests to give."

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
The RPG theistic religions seldom seem to spend much effort meeting
those needs, after all: a few holidays, maybe a burial or marriage
ceremony, but not much more.

I'm pretty irreligious myself, so I no doubt underestimate the need
most people have for such things. After all, *I* get along just fine
with "a few holidays, maybe a burial or marriage ceremony, but not
much more," and thus I don't have much motive for my fictional &
game-world religions to provide much more than that.

I'd say that the importance of relationships between deities and people,
in a game setting context, is not so much what maintaining the
relationship can do for their spiritual and/or emotional well-being as
what access to divine power (read "cleric spells") the relationship
provides. Otherwise, it's just a bit of sociocultural flavor.

- E

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Eric P.
I'd say that the importance of relationships between deities and people,
in a game setting context, is not so much what maintaining the
relationship can do for their spiritual and/or emotional well-being as
what access to divine power (read "cleric spells") the relationship
provides. Otherwise, it's just a bit of sociocultural flavor.

We had a space-opera setting where the religions were similar to
modern-day ones; lots of people were religious to some degree or
other, but no miracles were in evidence. The PCs' various religions
did turn out to matter--perhaps only as "sociocultural flavor" but
that was pretty important to the campaign. One of the PCs spent
much of the campaign slowly working his way back from the secularized
worldview he'd started with to a more developed form of his hometown
Ba'hai; it was fairly central to his characterization. And Vikki's
cluelessness about religion, and Christine's "communitarian" quasi-
religion which the other PCs tended to see uneasily as AI-worship, were
lesser but also important characterization points.

But it does vary a lot from game to game; you can even run Runequest
where religions don't matter at all, with only a little effort.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Eric P.]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by Eric P.
I'd say that the importance of relationships between deities and people,
in a game setting context, is not so much what maintaining the
relationship can do for their spiritual and/or emotional well-being as
what access to divine power (read "cleric spells") the relationship
provides. Otherwise, it's just a bit of sociocultural flavor.

We had a space-opera setting where the religions were similar to
modern-day ones; lots of people were religious to some degree or
other, but no miracles were in evidence. The PCs' various religions
did turn out to matter--perhaps only as "sociocultural flavor" but
that was pretty important to the campaign. One of the PCs spent
much of the campaign slowly working his way back from the secularized
worldview he'd started with to a more developed form of his hometown
Ba'hai; it was fairly central to his characterization. And Vikki's
cluelessness about religion, and Christine's "communitarian" quasi-
religion which the other PCs tended to see uneasily as AI-worship, were
lesser but also important characterization points.
But it does vary a lot from game to game; you can even run Runequest
where religions don't matter at all, with only a little effort.

Indeed...differing religious viewpoints sometimes provide well for plot
and motivation!

- E

[Simon Smith]

In message <***@4ax.com>
Erol K. Bayburt <***@comcast.net> wrote:

<Snip>

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
FWIW, when I converted my Etan game from AD&D to TFT (back when TFT
first came out - 1981, IIRC) I decided to fast-forward the world 1000
years, and also to kill off all the deities.
This left the obvious question for the gameworld's population: "The
gods are all dead. Now what?" The answers I worked out involved a
number of different "new religions." I tried to develop them as things
that would meet human needs, but I didn't put much effort into them.
"The ghosts of some gods still linger, and on some glorious future
day, the gods themselves will return. And those who remembered them
will be rewarded."
"Beyond the gods that were is the Hand of Fate. Submit to the fate
that the Hand places upon you and to the teachings of the Nameless
Prophet. Then you will be happier, both in this life and in the next."
"The great gods never had much time for ordinary mortals. The
*important* immortals are the various tribal, totem, and clan spirits.
Their power will protect you, and their teachings will guide you."
"The Emperor is the true Heir of the Gods. Obey Him, His laws, and His
bureaucrat-priests."
"The world is a womb. Only when one dies, when one's spirit passes
through the Gates of the Dead on the god-plane will one's real life
begin."
"Secular wizardry and scholarship can provide the answers we formerly
asked the priests to give."

Seems to me you missed the most obvious response, variations on the theme
of:

"The Gods aren't dead, and anyone who says they are will be burned at the
stake for heresy."


Other than that, I think it's a superb list. :-)

[psychohist]

"Eric P." posts, in part:

If you have a setting where no gods exist, there's
no sense in having any religions/faiths in that setting, either.

In the context of modern player world religion, "faith" is generally
used to mean "belief without proof". In that sense, in a game with
provably existing gods, you can have religions but you can't have
faiths.

Warren J. Dew

[gleichman]

Post by Eric P.
If you have a setting where no gods exist, there's
no sense in having any religions/faiths in that setting, either.
In the context of modern player world religion, "faith" is generally
used to mean "belief without proof". In that sense, in a game with
provably existing gods, you can have religions but you can't have
faiths.

I seriously doubt there is a true case of "provably existing gods", at
best one could have a case of 'provably existing power', but to quote
James T. Kirk "...if all this makes a god".

Also in answer to Eric P: real world atheists find that there is "no
sense in having any religions/faiths" in the real world as well. Such
a viewpoint hardly removes those religions from their world.


As to the original subject of an atheist druid...

It's flatly impossible by the earlier edition books which always had a
Druid being a sub-class of Cleric. As such their spells are not
learned, but given by their patron god. Atheist Druid-> no god -> no
spells -> no Druid, although I guess you could still be a tree hugger.
Rather simple.

But like having a Lawful-Neutral Paladin, there's nothing preventing
people from blowing off the rules. If D&D is noted for anything, it's
making a silly mess out of anything remotely serious.

[Eric P.]

Post by Eric P.
If you have a setting where no gods exist, there's
no sense in having any religions/faiths in that setting, either.
In the context of modern player world religion, "faith" is generally
used to mean "belief without proof". In that sense, in a game with
provably existing gods, you can have religions but you can't have
faiths.
Warren J. Dew

Very well. Strike "faiths" from the above statement.

- E

[Simon Smith]

Post by Eric P.

Post by Eric P.
If you have a setting where no gods exist, there's
no sense in having any religions/faiths in that setting, either.
In the context of modern player world religion, "faith" is generally
used to mean "belief without proof". In that sense, in a game with
provably existing gods, you can have religions but you can't have
faiths.
Warren J. Dew

Very well. Strike "faiths" from the above statement.
- E

OK:

--> If you have a setting where no gods exist, there's no sense in having
--> any religions in that setting, either.


No, I still flatly disagree.

Even in the absence of gods, people still have spiritual needs. True
atheists are the exception even nowadays. If there are no gods, and nobody
has felt the need to invent any - which is rather unlikely IMV - a world
will still have its holy men and mystics. These will usually be people with
great wisdom and spirituality and/or who are able to attain a suitably
altered state of mind (i.e. via drugs and other means). There's also bound
to be a somewhat larger of numbers of fakers, charlatans and the deluded.
But the important point is that they won't /all/ be frauds, even if most
are.

Such people, particularly the handful who are truly enlightened, will, by
word and example tell or show others how to live their lives. Such advice
still works even in a setting where gods do not exist. And the people who
are wise enough to provide such advice will be justly respected and even
revered as exceptional people. Well, they are. And their teachings will be
recorded and passed on, and others will make honest attempts to follow such
teachings.

So even without gods, a fantasy setting is still likely to build up a body
of holy teachings from these people. They will be called saints, prophets,
gurus, or other like names, some of them will study and build on the
teachings of their predecessors, and a genuine religion will build itself
from the ground up even in settings where nobody believes in the existence
of gods.

*I* could happily follow a religion like that, and I'm an atheist. A
spiritual religion can still work, even if doesn't have a god.


See dictionary.com, which lists this definition among others: "a set of
beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, /esp.
when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies,/ usually
involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral
code governing the conduct of human affairs."


Note the emphasised bit, beginning 'esp.': while almost all religions
involve superhuman agency/agencies, it is possible to have a religion
fitting the quoted definition that does not involve them. After all, it only
says '/especially/', not '/invariably/'.

[Eric P.]

I shall now attempt to extract my mouth from my foot. Be amazed! ;)

Post by Simon Smith
--> If you have a setting where no gods exist, there's no sense in having
--> any religions in that setting, either.
No, I still flatly disagree.
Even in the absence of gods, people still have spiritual needs. True
atheists are the exception even nowadays. If there are no gods, and nobody
has felt the need to invent any - which is rather unlikely IMV - a world
will still have its holy men and mystics. These will usually be people with
great wisdom and spirituality and/or who are able to attain a suitably
altered state of mind (i.e. via drugs and other means). There's also bound
to be a somewhat larger of numbers of fakers, charlatans and the deluded.
But the important point is that they won't /all/ be frauds, even if most
are.

You have a point here, one that I missed earlier. Yes, belief systems
can emerge among cultures even in a world where no deities exist, but in
that case, no divine power can be accessed.

Interesing that you would say people have spiritual needs even in the
absence of gods, because in order to have spiritual needs, one must have
a spirit. In order to have a spirit, that spirit must have been placed
in the body. Only a creator deity can do this. Therefore, if a person
has spiritual needs, there must be a deity responsible...somewhere.

Post by Simon Smith
Such people, particularly the handful who are truly enlightened, will, by
word and example tell or show others how to live their lives. Such advice
still works even in a setting where gods do not exist. And the people who
are wise enough to provide such advice will be justly respected and even
revered as exceptional people. Well, they are. And their teachings will be
recorded and passed on, and others will make honest attempts to follow such
teachings.

Yes, these teachings have value in enabling people to set their moral
compasses.

Post by Simon Smith
So even without gods, a fantasy setting is still likely to build up a body
of holy teachings from these people. They will be called saints, prophets,
gurus, or other like names, some of them will study and build on the
teachings of their predecessors, and a genuine religion will build itself
from the ground up even in settings where nobody believes in the existence
of gods.
*I* could happily follow a religion like that, and I'm an atheist. A
spiritual religion can still work, even if doesn't have a god.

I suppose that, in a setting where psionics or other paranormal
abilities are used, that power could be mistaken for divine power, or
people could use it to pretend that they're accessing divine power. Many
possibilities there.

- E

[Arthur Boff]

Post by Eric P.
Interesing that you would say people have spiritual needs even in the
absence of gods, because in order to have spiritual needs, one must have
a spirit. In order to have a spirit, that spirit must have been placed
in the body. Only a creator deity can do this. Therefore, if a person
has spiritual needs, there must be a deity responsible...somewhere.

You can conflate them, if you like, with emotional needs, and define
"spiritual" as a particular emotional state.

[Eric P.]

Post by Arthur Boff

Post by Eric P.
Interesing that you would say people have spiritual needs even in the
absence of gods, because in order to have spiritual needs, one must have
a spirit. In order to have a spirit, that spirit must have been placed
in the body. Only a creator deity can do this. Therefore, if a person
has spiritual needs, there must be a deity responsible...somewhere.

You can conflate them, if you like, with emotional needs, and define
"spiritual" as a particular emotional state.

Interesting angle!

- E

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Eric P.
I shall now attempt to extract my mouth from my foot. Be amazed! ;)

Post by Simon Smith
--> If you have a setting where no gods exist, there's no sense in having
--> any religions in that setting, either.
No, I still flatly disagree.
Even in the absence of gods, people still have spiritual needs. True
atheists are the exception even nowadays. If there are no gods, and nobody
has felt the need to invent any - which is rather unlikely IMV - a world
will still have its holy men and mystics. These will usually be people with
great wisdom and spirituality and/or who are able to attain a suitably
altered state of mind (i.e. via drugs and other means). There's also bound
to be a somewhat larger of numbers of fakers, charlatans and the deluded.
But the important point is that they won't /all/ be frauds, even if most
are.

You have a point here, one that I missed earlier. Yes, belief systems
can emerge among cultures even in a world where no deities exist, but in
that case, no divine power can be accessed.
Interesing that you would say people have spiritual needs even in the
absence of gods, because in order to have spiritual needs, one must have
a spirit. In order to have a spirit, that spirit must have been placed
in the body. Only a creator deity can do this. Therefore, if a person
has spiritual needs, there must be a deity responsible...somewhere.

Ah, but even absent a spirit, meat can think that it has spiritual
needs. As long as the llittle electrical impulses go on in that wad of
grey meat on top of the rest of it all kinds of needs can be imagined.
So, no there does not need to be a deity somewhere. There might be
one, no doubt, but your argument is nothing like proof. .

Will in New Haven

--

Post by Eric P.

Post by Simon Smith
Such people, particularly the handful who are truly enlightened, will, by
word and example tell or show others how to live their lives. Such advice
still works even in a setting where gods do not exist. And the people who
are wise enough to provide such advice will be justly respected and even
revered as exceptional people. Well, they are. And their teachings will be
recorded and passed on, and others will make honest attempts to follow such
teachings.

Yes, these teachings have value in enabling people to set their moral
compasses.

Post by Simon Smith
So even without gods, a fantasy setting is still likely to build up a body
of holy teachings from these people. They will be called saints, prophets,
gurus, or other like names, some of them will study and build on the
teachings of their predecessors, and a genuine religion will build itself
from the ground up even in settings where nobody believes in the existence
of gods.
*I* could happily follow a religion like that, and I'm an atheist. A
spiritual religion can still work, even if doesn't have a god.

I suppose that, in a setting where psionics or other paranormal
abilities are used, that power could be mistaken for divine power, or
people could use it to pretend that they're accessing divine power. Many
possibilities there.
- E- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Simon Smith]

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Eric P.
I shall now attempt to extract my mouth from my foot. Be amazed! ;)

Post by Simon Smith
--> If you have a setting where no gods exist, there's no sense in having
--> any religions in that setting, either.
No, I still flatly disagree.
Even in the absence of gods, people still have spiritual needs. True
atheists are the exception even nowadays. If there are no gods, and nobody
has felt the need to invent any - which is rather unlikely IMV - a world
will still have its holy men and mystics. These will usually be people with
great wisdom and spirituality and/or who are able to attain a suitably
altered state of mind (i.e. via drugs and other means). There's also bound
to be a somewhat larger of numbers of fakers, charlatans and the deluded.
But the important point is that they won't /all/ be frauds, even if most
are.

You have a point here, one that I missed earlier. Yes, belief systems
can emerge among cultures even in a world where no deities exist, but in
that case, no divine power can be accessed.
Interesing that you would say people have spiritual needs even in the
absence of gods, because in order to have spiritual needs, one must have
a spirit. In order to have a spirit, that spirit must have been placed
in the body. Only a creator deity can do this. Therefore, if a person
has spiritual needs, there must be a deity responsible...somewhere.

Ah, but even absent a spirit, meat can think that it has spiritual
needs. As long as the llittle electrical impulses go on in that wad of
grey meat on top of the rest of it all kinds of needs can be imagined.
So, no there does not need to be a deity somewhere. There might be
one, no doubt, but your argument is nothing like proof. .
Will in New Haven

<snip>

Yes, have to agree with Will here. I like to think that the following
definition of 'soul' works well, and is useful even for non-believers:

Soul is a measure of a creature's capacity to feel love, hatred, fear, pain,
wonder, joy, jealousy, empathy and all other such emotions. A limited
creature, only able to feel a few of those, has a 'little' soul, while a
creature capable of the full spectrum has a 'large' soul. Creatures which
are largely mindless - such as insects or bacteria - are effectively
soulless. Dogs, cats and other mammals are capable of some of the list, and
have small souls, and humans and other sentients cover the full range.

This also allows a useful distinction between spiritually damaged humans and
those who are spiritually intact. A psychopath or sociopath is diminished in
comparison to a normal human, and some mentally disabled people (note:
/some/ - it's easy to find exceptions) will be similarly limited. Note that
in the case of, say, a brain-damaged creature unable to respond in certain
ways, we may not be able to say with certainty that it does not possess a
particular trait, only that it cannot express it. This handles things like
people in comas - they might still have a soul, but we can't tell for sure.

Furthermore, the definition is flexible enough to encompass creatures with
greater emotional capacities than humans, and treats them accordingly. The
definition also works whether the soul is considered a supernatural object,
or if is merely an emergent property of a creature's physical structure and
brain. It even works for creatures that don't have brains - or,
theoretically, bodies. Finally, it provides an means to quantify a
creature's soul, because we can discern behaviour such as fear even in
non-sentients, and I feel it also encourages one to err on the side of
caution and credit all things with as much spirit as possible. Where there
is little harm in trying to frighten a creature that is incapable of fear,
it is plainly unethical to gratuitously frighten a creature that /can/ - and
until we're sure it can't feel fear, we should work on the assumption that
it can and does.


PS Google for 'Meet the Meat' for an amusing sci-fi short story on the
improbable subject of sentient meat.

[Eric P.]

[snip]

Post by Simon Smith

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Eric P.
Interesing that you would say people have spiritual needs even in the
absence of gods, because in order to have spiritual needs, one must have
a spirit. In order to have a spirit, that spirit must have been placed
in the body. Only a creator deity can do this. Therefore, if a person
has spiritual needs, there must be a deity responsible...somewhere.

Ah, but even absent a spirit, meat can think that it has spiritual
needs. As long as the llittle electrical impulses go on in that wad of
grey meat on top of the rest of it all kinds of needs can be imagined.
So, no there does not need to be a deity somewhere. There might be
one, no doubt, but your argument is nothing like proof. .
Will in New Haven

<snip>
Yes, have to agree with Will here. I like to think that the following

In the appropriate context, Will's statements make sense.

Post by Simon Smith
Soul is a measure of a creature's capacity to feel love, hatred, fear, pain,
wonder, joy, jealousy, empathy and all other such emotions. A limited
creature, only able to feel a few of those, has a 'little' soul, while a
creature capable of the full spectrum has a 'large' soul. Creatures which
are largely mindless - such as insects or bacteria - are effectively
soulless. Dogs, cats and other mammals are capable of some of the list, and
have small souls, and humans and other sentients cover the full range.

No. A creature's emotional capacity is not the same as a soul. Soul and
spirit have already been explained. Every person has these, and no
living creature other than humans does, and they serve certain purposes.

The above discussion of little and large souls might be useful in some
fantasy setting, so I'd say it's appropriate to the topic, whereas I
think I've strayed a bit.

Post by Simon Smith
This also allows a useful distinction between spiritually damaged humans and
those who are spiritually intact. A psychopath or sociopath is diminished in
/some/ - it's easy to find exceptions) will be similarly limited. Note that
in the case of, say, a brain-damaged creature unable to respond in certain
ways, we may not be able to say with certainty that it does not possess a
particular trait, only that it cannot express it. This handles things like
people in comas - they might still have a soul, but we can't tell for sure.

Surely those people have souls, because the soul remains with the body
till the body dies.

Post by Simon Smith
Furthermore, the definition is flexible enough to encompass creatures with
greater emotional capacities than humans, and treats them accordingly. The
definition also works whether the soul is considered a supernatural object,
or if is merely an emergent property of a creature's physical structure and
brain. It even works for creatures that don't have brains - or,
theoretically, bodies. Finally, it provides an means to quantify a
creature's soul, because we can discern behaviour such as fear even in
non-sentients, and I feel it also encourages one to err on the side of
caution and credit all things with as much spirit as possible. Where there
is little harm in trying to frighten a creature that is incapable of fear,
it is plainly unethical to gratuitously frighten a creature that /can/ - and
until we're sure it can't feel fear, we should work on the assumption that
it can and does.

There are too many errors here for me to address.

- E

[Arthur Boff]

Eric, I get the impression you're coming from a particular religious
angle here - what's your background? Bear in mind that not everyone is
going to define the soul in the same way as you do.

[Eric P.]

Post by Arthur Boff
Eric, I get the impression you're coming from a particular religious
angle here - what's your background? Bear in mind that not everyone is
going to define the soul in the same way as you do.

As a published source, I will cite _The Complete Gospels_ (ISBN
0-06-065587-9. In particular, a chapter entitled "Dialogue of the
Savior."

My background is that I was raised up in the Episcopal Church of the
United States, but there came a time when I found that insufficient to
my spiritual needs. About seven years ago, I discovered and embraced
some of the Essene teachings, and what I consider to be the true (and
closer to complete and pristine than traditional sources) teachings of
Yeshua, who I acknowledge as the Messiah, the Son of Man. I feel that
these are correct teachings, but would not insist that anyone else
follow them (how could I?). The material is interesting, and worth
reading and considering.

Peace,
Eric

[Simon Smith]

Post by Eric P.
No. A creature's emotional capacity is not the same as a soul. Soul and
spirit have already been explained. Every person has these, and no living
creature other than humans does, and they serve certain purposes.

A purely humanocentric definition of 'soul' is unacceptably limited, in my
view. Means /angels/ are just soulless monsters, for one.

And I'm afraid emotional capacity is the only aspect of soul we have
any realistic hope of quantifying, and barring evidence to the contrary it
is also the only aspect of 'soul' whose existence an atheist can be expected
to accept. As such my definition of soul is unapologetically aimed to
satisfy the 'lowest common denominator' - sceptical atheists.


[snip]

Post by Eric P.

Furthermore, the definition [of soul] is flexible enough to encompass creatures with
greater emotional capacities than humans, and treats them accordingly. The
definition also works whether the soul is considered a supernatural object,
or if is merely an emergent property of a creature's physical structure and
brain. It even works for creatures that don't have brains - or,
theoretically, bodies. Finally, it provides an means to quantify a
creature's soul, because we can discern behaviour such as fear even in
non-sentients, and I feel it also encourages one to err on the side of
caution and credit all things with as much spirit as possible. Where there
is little harm in trying to frighten a creature that is incapable of fear,
it is plainly unethical to gratuitously frighten a creature that /can/ - and
until we're sure it can't feel fear, we should work on the assumption that
it can and does.

There are too many errors here for me to address.

!

Errors?

No, there are no errors - I'm posting /my/ definition of 'soul'. I am aware
that there are other definitions of 'soul' that disagree with what I have
written, but they generally invoke a supernatural agency. This definition is
intended to be a general, flexible and pragmatic definition that would allow
followers of multiple faiths and atheists to have a sensible discussion on
the subject of 'soul' without constant quibbling with one another about the
supernatural elements. Believers can add on extra requirements to suit their
own credos, but at least everyone knows where they stand on the basics. And
believers know in advance that any extra intangibles that they require will
not be admitted into the basic definition without accompanying evidence, so
they don't have to waste effort trying to introduce them without that
evidence. And they also know - in advance - that they will be called on it
if they try.

But anyway, I'm drifting off-topic for rgfa now, so I'd better stop here.

[Eric P.]

Post by Simon Smith

Post by Eric P.
No. A creature's emotional capacity is not the same as a soul. Soul and
spirit have already been explained. Every person has these, and no living
creature other than humans does, and they serve certain purposes.

A purely humanocentric definition of 'soul' is unacceptably limited, in my
view. Means /angels/ are just soulless monsters, for one.

That would depend on how you define "angel."

Post by Simon Smith
And I'm afraid emotional capacity is the only aspect of soul we have
any realistic hope of quantifying, and barring evidence to the contrary it
is also the only aspect of 'soul' whose existence an atheist can be expected
to accept. As such my definition of soul is unapologetically aimed to
satisfy the 'lowest common denominator' - sceptical atheists.

I'm not sure what purpose is served by defining emotional capacity in
this manner, but I am reminding myself to maintain focus for purposes of
this discussion.

Post by Simon Smith
[snip]

Post by Eric P.

Furthermore, the definition [of soul] is flexible enough to encompass
creatures with
greater emotional capacities than humans, and treats them accordingly. The
definition also works whether the soul is considered a supernatural object,
or if is merely an emergent property of a creature's physical structure and
brain. It even works for creatures that don't have brains - or,
theoretically, bodies. Finally, it provides an means to quantify a
creature's soul, because we can discern behaviour such as fear even in
non-sentients, and I feel it also encourages one to err on the side of
caution and credit all things with as much spirit as possible. Where there
is little harm in trying to frighten a creature that is incapable of fear,
it is plainly unethical to gratuitously frighten a creature that /can/ - and
until we're sure it can't feel fear, we should work on the assumption that
it can and does.

There are too many errors here for me to address.

!
Errors?
No, there are no errors - I'm posting /my/ definition of 'soul'. I am aware
that there are other definitions of 'soul' that disagree with what I have
written, but they generally invoke a supernatural agency. This definition is
intended to be a general, flexible and pragmatic definition that would allow
followers of multiple faiths and atheists to have a sensible discussion on
the subject of 'soul' without constant quibbling with one another about the
supernatural elements. Believers can add on extra requirements to suit their
own credos, but at least everyone knows where they stand on the basics. And
believers know in advance that any extra intangibles that they require will
not be admitted into the basic definition without accompanying evidence, so
they don't have to waste effort trying to introduce them without that
evidence. And they also know - in advance - that they will be called on it
if they try.

In that case, I don't see how it's even possible for an atheist to have
a discussion about a soul, as a soul is by nature a supernatural (or you
could say metaphysical) thing. I would choose another word to represent
emotional capacity, because using the word "soul" invites a good deal of
confusion.

Post by Simon Smith
But anyway, I'm drifting off-topic for rgfa now, so I'd better stop here.

Indeed. We came close to going off into another realm :)

- E

[psychohist]

Simon Smith posts, in part:

Yes, have to agree with Will here. I like to think that
the following definition of 'soul' works well, and is
useful even for non-believers:

Soul is a measure of a creature's capacity to feel love,
hatred, fear, pain, wonder, joy, jealousy, empathy and
all other such emotions.

Will was talking about spirit, and I think his statement might have
some validity for the common use of the word "spiritual". Personally,
I think of "spiritual" as being more about things like aesthetics, a
sense of wonder, and the meaning of life - and about thought as
opposed to action - than about emotion, but my take may be
idiosyncratic.

In any case, spirit and soul aren't the same word. Particularly when
discussing religion, the term 'soul' often has a very specific
meaning. I don't think an "immortal soul" makes much sense for those
who believe that consciousness ceases at death, and who may even
believe that time has a beginning and an end.

I also think that valuing creatures by emotional capacity, as you
suggest, leads to some questionable conclusions. For example, it
would place a creature driven by lust and hatred more highly on the
moral scale than one driven by intellect. I don't think a society
based on that philosophy would survive long in a self consistent
world, though game worlds of course needn't be self consistent.

Warren J. Dew

[Paul Colquhoun]

On 6 Feb 2007 07:01:42 -0800, Will in New Haven <***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
| On Jan 30, 7:53 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
|> thats a nice start actually, thanks!
|>
|> some of her characterization;
|>
|> -arrogance
|> -superiority complexe
|> -apathetic with regards to fighting
|> -dislikes adventureing for the sake of others.
|> -dislikes people who carry large mean looking blades.
|> -burning interest in games or strategy.
|> -dislikes mention of 'chance' or fate.
|> -atheist
|
| How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
| miracles everywhere one looks? Of course your setting may differ and
| the question may not mean anything vis a vis this particular character
| but I have seen people simply ignore all the deities in a D&D campaign
| and I wonder how they think their character can do it. I'm an athiest
| myself but my characters in fantasy games have the reality of the gods
| shoved in their faces and I have no problem playing deists.


Terry Pratchet did this in one of the Discworld books, "Feet of Clay"
IIRC.

It helped that the atheist was a golem, made from clay, and thus immune
to bolts of lightning.

[tussock]

Post by Will in New Haven
How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
miracles everywhere one looks?

Sing it, brother.

How can one think the world is 4000 years old in a world where the
mountains plainly show the effects of thrust folding thousands of times
that. Where even our own most ancient constructions and the oldest trees
are older than that? Real people believe all sorts of crazy shit.

[Eric P.]

Post by tussock

Post by Will in New Haven
How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
miracles everywhere one looks?

Sing it, brother.
How can one think the world is 4000 years old in a world where the
mountains plainly show the effects of thrust folding thousands of times
that. Where even our own most ancient constructions and the oldest trees
are older than that? Real people believe all sorts of crazy shit.

4000 years, indeed *L* I'm hoping folks are more enlightened than that,
in this day and age...'specially since there's indisputable proof that
human civilizations have been around for ~40,000 years.

- E

[Arthur Boff]

Post by Eric P.

Post by tussock

Post by Will in New Haven
How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
miracles everywhere one looks?

Sing it, brother.
How can one think the world is 4000 years old in a world where the
mountains plainly show the effects of thrust folding thousands of times
that. Where even our own most ancient constructions and the oldest trees
are older than that? Real people believe all sorts of crazy shit.

4000 years, indeed *L* I'm hoping folks are more enlightened than that,
in this day and age...'specially since there's indisputable proof that
human civilizations have been around for ~40,000 years.

Google for "young earth creationism". People in this day and age are
willing to argue that life began in 4004 BC.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism:

"The defining characteristic of this belief is that the Earth is
"young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, rather than the age
of 4.5 billion years estimated by a variety of scientific methods
including radiometric dating. Some YECs derive their range of figures
using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible,
similar to the process used by James Ussher (1581–1656), Archbishop of
Armagh and Primate of Ireland, when he dated creation at 4004 BC.
Ussher's chronology, published in 1650, has been subsequently revised
many times, most recently in 2003 by Larry and Marion Pierce. YECs
believe that life was created by God 'each after their kind' in the
universe's first six normal-length (24-hour) days. Additionally, they
believe that the Biblical account of Noah's flood is historically true,
maintaining that there was a worldwide flood (circa 2349 BC) that
destroyed all terrestrial life except that which was saved on Noah's
Ark. Barry Setterfield proposed in 1999 that the flood occurred much
earlier around 3536 BC."

[Eric P.]

Post by Arthur Boff

Post by Eric P.

Post by tussock

Post by Will in New Haven
How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
miracles everywhere one looks?

Sing it, brother.
How can one think the world is 4000 years old in a world where the
mountains plainly show the effects of thrust folding thousands of times
that. Where even our own most ancient constructions and the oldest trees
are older than that? Real people believe all sorts of crazy shit.

4000 years, indeed *L* I'm hoping folks are more enlightened than that,
in this day and age...'specially since there's indisputable proof that
human civilizations have been around for ~40,000 years.

Google for "young earth creationism". People in this day and age are
willing to argue that life began in 4004 BC.
"The defining characteristic of this belief is that the Earth is
"young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, rather than the age
of 4.5 billion years estimated by a variety of scientific methods
including radiometric dating. Some YECs derive their range of figures
using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible,
similar to the process used by James Ussher (1581­1656), Archbishop of
Armagh and Primate of Ireland, when he dated creation at 4004 BC.
Ussher's chronology, published in 1650, has been subsequently revised
many times, most recently in 2003 by Larry and Marion Pierce. YECs
believe that life was created by God 'each after their kind' in the
universe's first six normal-length (24-hour) days. Additionally, they
believe that the Biblical account of Noah's flood is historically true,
maintaining that there was a worldwide flood (circa 2349 BC) that
destroyed all terrestrial life except that which was saved on Noah's
Ark. Barry Setterfield proposed in 1999 that the flood occurred much
earlier around 3536 BC."

To take "six days" literally as six rotations of the planet Earth is
folly. OTOH, there's plenty of evidence to support to notion of a flood
that happened in the area of the Middle East and other parts of the
Mediterranean, but I don't know if there's any evidence to support the
notion that the surface of the entire planet was thereby covered in
water.

Those YEC types need to get a clue.

- E

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Eric P.

Post by tussock

Post by Will in New Haven
How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
miracles everywhere one looks?

Sing it, brother.
How can one think the world is 4000 years old in a world where the
mountains plainly show the effects of thrust folding thousands of times
that. Where even our own most ancient constructions and the oldest trees
are older than that? Real people believe all sorts of crazy shit.

4000 years, indeed *L* I'm hoping folks are more enlightened than that,
in this day and age...'specially since there's indisputable proof that
human civilizations have been around for ~40,000 years.
- E

Do you have an exra zero in that last figure or are you being
conservative? Since you can't possibly mean forty thousand years, I
would guess you are being conservative. Sumer, etc can be traced back
six thousand years or so.

Will in New Haven

[Eric P.]

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Eric P.

Post by tussock

Post by Will in New Haven
How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
miracles everywhere one looks?

Sing it, brother.
How can one think the world is 4000 years old in a world where the
mountains plainly show the effects of thrust folding thousands of times
that. Where even our own most ancient constructions and the oldest trees
are older than that? Real people believe all sorts of crazy shit.

4000 years, indeed *L* I'm hoping folks are more enlightened than that,
in this day and age...'specially since there's indisputable proof that
human civilizations have been around for ~40,000 years.
- E

Do you have an exra zero in that last figure or are you being
conservative? Since you can't possibly mean forty thousand years, I
would guess you are being conservative. Sumer, etc can be traced back
six thousand years or so.
Will in New Haven

Civilization is estimated (last I heard/read) at forty thousand years,
give or take. Homo sapiens sapiens is estimated at four hundred thousand
years, give or take. That's a bit longer than four thousand years ;)

- E

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Eric P.

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Eric P.

Post by tussock

Post by Will in New Haven
How can one be an atheist in a fantasy setting when gods are doing
miracles everywhere one looks?

Sing it, brother.
How can one think the world is 4000 years old in a world where the
mountains plainly show the effects of thrust folding thousands of times
that. Where even our own most ancient constructions and the oldest trees
are older than that? Real people believe all sorts of crazy shit.

4000 years, indeed *L* I'm hoping folks are more enlightened than that,
in this day and age...'specially since there's indisputable proof that
human civilizations have been around for ~40,000 years.
- E

Do you have an exra zero in that last figure or are you being
conservative? Since you can't possibly mean forty thousand years, I
would guess you are being conservative. Sumer, etc can be traced back
six thousand years or so.
Will in New Haven

Civilization is estimated (last I heard/read) at forty thousand years,
give or take. Homo sapiens sapiens is estimated at four hundred thousand
years, give or take. That's a bit longer than four thousand years ;)
- E- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Depending on your definition of civilizatrion, of course, forty
thousand years is really unlikely. Sumer, etc in Babylonia, all date
to between six and seven thousand years ago. Nothing much earlier.
Sapiens is much older, of course, but our ancestors seemed to stay
hunter-gatherers for a long time.

Will in New Haven

[Eric P.]

Post by D***@gmail.com
I was hoping some people could give me some leaping off points for a
druid characters background? Ive already established her personality
(vis a vis character flaws, achiles heel, and other 'weaknesses') but
comming up with a good history is proving difficult.

Those details are sometimes difficult to define. No worries in fleshing
out parts of the character's life that don't directly influence the
decision to take up the adventuring life somewhat after the fact.

Post by D***@gmail.com
I was hoping some group brainstorming could help... any ideas provided
a 14 year old female druid of human descent and an intense elven/asian
societal background.

Why is she starting younger than a typical PC? Perhaps some life
circumstance, such as a domestic tragedy (which I'll admit is a bit
cliché, but works nonetheless), has occured...?

Post by D***@gmail.com
So far all I;ve got about her background is that shes an avid player of
go (wikipedia 'go game')

Who needs to read a wiki to know what go is? *L* I've been familiar with
the game for over half my life, and played it quite a bit just six years
ago. OK, maybe my trivia set doesn't match everyone else's, so never
mind ;)

Post by D***@gmail.com
Many thanks in advance!

Good luck with the backstory! If I have any brainstorms, I'll post here.

- E

[Nicole Massey]

Post by D***@gmail.com
I was hoping some people could give me some leaping off points for a
druid characters background? Ive already established her personality
(vis a vis character flaws, achiles heel, and other 'weaknesses') but
comming up with a good history is proving difficult.

The big question I keep coming to is her atheism. Unless she's atheist in
the sense that she doesn't believe in gods, and believes she gets her spells
from nature, this can be complex. (I've played atheist characters before,
and they tend to really shake up other players, especially priests)

What was the culture like that she came from? How were different races
viewed? In my game, the druids have some faction between two large sects,
and the more militant sect runs a very large forest where all races of
creatures live side by side. Even lycanthropes live in harmony as they're
not allowed to bit others without provocation. The druids hold sway over all
the people, and civilization doesn't encroach because of the militancy of
the druids. A character from this culture might be on friendly terms with
all manner of creatures, including the local chimera spawn, and since the
environment is so regulated against predation for anything besides survival,
might be shocked at the less civilized behavior of creatures outside her
home territory.

I often find that getting a feel for the character's values will help flesh
out the character's background with the application of the word "Why" to
each of her views.

Good luck. This is something I never have trouble with.

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Nicole Massey

Post by D***@gmail.com
I was hoping some people could give me some leaping off points for a
druid characters background? Ive already established her personality
(vis a vis character flaws, achiles heel, and other 'weaknesses') but
comming up with a good history is proving difficult.

The big question I keep coming to is her atheism.

Me too.

Unless she's atheist in

Post by Nicole Massey
the sense that she doesn't believe in gods, and believes she gets her spells
from nature, this can be complex.

Druids getting their spells from an unpersonalized nature isn't such a
big stretch but

(I've played atheist characters before,

Post by Nicole Massey
and they tend to really shake up other players, especially priests)

When playing an atheist, how do you deal with the rather common
deistic intervention in typical fantasy setting?. Even if it is just
the clerical "spells," they are supposed to be miracles coming from
the gods. If you regard them as simply another kind of magic, you can
get around that. However, the other players would have to be
softplaying you, as a fellow-PC, if they didn't take strong exception
to your expressing your lack of belief.

Of course, some sets of gods can simply be regarded as very powerful,
possibly physically large (although that isn't necessary) and
extremely dangerous people. Some of the Greeks eventually came to
think of their pantheon that way. However, it would be exactly that
kind of god who might be petty enough to smite an unbeliever.

Will in New Haven

--

Post by Nicole Massey
What was the culture like that she came from? How were different races
viewed? In my game, the druids have some faction between two large sects,
and the more militant sect runs a very large forest where all races of
creatures live side by side. Even lycanthropes live in harmony as they're
not allowed to bit others without provocation. The druids hold sway over all
the people, and civilization doesn't encroach because of the militancy of
the druids. A character from this culture might be on friendly terms with
all manner of creatures, including the local chimera spawn, and since the
environment is so regulated against predation for anything besides survival,
might be shocked at the less civilized behavior of creatures outside her
home territory.
I often find that getting a feel for the character's values will help flesh
out the character's background with the application of the word "Why" to
each of her views.
Good luck. This is something I never have trouble with.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Will in New Haven
When playing an atheist, how do you deal with the rather common
deistic intervention in typical fantasy setting?. Even if it is just
the clerical "spells," they are supposed to be miracles coming from
the gods. If you regard them as simply another kind of magic, you can
get around that. However, the other players would have to be
softplaying you, as a fellow-PC, if they didn't take strong exception
to your expressing your lack of belief.

There was a (quiet but fairly widespread) heresy in our gameworld Kyris
that held that priests are simply a variant flavor of mages, and religions
are a con game constructed by the priesthood. This explains the
magic (after all, wizards can do magic and no one needs to invoke
gods to explain that) and the very rare major miracles are also
attributable to very rare high-end sorcery.

Some religious people found this threatening, others just found it
goofy or pitiable. Most of the Kyrisi gods were not prone to petty
retaliation, certainly not for reasons like this. (The campaign
saw only one full-out divine miracle, and that was the striking down
of someone who tried to keep his priestly rank and position after
he had converted to an opposing religion. He turned into a babbling
idiot at the altar one High Holy Day. But a heretic could easily
attribute this to a human agent--either self-inflicted by a guilty
conscience, or done covertly by another priest.)

There is also the position (fairly reasonable, it strikes me, in
settings like Greyhawk) that those entities exist but they aren't
*gods*. The line between demon-prince and evil god is so thin in
that cosmology anyway, it's fairly easy to suppose that the evil
gods are all glorified demons or superheroes, and from there it's not
too much of a stretch to suppose that the non-evil gods are the
same kinds of things. After all, at least two of the pantheon
gods are explicitly known to be glorified superheroes (Vecna and
Cuthbert). Why not the rest?

I have even seen clerical characters take that attitude; we met a
priestess of Vecna who said frankly, "Vecna is the way I am following;
if I succeed I will be a god too, and no longer serve him."

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[s***@sonic.net]

Post by D***@gmail.com
I was hoping some people could give me some leaping off points for a
druid characters background? Ive already established her personality
(vis a vis character flaws, achiles heel, and other 'weaknesses') but
comming up with a good history is proving difficult.
I was hoping some group brainstorming could help... any ideas provided
a 14 year old female druid of human descent and an intense elven/asian
societal background.
So far all I;ve got about her background is that shes an avid player of
go (wikipedia 'go game')
Many thanks in advance!

I haven't followed this whole thread, so apologies if I've
missed this, but wanted to ask -- what's the setting/world?