Dwilight IC and OOC updates and news!

[Bedwyr]

Also, I challenge you to back up your statement that Greco-Roman traditions espouse the idea that the gods had to be worshipped only because humans could not oppose them. I have never heard that interpretation of the ancient Greco-Roman religions, and it implies that the Greeks and Romans saw themselves as slaves to the gods, forced to venerate them in the absence of any way to free themselves. This does not jibe with anything I know about them.

Look at the myth of  Prometheus, and about half of the myths that involve mortals going against the gods (the other half is "perils of hubris" and "violation of sacred law").  The moral of the stories is "the gods were cruel, but opposing them is futile unless you are extremely clever" (Odysseus comes to mind).

The Romans had a very interesting world-view where the natural world was seen as female, and ripe to be conquered and dominated by the male civilization, spearheaded by Rome, of course.  The Romans (Cicero comes to mind) had a significant school of thought that religion was merely a method of social order.  On at least one occasion, a Roman general saw the result of the augers (which was unfavourable for battle), told the army that the omens were favourable, and after the battle had the auger executed for lying about the omens, and was lauded for this act by several military scholars later.  This exemplifies their rather practical approach toward religion, as does the standard siege tactic of offering to essentially buy-out the god protecting the city they were going to sack by promising to build a bigger, better temple in Rome if they won the battle.  I think if the Romans thought they could conquer the gods, they would have tried.

[Bedwyr]

Interesting, I was not aware that the souls in the MP would be prayed to which certainly makes things seem more religious then simply having humans "going it alone" against the demons.

Although I do think that the wiki-page on souls might need modification clarifying the matter- at the end it concludes that all this soul stuff simply means that the true follower of the path should strengthen his own soul, it mentions nothing of communing with souls or rituals that would be included in such prayer. Considering the fact that one of the main MP policies is a skepticism of the good intentions of any active supernatural powers, the fact that the souls are active and can be communed with should be more clear in order to highlight the fact that they have an important role to play. Otherwise people will simply assume, as I did, that they come under the "non-malevolent but uncaring" category.

As I've said countless times: The religion is new and more is being added to it all the time as I and the other members have time and the inspiration to do so.  I just figured out some of the wrinkles with the souls a couple of days ago, and I'm trying to involve the rest of the people in the religion so they can help add to it rather than everything being from Koli.

[De-Legro]

A problem here is no pre-modern religion exists that did not worship something; even in the East religions had worship. Yes, from a purely ideological perspective, it is perfectly possible to be Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist without worship but in practice this never really happened.

Confucianism was heavily tied up with ancestor worship, veneration of the Emperor as the "son of heaven" not to mention the elevation of Confucius to god-like status.

Taoism had a whole pantheon of deities and indeed still does.

Buddhism greatly venerated the Buddha and many forms, such as that prevalent in Japan, China and Tibet have a whole pantheon of enlightened beings that they venerate, if not outright worship.

Historically speaking the idea of a worship-less religion seems absurd. There is a reason why the Greco-Roman philosophical schools (such as Epicureanism and Stoicism) are classified as philosophies and not religions despite having complex belief systems.

Also there is the issue of game-mechanics, which clearly include priests, temples and shrines and priest abilities such as "praying for signs". It is clearly assumed that religions will worship with divinities and the like.
Of course you could argue that your "priests" are not really priests but are actually scholars/philosophers, that your "temples" are not actually temples but rather academies where members of your order meet for discussion (which of course begs the question as to how the are differant from guidhouses), and that your "prayers for signs" are actually merely conversing amongst the peasants to find out local problems. However IMO the wording of the game-mechanics with regards to religion make a clear statement what kind of religion is aimed for, if not simply the use of "prayer", something impossible without worshipping or at least venerating a divinity of some sort be they deity, natural force or transcended human.

Of course this is just my reasons why I think any worship-less religion such as Manifest Path should not be classified as a religion, and I agree with Geronus that a disscussion of what classifies as SMA would be more effective here.

I would be interested in seeing what references you have that definitively prove groups such as the Epicureans, the various Mystic groups, and the  many ancestor religions were not in fact religions. While I'm more then aware that its not universally accepted that they are, I'm also of the understanding that it is not universally accepted that they aren't.

There is a big difference between the worship of a deity or spirit, and the reverence towards a more powerful figure or the act of appealing to the ancestors or a spirit for aid in the physical world. While most religions have indeed had a deity they truly worshipped, there have been those that respected and appealed to the deities, but stopped short of worship. I've always seen it as something similar to having reverence for a King, whom you can appeal to for aid.

[Meneldur]

I would be interested in seeing what references you have that definitively prove groups such as the Epicureans, the various Mystic groups, and the  many ancestor religions were not in fact religions. While I'm more then aware that its not universally accepted that they are, I'm also of the understanding that it is not universally accepted that they aren't.

There is a big difference between the worship of a deity or spirit, and the reverence towards a more powerful figure or the act of appealing to the ancestors or a spirit for aid in the physical world. While most religions have indeed had a deity they truly worshipped, there have been those that respected and appealed to the deities, but stopped short of worship. I've always seen it as something similar to having reverence for a King, whom you can appeal to for aid.

I would think that groups such as ancestor religions and various forms of shamanism would certainly be classified as religions, due to the reverence placed upon the spirits and ancestors which I would view as similar enough to worship. Most of these early religions did include various offering and prayers to such entities which I think would constitute worship.
To use a more modern example look at the Christian veneration of Saints- yes it is not the same type of worship that is offered to God but I would still think it is a form of worship all the same. I would imagine that if God were taken out of the equation the veneration of saints would still be enough on its own to be classified as a worshipping religion. However I am not a theologian so I can hardly speak authoritatively on the matter of veneration vs. worship.

With regards to Epicureanism I have honestly never heard of it being referred to anything other than a philosophical school before this thread. If we are to classify it as a religion simply because it offers a specific way of life and belief system then surely we should include all the ancient Greek philosophical schools, such as the Stoics and the Skeptics, as they to offer a specific way of life and belief system. Indeed with this definition its questionable exactly how much of moral philosophy is not in fact various different religions, since the very purpose of that aspect of philosophy is to offer a specific way of life and belief system.

[De-Legro]

re·li·gion
1.
     a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
     b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

As you can see from that definition worship of a figure is not entirely necessary. The fact that it is almost universal speaks more about our own needs as humans when it comes to placing our faith in a spiritual belief system. Manifest Path would to my mind qualify against definition 3 and 4. Of course this is the "modern" definition of religion.

[Meneldur]

re·li·gion
1.
     a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
     b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

As you can see from that definition worship of a figure is not entirely necessary. The fact that it is almost universal speaks more about our own needs as humans when it comes to placing our faith in a spiritual belief system. Manifest Path would to my mind qualify against definition 3 and 4. Of course this is the "modern" definition of religion.

Indeed, it was the fact that this is a more "modern" definition that I was trying to express. The fact that in the past worship has been a nigh universal indicator of a religion does, in my opinion, make the more modern view expressed by some, that it simply requires a belief system and a cause, less valid as a factor when discussing SMA as it is clearly not medieval.

However again it all comes down to how far the historical features of religions should impact what an SMA religion should look like.

[Geronus]

The fact that the rites focus on opposing the gods rather than appeasing them is a change that works because the Battlemaster world is different from the real world.

This statement could be used as carte blanche to completely blow up SMA; you can use it to justify almost anything you want. Inherently, the concept of SMA means the Battlemaster world is based on the real world. I understand that on BT you have invaders, but BT isn't SMA.

[De-Legro]

This statement could be used as carte blanche to completely blow up SMA; you can use it to justify almost anything you want. Inherently, the concept of SMA means the Battlemaster world is based on the real world. I understand that on BT you have invaders, but BT isn't SMA.

But it is still PART of the BM world, where our Dwilight characters can emigrate from. I can understand that SMA would prevent some of the sillier player created content coming to Dwilight, but unless Dwilight becomes a completely separate game world, then official content to my mind is completely relevant.

[Bedwyr]

This statement could be used as carte blanche to completely blow up SMA; you can use it to justify almost anything you want. Inherently, the concept of SMA means the Battlemaster world is based on the real world. I understand that on BT you have invaders, but BT isn't SMA.

No, it can't be used to blow up SMA.  It can be used to show that our characters have functioning brain stems.  The fact of the BT Invasions is a fact.  Whether they happen on the SMA island or not is immaterial, as the Battlemaster world clearly has regular communication between the islands.

Based on and inspired by are not the same things as simulation and reenactment.  There are any number of things that we ignore the real world on because it would be insane to do otherwise.  No one on Dwilight has their messengers take realistic speeds.  Sexism is not the cultural norm it was in the real world, which correspondingly changes cultures in all sorts of ways.  We don't have diseases like the plague, which unimaginably changes cultures.  And we have literal demons from hell invading the world, and they just crippled the continent that historically has been where all previous incursions stopped cold.  Ignoring that fact because it didn't happen on Dwilight is like ignoring the various invasions by Germany in the build-up to WWII.  Sure, you can do it, and lots of people did.  Doesn't make it any less stupid.

[ó Broin]

This statement could be used as carte blanche to completely blow up SMA; you can use it to justify almost anything you want. Inherently, the concept of SMA means the Battlemaster world is based on the real world. I understand that on BT you have invaders, but BT isn't SMA.

I don't get this view of SMA. The wiki seems pretty clear

"This is our term for roleplaying the game as it is meant to be. That does not mean pages upon pages of text, but rather playing your character as if he were a real human being in a real world. You can be as short or elaborate as you want to in doing that, but try to be realistic.
Here are a few short guidelines, and further down you will find some points in more detail. Remember that all these are guidelines. Every now and then, there is a good reason to ignore one or two of them."

To me this spells out that SMA is all about our characters and how they act. Its about RP. Its not intrinsically about the physical world or the setting, but how our characters react to each other and the underlying principles that we as players base their actions on.

[Indirik]

To me this spells out that SMA is all about our characters and how they act. Its about RP. Its not intrinsically about the physical world or the setting, but how our characters react to each other and the underlying principles that we as players base their actions on.

The "underlying principles"on which these actions are based include several guidelines on time period and locale. BattleMaster is inherently based on the real world in which we live. A specific time period in history, and a specific location on the earth. That is the framework in which we play.

Tom once stated something on the order of: "If you roleplay your character within these guidelines, then the SMA automatically comes as part of it." No, that's not an exact quote, but it's similar. I ran across it today while looking for some other things.

[Anaris]

The "underlying principles"on which these actions are based include several guidelines on time period and locale. BattleMaster is inherently based on the real world in which we live. A specific time period in history, and a specific location on the earth. That is the framework in which we play.

But it does not in any way state that our characters are in that time and place on Earth, nor that they ever were there or have any way of referencing it.

The milieu is simply supposed to have the same atmosphere.

If our characters experience a BT invasion, then by the principles of SMA, our characters should be expected to react to the events of that invasion, and remember them, and think about them later—not simply forget the invasion happened because it wasn't the kind of thing that would happen in medieval Europe.

[Indirik]

But it does not in any way state that our characters are in that time and place on Earth, nor that they ever were there or have any way of referencing it.

The milieu is simply supposed to have the same atmosphere.

If our characters experience a BT invasion, then by the principles of SMA, our characters should be expected to react to the events of that invasion, and remember them, and think about them later—not simply forget the invasion happened because it wasn't the kind of thing that would happen in medieval Europe.

I completely agree. Our characters should react to what they see and experience, as if they were medieval nobles. But the medieval european atmosphere is not just a jumping-off point, after which anything goes. We are supposed to maintain that atmosphere. If we don't do that, then SMA is worthless. We might as well just rename it Serious Noble Atmosphere, and be done with it.

[Anaris]

I completely agree. Our characters should react to what they see and experience, as if they were medieval nobles. But the medieval european atmosphere is not just a jumping-off point, after which anything goes. We are supposed to maintain that atmosphere. If we don't do that, then SMA is worthless. We might as well just rename it Serious Noble Atmosphere, and be done with it.

I guess it just sounds to me like you're almost saying "our characters should retcon the world around them to be more like Medieval Europe."

If something influences our characters strongly that isn't something that could happen in Medieval Europe, that will produce results that cannot have analogues in Medieval Europe.  There's no getting around that.

If you want a continent that's totally free of those influences, then it has to be a continent with no monsters and undead, and no contact with continents that do.

[Shizzle]

Maybe this discussion could find it's won thread? I'm interested in Dwilight IC and OOC updates and news, not 10 pages of comments on MP, SMA and whatever...