Dwilight IC and OOC updates and news!

[Galvez]

I believe some are looking at things from the wrong perspective. A few examples:

We have them, just not all of us want to worship them, which actually fits many ancient European religions. While all included some form of worship it was never a given that all members of the "faith" actually worshipped the gods, some acknowledged the gods existence and power, but did not perform the rituals of worship.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are being mentioned as examples. But look at this from perspective of the Church's doctrines, the holy books and religious texts. You are taught to worship God, not only to acknowledge him. As follower, you have the choice not to worship God. However, that is not the Church's problem, but that of you. As you shall stand condemn before God.

Actually, there is an example of a misotheistic religion in medieval Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathars#Theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge#Cathars

It's different than MP, sure, but religions which recognized gods without worshipping them existed in Europe.

Misotheism itself is no foundation for a religion. From the wiki (first link), the first sentence: "Catharism was a name given to a Christian religious sect with dualistic and gnostic elements that appeared in the Languedoc region of France and other parts of Europe in the 11th century and flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries." It implies that misotheism translated in BM is a guild with their own philosophy based on a religion, with nobles who follow that religion. Again, it is no church doctrine.

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.

The Church Doctrine does not teach you to kill an auger when he predicts bad omens. Their approach to religion is an individual choice, no divine mandate.

[vonGenf]

Misotheism itself is no foundation for a religion. From the wiki (first link), the first sentence: "Catharism was a name given to a Christian religious sect with dualistic and gnostic elements that appeared in the Languedoc region of France and other parts of Europe in the 11th century and flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries." It implies that misotheism translated in BM is a guild with their own philosophy based on a religion, with nobles who follow that religion. Again, it is no church doctrine.

I really have to disagree here. If we had Cathoilicism and Protestantism on Dwilight, they would be different religions. Catharism as a guild within Catholicism is as far from SMA as you can possibly get.

[Indirik]

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."

That would be completely silly.

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.

Yes, you are correct. I specifically stated in the other thread that there is no need to have direct RL analogues for things that you do in-game.

Yet the players must still intentionally limit their characters' actions and attitudes to try and maintain that environment. (The following are just examples off the top of my head, and not meant to point accusations at anyone or anything...)

For example:

• When your character prays to their gods for aid in battle against the godless foreign invaders, and he loses the battle anyway, for the 27th time in a row, he shouldn't turn atheist and deny that gods exist. Even though maybe that would fall within his RP'd personality type.
• If your character notices how placing bounties on monsters and undead attracts those ever-so-useful adventurers who are so friendly and helpful and keep the infestations down, he still should not propose to give rights to commoners, or seek to declare that they are equal to nobles, because, hey, we're all just human beings, right?

I'm sure there are more scenarios that could be found, but these are the ones I thought of off-hand.

[Hossenfeffer]

SA has you seeking to control the influence of the stars (to succumb to their influence renders you mad, sinful)

Either you have seriously misunderstood the message of SA or, more likely, I've seriously failed to express it!

[Heq]

SA is all about using babies blood to add zest to the Blood Lord's meals, and they secretly serve an undead monster who has three heads.

Everyone knows there are no such things as "stars" those are gods in the sky looking down on us.

[Shizzle]

• If your character notices how placing bounties on monsters and undead attracts those ever-so-useful adventurers who are so friendly and helpful and keep the infestations down, he still should not propose to give rights to commoners, or seek to declare that they are equal to nobles, because, hey, we're all just human beings, right?

Haha, who would ever do that? 

[Laurens88]

Haha, who would ever do

that? 

*wink* *wink*  [/list]

[BarticaBoat]

Either you have seriously misunderstood the message of SA or, more likely, I've seriously failed to express it!

It's more of a willing misunderstanding. My character looked at it and kinda convulted it to fit into his previously very devout worship of tor... don't feel bad!

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Ah, Everguard artifacts!

[Hossenfeffer]

It's more of a willing misunderstanding. My character looked at it and kinda convulted it to fit into his previously very devout worship of tor... don't feel bad!

Oh, that's fine then - wilful misconceptions are perfectly acceptable!

[Solari]

When your character prays to their gods for aid in battle against the godless foreign invaders, and he loses the battle anyway, for the 27th time in a row, he shouldn't turn atheist and deny that gods exist. Even though maybe that would fall within his RP'd personality type.

Why, precisely?  I am trying to understand the hair-splitting that's going on, and I can't do it without being intellectually dishonest with myself and others.  The place and period-specific interpretation of SMA is being used as a lens to view religion through, and it can't be done.

You cannot discuss the history, culture, and institutions of the period without running into the Church.  This is because the Church became the vehicle for preserving authority and tradition after the collapse of the State.  The Church became the State, and continued to dominate all the domains that would normally have been occupied by a political order for centuries.  There aren't good parallels for this in the rest of the world because the conditions were somewhat unique.  The special role of the Church in the formation of Europe as we know it has nothing to do with some imagined pan-European uniformity of thought and belief.  This is especially frustrating for those of us that don't agree with this interpretation but do know our history, because the people arguing the opposite point are using "history" as the cornerstone of their position.

So what, then, is the complaint?  Is it that tMP doesn't acknowledge the outsized role of a particular institution (the Catholic Church) that we are explicitly prohibited from citing?  Is the complaint that tMP doesn't substitute some other omnipotent institution in its place?  Because we have done that.  I would appreciate it if the people pushing this particularly detailed interpretation of SMA would refine their point, because it's starting to look more like an attempt to police thought and less like a serious concern about improving the quality of play for all.

[Vellos]

Why, precisely?  I am trying to understand the hair-splitting that's going on, and I can't do it without being intellectually dishonest with myself and others.  The place and period-specific interpretation of SMA is being used as a lens to view religion through, and it can't be done.

Because that's not how religious people think.

Let us take the example of 27 successive defeats despite fervent prayer. The following are a few possible explanations:

1. My god does not exist (atheism)
2. My god hates me because it is hateful (evil deity argument)
3. My god hates me because I am sinful (divine retribution)
4. My god does not care about me because I am insufficiently devout (tough love)
5. My god does not care about me because I am insufficiently important (limited divine attention span)
6. My god has preordained a future which includes my defeat (deterministic arbitrary god)
7. My enemy's god is stronger than my god (theomachy)
8. My god has decided to hand me over to another god as part of on obscure divine drama (Book of Job)
9. My god has a larger messianic plan that requires my temporary defeat (divine historical imperative)
10. My god desires for me to have a crisis of faith (character building)
11. I have misunderstood the nature of my god's character (incorrect worship)

For a medieval, option #1 is the most difficult option because god is a basically believed idea. God's existence was a point of only very limited disputation. There are numerous available RP responses, of which many are acceptable for SMA, allowing myriad opportunities for different types of characters. Why must we always go to option #1?

If the occasional very exceptional character chose #1, that'd be one thing. But making it normal is something else.

[Bedwyr]

Because that's not how religious people think.

Let us take the example of 27 successive defeats despite fervent prayer. The following are a few possible explanations:

2. My god hates me because it is hateful (evil deity argument)

For a medieval, option #1 is the most difficult option because god is a basically believed idea. God's existence was a point of only very limited disputation. There are numerous available RP responses, of which many are acceptable for SMA, allowing myriad opportunities for different types of characters. Why must we always go to option #1?

No one's suggesting #1.  We are suggesting #2. 

[Vellos]

From what I've read, you're suggesting:

"What god you worship doesn't matter."

If your contention is: "There is a god/gods, it/they have certain characteristics x, y, and z, it/they work in the world through these certain means, and, broadly speaking, this god dislikes us, and our survival is preserved by means a, b, and c that forestalls god's wrath" then, more power to you. That's a neat religion.

So I would ask, for tMP:
1. What is god's name, or the names of the gods?
2. What deities worshipped by other faiths, in fact, do not exist? Which ones do exist?
3. If other deities besides the deity of tMP exists, what relation do they have to tMP's deity?
4. How is it that god can be fought by man with any degree of success?
5. Why has god created (assuming god did create, you could have a different cosmology) a world that it desires to hurt?
6. What has caused god to be evil?

If you can answer those questions, you've got a real theology going. You'll have a deity, you'll have a clear "out group," you'll have a description of metaphysics, you'll have a description of humanity's metaphysical position, you'll have answers to many traditionally religious questions, you'll have a theodicy of sorts.

Other good questions to answer via religion:
1. Why does lightning strike where it does?
2. Why do good and bad harvests come when they do?
3. Why do other realms exist?
4. Why do only heroes die?
5. Why does sex create babies?
6. Why do we have to eat food to stay alive?
7. Why does everyone need water?
8. Why do animals exist?

[Darkgrave]

5. Why does sex create babies?