Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:
TNG is particularly condescending.

Off topic, but I found that to be pretty true in general. Picard is always talking about respecting the cultures and differences of other worlds and species, but pretty much every single episode involving those speeches is about showing how much better things would be if those worlds were as free and "accepting" as humanity is.

 Melissia wrote:
Mn, maybe that explains the GTA sex scenes then.

I do not understand what you mean.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

Spoiler:

there are so few occasions to use the wisdom of George. Oh, and in response to the Sampson superhair/silly debate-

I have no idea what this is about either.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
TNG is particularly condescending.

Off topic, but I found that to be pretty true in general. Picard is always talking about respecting the cultures and differences of other worlds and species, but pretty much every single episode involving those speeches is about showing how much better things would be if those worlds were as free and "accepting" as humanity is.

Enterprise was at least honest with itself when it considered all other culture's inferior to an enlightened humanity

 Manchu wrote:
I cannot think of a single video game that takes religion seriously. In BioWare's RPGs, religion is just another prop. In ME, religion is mostly an aspect of non-human ethnicity. In DA, the Maker and Andraste are powerful NPCs from long ago. The moral universe of these games is largely black and white.

Or red and blue, to use BioWare's marketing colors.

The consumerist apocalypse comes down to final battle between Coke and Pepsi.

Which is both, funny, and probably darker than actually intended.

 Manchu wrote:
Compel brought up DS9 earlier. I'm not convinced it is a very good example but it is the best Star Trek has ever managed. TNG is particularly condescending.

And you essentially stating that anyone who has a different view of religion and faith to you is either too dim to grasp it, not willing to put in the effort to grasp it, or deliberately misrepresenting it, and that if such people also happen to be believers they're not "proper" believers, isn't condescending?

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
TNG is particularly condescending.

Off topic, but I found that to be pretty true in general. Picard is always talking about respecting the cultures and differences of other worlds and species, but pretty much every single episode involving those speeches is about showing how much better things would be if those worlds were as free and "accepting" as humanity is.

Well, no, it was about showing us how much better we would be if we were as free and accepting as humanity in TNG's hypothetical future were. Even then, it's unfair to claim they only ever used alien cultures as the negative example, some of the best TNG episodes were the ones that showed even the ostensibly enlightened humans of the future can fall prey to uncritical thought and prejudices("The Measure of a Man", "The Drumhead" being prime examples).

If you have a thought about religion, why not just post it so we can talk about religion (especially as portrayed in media, especially video games) rather than talking about talking about religion? FYI, if it's just more of the usual "being religious = believing in nonsense/magic" tripe, I'm just going to ignore it. It doesn't matter to me whether you think that's condescending; I've wasted more than enough time humoring ignorance.

 Manchu wrote:
It's not that religion itself is silly; rather, it's that we often insist on talking about it in silly ways. Many people who claim to be religious as well as those who think they are railing against it tend to boil down religion to overly literal and/or fantastical nonsense. In essence, fools talk foolishly. The Pope himself has had to recently remind the world that God is not a wizard, something anti-religious zealots need to keep in mind as much as religious zealots. This level is usually as far as it gets in many discussions. I can already see that developing ITT. And it's just not worth the time and effort.

I'm grateful that BioWare at least transcends that level. But it doesn't get very far. What religion actually means is never discussed in ME or DA. Rather, the topic is whether being religious is preferable to not being religious. And that's an inherently hollow question so long as religion itself remains unexamined.

 Ahtman wrote:
People who understand metaphor and analogy? People who understand history and how the stories from it make up the fabric of modernity?

Those are apparently some of the absolutely rarest insights in contemporary culture. A basic awareness of modernity, I find, is almost always completely lacking.

Ok, so, how does one talk about religion 'on a deeper level' exactly? To have that discussion (or the discussion from the OP), you say we need to examine religion, to talk about it in the proper (not silly) way? How do we do that?

Do we look at it as a socio-economic phenomenon? Do we address it's effects on human history, or the history of it's own evolution? Do we talk about personal faith or religious organisations & institutions? Do we discuss the teachings of individual faiths, and compare them with others? Do we examine it holisticly, without focus on an individual religion? Do we avoid the relationship with science? Do we restrict ourselves to the philosophy and theology, or open it up to all the dimensions of 'religion'.

It's not exactly a small, easily contained, topic.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Well, no, it was about showing us how much better we would be if we were as free and accepting as humanity in TNG's hypothetical future were.

Actually it is a overrated show based on one concept of what humanity might be. Even if humans were 'free and accepting' (which is incredibly vague as well) it might be nothing like what the writers on the product i.e. show imagined. To quote the Red Hot Chili Peppers "Space may be the final frontier But it's made in a Hollywood basement". Liking the show is fine but pretending it somehow reflects reality, hypothetical or not, is not very considered. Besides, everyone knows the Original Series was much better.

Did anyone else play Summoner? It's quite an old RPG, but I think it had a fair go at taking religion seriously

 Manchu wrote:
If you have a thought about religion, why not just post it so we can talk about religion (especially as portrayed in media, especially video games) rather than talking about talking about religion? FYI, if it's just more of the usual "being religious = believing in nonsense/magic" tripe, I'm just going to ignore it. It doesn't matter to me whether you think that's condescending; I've wasted more than enough time humoring ignorance.

Okay, to try and get back on topic:

My impression of the dragon age (1 and 2) games is that religion is barely touched. You get a best some stereotypical caricatures of a 'religious type', who were usually either 'preaching' types or else quest related. What i didn't see was the impact/relationship with the 'peasants' (who were also highly stereotyped - ie they panicked a lot and only listened to whoever carried the biggest weapon). The closest i saw to an actual religious 'community' were the dragon cultists in dao, and they were just "don't talk to outsiders/kill the outsiders". So as far as the original post is concerned, i think its wrong. Bioware at best vaguely touches on religion, it doesn't actually go into any depth or detail on the actualities of what having a religion is.

 Pendix wrote:
How do we do that?

I've posted about that ITT already so a good place to start is reading those posts. You might also like to watch the Extra Credits videos on the subject, where they propose talking about religion in video games in three parts: mechanics, lore, and faith.

Those vids are pretty good but the second one, the one all about faith, feels like a bit of a let down because rather than talking about any example of faith (for example, what I posted about RotJ earlier), they are stuck defending the idea of faith itself over and against some imperialist notion of SCIENCE. When that vid was posted, by the way, the comment section was a vast field of outrage over the notion that faith of any sort plays any kind of role in science.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Honestly, who would call the story of a guy who is super-strong as long as he have long hair, who loose all his strength when they are cut, whose secret is stolen from him by his treacherous wife, who then get captured, shaven and chained to a temple by his enemies; enemies who are ultimately so stupid that they forget his hair grow back and do not shave him again, and therefore die when he breaks up the temple not silly? It almost makes Marvel and DC look sensible. Almost!

His hair doesn't grow back. When he gets put up in their temple for humiliation he is granted his strength back on last time and he decides to destroy the pillars he is chained to bringing down the temple. The hair wasnt his source of powers, god was, but he was not to cut his hair or god would take away his powers. His powers werent like that of superman, he was just known as the strongest man in the area.

From memory anyway.

Right. Though the details are lost on those who like to bash religion for the sake of bashing religion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
TNG is particularly condescending.

Off topic, but I found that to be pretty true in general. Picard is always talking about respecting the cultures and differences of other worlds and species, but pretty much every single episode involving those speeches is about showing how much better things would be if those worlds were as free and "accepting" as humanity is.

Enterprise was at least honest with itself when it considered all other culture's inferior to an enlightened humanity

The Culture novels by Ian M. Banks have some interesting explorations of this. The Culture, an extremely advanced society that's basically achieved utopia, has a paramilitary branch that goes out and subtly interacts with the other "lesser" cultures in the galaxy and attempts to manipulate them towards what will ultimately be a more peaceful, tolerant society. At the same time, the books to go great lengths to point out that even the Culture acknowledges that they don't know everything and that they're just doing the best they can.

 DarkLink wrote:
Right. Though the details are lost on those who like to bash religion for the sake of bashing religion.

I am confused. Are you saying Mr. Release-flaming-foxes story is not silly?

As a matter of fact, the bible says his hair grew back, and depicts a strength that is supernatural. Do you want a list of his exploits showing so?

Let me take an example. Do you play Warhammer Fantasy Battle? Have you heard of Sigmar, the guy who literally became a god? Well, one of the biggest feat of strength he is depicted doing is defeating a whole Skaven army using only the jawbone of an ox. Some out of this world, unbelievable, silly power fantasy? Here is what was the inspiration for this story; “According to the biblical account, Samson was given supernatural strength by God in order to combat his enemies and perform heroic feats such as killing a lion, slaying an entire army with only the jawbone of an ass, and destroying a pagan temple.”
Yeah, I know, it is an allegory. An allegory of something. We are not quite sure an allegory of what, because it is not mentioned anywhere. But if we take it literally, it is silly, and since we cannot accept the bible as being silly, it means it must be an allegory, right?
Would you like to go check out the story yourself? Damn, that guy could certainly teach freaking Hercules lessons in being an immature irrational overpowered spoiled brute!


Maybe this whole story is an allegory to show how women are evil and should not be trusted, no? Certainly, if that whole story was allegory of misogyny, it would not be silly!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually this whole Samson story made me think, maybe the God of War series is a good take on religion. I am seeing some similarities here.

A lot of "old testament" stories, I think, were tribal celebrations by ancient Jews and the ancestors of the same. The deity they worshiped was distinctly a tribal deity, even mentioning other deities and acting as if they weren't the only one in existence.

Because of that, there's a huge disconnect between the deity that Jesus described, which crossed tribal boundries and welcomed all, rather htan choosing one tribe to be better than the rest. Each society (tribe), each culture and subculture, each generation... indeed, each person has a different vision of what the deities they know of are (or aren't). As a society, our knowledge of god, as it were, has evolved, sometimes in good ways, sometimes not.

A couple of comments...

The first item is this Adventurers Comic that the writer used to poke fun at an all too common RPG take on religion. Specifically, note the last three panels.

http://adventurers.keenspot.com/d/20020809.html


The second is the old game Xenogears. It's quite an old game, but I'll go ahead and use spoiler tags anyway.

 Melissia wrote:
A lot of "old testament" stories, I think, were tribal celebrations by ancient Jews and the ancestors of the same. The deity they worshiped was distinctly a tribal deity, even mentioning other deities and acting as if they weren't the only one in existence.

Because of that, there's a huge disconnect between the deity that Jesus described, which crossed tribal boundries and welcomed all, rather htan choosing one tribe to be better than the rest. Each society (tribe), each culture and subculture, each generation... indeed, each person has a different vision of what the deities they know of are (or aren't). As a society, our knowledge of god, as it were, has evolved, sometimes in good ways, sometimes not.

Another thing to consider with Judaism is the Babylonian Exile (the first event in Jewish history that can be corroborated by other sources as actually happening). In that time period, we're looking at a group of people, likely from a tribal background, who had been impressed and taken from their home to a regional super power. When they left, the ancient Jews may have greatly exaggerated many of their stories and the heroes in them in their effort to both rebuild in the post exile period and to develop their own desire to be a great kingdom like Babylon. This period marks a major shift from Henotheism to Monotheism, as well as a shift from a "God of order" to a "God of good" likely an influence of Zoroastrianism.

The "evolution" of Judaism, and by extension Christianity, is a long and fascinating subject But most games treat religion as a static, unchanging tradition, that remains changeless for eons.

Isn't that where Dragon Age; Inquisition comes in though?

I am only partway through the game but a big part of it seems to be very much. "Oh dear frigging heck, the <Equivalent of the Devil> is actually real, he confirms much of the <Equivalent of the bible> is actually true, but also that parts of the <Equivalent of the bible> is actually massively, massively wrong. Is he telling the truth, is he lying?

Is, <The Player Character> actually, The Herald of <Equivalent of Jesus> or is it just random chance?

What does The Player Character believe? Does it matter what <The Player Character> believes? Or do we have a Life of Brian situation?

As I'm only about a third of the way through the game, do these questions actually matter long term?

The religion of the Chantry plays a fairly major role in DAI, though how you, the player, interact with it is up to you. However, the game is not intended to be a "Religious Expansionism" simulator, so it's not the core focus of the game...

... however, because the player-character is potentially/possibly a divinely-sent savior-figure, questions about what you, the character, believe and how you, the character, will act in accordance with those beliefs, crops up rather a lot.

There's also some pretty good examinations of the Chantry's history and role in politics, if you know where to look, scattered throughout the game.

However, this is a religion that is predicated on some very basic concepts borrowed from Judaeism and then turned on their head. God (called "The Maker") is believed to exist, and is felt to be an omnipotent, omniscient deity (sound familiar?)... excepting that He's totally absent. His supposed Throne in Heaven sits untouched and unoccupied (a matter that forms the main goal of the antagonist of the game), and the Maker does not communicate with Mankind. At all.

The purpose of the Chantry, then, is to guide Mankind (and everyone else, really) along the path set down by Andraste (a long-dead martyr-saint)... but they don't really have much to work with in the way of doctrine, just a whole lotta dogma.

 Manchu wrote:
The trouble is, your point of view is so uncritically and narrowly materialist.

Are you suggesting some sort of dualism?

No, as the concept of dualism has come to assume materialism.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I just do not see how you can portray this as a good thing in a video game. Do you get the character to get magic power because he believe, Samson-style ? Or do you make him stop being a jerk/not become a jerk because he believe in something supernatural? With all the unfortunate implications of this?

Can't the character simply find some kind of comfort, sense of community or personal truth in their faith and also not be an donkey-cave? Unless you're dealing with the matter of someone finding faith I'm not particularly sure why it has to be revolutionary in some way. Even in the case of someone finding faith it does not necessarily have to be something that results in a radical external shift.

Faith in god or anything else is something that's largely if not wholly internal and can't really be equated with the actions taken by someone faithful, or how that faith contributes in the to the thought processes that person uses to determine what those actions will be.

 Manchu wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
However, as you can guess, faith is not portrayed in a very positive fashion. How could it ever be?

This kind of thing is why there is no reason to have a conversation with you.

It is precisely because of this kind of opposing views portraying religion in a fictional setting is such a draw.
You can poke at either the atheist side or the religious side and play with the "flaws" of either view.
It reminds me of Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics: lay out the laws, create the setting, show an apparent breaking of the laws, let story unfold.
It allows a form of critique of actual real world views without specifically calling them out and getting people all defensive about it.

You could say that games are just another form of art and art is all about the evoking of emotion and religion is a powerful means of evoking it.
Nothing more scary than the thought that anyone who made you is intent on unmaking you and thoughts of how to escape the petri-dish have to be examined.

 Chongara wrote:
Unless you're dealing with the matter of someone finding faith I'm not particularly sure why it has to be revolutionary in some way.

What about a game that is about having and testing faith-- not necessarily in a deity, but just well... in general.

Of course, this would require the player to not be an all-powerful action hero...

The "problem" with portraying rewards from faith in a game is that players will invariably figure out the mechanics and milk it for all its worth. And at that point, it's not really faith. It's checklist good and evil (to borrow a phrase that I've previously used to describe the Fable games). About the best that you can do is to have incidents - often involving NPCs - that leave a question in the players' minds about whether what they just saw was the work of the divine. DA:O actually did have a questline like that - the one involving the sacred urn of ashes.

Paladins and clerics aside, one of the best ways to portray faith that I've seen to date is the method described in Dark Heresy. The suggestion is that it's all up to the GM. But when Bad Stuff(tm) happens to a "random" member of the party, the victim shouldn't be the party member who's taken the time to collect "worthless" holy relics. Unfortunately, something like that doesn't really translate over well to a CRPG - particularly since one player is essentially responsible for the entire party (unlike a pencil and paper RPG).

Well, DH now has "space-magic" Faith powers that are... kind of stupid in the main.

 Talizvar wrote:
You can poke at either the atheist side or the religious side and play with the "flaws" of either view.

That's the insight you draw from this comment?

However, as you can guess, faith is not portrayed in a very positive fashion. How could it ever be?

Back On-T, any game that portrays faith entailing magical powers is not talking about faith.

 Manchu wrote:
Back On-T, any game that portrays faith entailing magical powers is not talking about faith.

No true faith.

"Magical powers" is an external expression, in some settings, of various faith systems being a literal showing of divine force or a practitioner's own faith. It is both a valid way of introducing faith to a player and show how faith is treated in the game setting (in terms of how people react to it, who has power and what kinds of powers are expressed, especially when different faiths have different powers, etc).

Then there are the settings without magical powers but just like "real" religions, the game's religions and faiths have their own stories of magic and supernatural events and powers which are integral to understanding the faith of the people who profess it.

 Manchu wrote:
No, as the concept of dualism has come to assume materialism.

What do you mean? My understanding of dualism is that it generally means that there are material and immaterial things, like a mind-body divide for example. Materialism on the other hand rejects the idea of anything non-material existing. If those aren't wildly different from your uses of the terms I don't see how dualism assumes materialism. It doesn't seem logically possible.

What I mean is, you could sum up dualism as a materialist saying there is a position which holds there is something in addition to material.

 Manchu wrote:
What I mean is, you could sum up dualism as a materialist saying there is a position which holds there is something in addition to material.

An agnomaterialist?