Talking Gods/Defining Gods

Anything to say about roleplay? Want to share a story? This is the right place.

Moderator: Wizards

Message
Author
User avatar
gojin
Master
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#1 Post by gojin » Sat Aug 02, 2008 4:57 am

So Gojin was reminded recently that crusaders talk with Taniel/Evren. While goj has an IC method of reasoning that still tells him the cruxies are wrong something dawned on me the PO... Could Goj actually be wrong? Meaning are the gods defined OOC?

Goj and I have our reasons for not going along with crusader definitions of gods. The most blatant example is the differing ic opinions of Evren. Evren NPCs + Druids say that above all Evren loves life/hates killing, Crusaders say Evren tells them to kill. One of them has to be wrong right?

Secondly, and this might just be me, but the idea of Taniel condoning the acts of the crusade dont sit well with me or my char. Taniel is the god of wisdom, you'd think he would be more enlightened than having people roast other people on his behalf. Should elves be played as creatures of such a god?

That being said... The gods are hard coded now, ie - Karma, and some of their likes/dislikes(even if I disagree w/ them) have been defined. The gods talk to the crusade(or do they?) and hence the crusade's actions are what the gods tell them to do(maybe?). So are the gods defined and do the cruxies rp them the way everyone is supposed to be play them? Has the answer been a very obvious 'YES' and Im just really really slow?

Yes or No is cool either way. I want to stick to Geas' motiff and can deal with the rp aspect of the gods being defined fairly easy. I also want to make sure Im not one player holding up progress.

User avatar
matusalem
Master
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:20 am
Location: Memphis, Tennessee, USA

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#2 Post by matusalem » Sat Aug 02, 2008 6:03 am

This is merely my two cents, but it seems to me that despite the deities being hard coded, they're not so rigidly defined as to prevent various interpretations. Matusalem claims he didn't join the clergy to judge people at the end of a weapon. Those who do in fact do this can have just as high of a karma and favor with Taniel as he does, so neither interpretation is incorrect in OOC terms, necessarily. I'd also like to think this is the case IC.

God in the old testament is a very wrathful, angry deity, while He's depicted as much more kind and forgiving in the new testament. (Though certain gnostic beliefs state otherwise...) These are still the same God, with different interpretations.

Karma is kind of a tricky thing. With both my characters, they have exceedingly high karma with Taniel (though only one is a worshipper). I believe this was done simply by donating to beggars on a very regular basis. I've wondered, but never tried personally, about a character modeled after a modern day mafioso. Realize, they are all traditionally depicted as devout Catholics despite participating in less than Christian behavior. What if a character IG was a thief and all around thug, but still prayed to Taniel and donated to the poor. Would this be enough good karma to scrape by people's notice? Some might steal from the rich and give to the poor, and would see this as a just and good thing to do. Why run off and worship a god of death or chaos when you perform wicked actions for a good cause? I'm rambling.

My point, hidden somewhere in all that, is that I like to think there's a lot of room for various religious interpretations just as there are in reality, and personally, I'd enjoy seeing more of it IG.

Zengo
Professional
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:38 pm

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#3 Post by Zengo » Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:50 am

Well, I have heard views on this topic before. I have also stated the same things Gojin has, but I said it ICly. Something along the lines of "Crusaders say blah blah blah, Druids say exactly opposite blah blah blah. Is one of them wrong?" The Crusaders were the only ones who attempted to answer.

Also it has been a while since I have heard anything on this subject, but the wizard reply back then was something similar to "the Crusaders do exactly what they are designed to do" Not sure if that means they are right or wrong but it seems they were/are doing something correct.

Even if someone is wrong, who cares? If you keep your characters actions on how he perceives things IC , the mud should be more interesting for everyone.

User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#4 Post by luminier » Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:12 pm

heh i always love talking about gods, it's fun making lumi seem that "wow all these people are SO wrong and misguided, i must save them from their ways." if every thing was predetermined godwise, there would be no fun, for me anyways heheh.

i like things the way they are. and on the point of roasting people. I remember varg saying something similar to burning someone and purifying their soul (there is a reason it's called purification) is one of the most holy things you can do. of course only if the person is actually bad being good and getting burned is "bad" for the crussies.

the only problem is this. back when i was getting burned ... hmm perhaps this is getting too IC, pardon.
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

User avatar
gojin
Master
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#5 Post by gojin » Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:47 am

Goj brings the subject up IC all the time(ask Lumi/others). Im addressing more of an OOC concern, or at least what i percieve to be one. Basically, is there room for different interpretations of the gods when the gods have hard-coded aspects to them. Namely, the gods giving direct orders.

As an extreme example... what if all of a sudden a group of chars decide to play Asral as a flower selling hippie god of peace. Or if Sathonys is all of a sudden considered and played by the playerbase as the guardian of fluffy bunnies. If there is an IC and coded event where Taniel says 'do this' would it be any less ridiculous of my char to say 'Taniel would never say do that' than to sell flowers in the name of Asral?

This is really just a minor concern and perhaps only mine.

User avatar
gojin
Master
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#6 Post by gojin » Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:54 am

Also it has been a while since I have heard anything on this subject, but the wizard reply back then was something similar to "the Crusaders do exactly what they are designed to do" Not sure if that means they are right or wrong but it seems they were/are doing something correct.
This much I will totally agree with. The cruxies however hated by my char are one of my favorite guilds. Its hard to let you guys know IG because of all the lances coming at my head but I do appreciate all the effort you put into making my chars life difficult. Your smart play has actually caused me(the PO) some frustration and I hope to pay you back in full ;)

PO Goj

isengoo
Champion
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:38 pm

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#7 Post by isengoo » Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:09 am

The real crux (hurr) of the issue is the fact that the Crusaders don't just say random things about Taniel and Evren and not back it up, they really go out and RP the hell out of it - and if you disagree with them you get your ass roasted. I've found it's just better to agree with their definitions and go about my merry way, so I don't get hassled.

User avatar
sun
Master
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:27 pm

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#8 Post by sun » Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:51 pm

gojin wrote:So Gojin was reminded recently that crusaders talk with Taniel/Evren. While goj has an IC method of reasoning that still tells him the cruxies are wrong something dawned on me the PO... Could Goj actually be wrong? Meaning are the gods defined OOC?
The cruxies never get to speak back to the gods. It is a one-way communication. They do however receive direct orders from the gods, such as "kill person X" (this should be common knowledge by now). I'd say this pretty much defines them. I remember some admin saying for example that burning someone evil is a good action IC (and that is a part of the "medieval" part in "medieval mud").

I would personally like to compare the crussies with the RL police, just with a couple of notches of worse and judging behaviour. It is to the extent where people might protest in individual cases, but not on the general whole. The point is, it is hard to change your "thinking" about this because IRL it's terribly evil, but in game it's very good. And the commonly accepted justification is somehow "the actions they did are bad, so they deserve to die." A bit like the medial attention you see when a rapist/murderer's trial is commented in the news. It's of course hard to always adapt you mind to it, because I like to think of it as something evil. But in game, I would say it is definitely good.

gojin wrote:Goj and I have our reasons for not going along with crusader definitions of gods. The most blatant example is the differing ic opinions of Evren. Evren NPCs + Druids say that above all Evren loves life/hates killing, Crusaders say Evren tells them to kill. One of them has to be wrong right?
Yes, it is a bit inconsistent at times. However, Evren is not an all friendly woman. More like a friendly cat. But when her "nest" is attacked, she suddenly becomes a menacing tiger with no pardon. So I would say that Evren does hate "unnecessary" killing, but wrath/anger/vengeance/attack is also a natural part of the religion.
gojin wrote:Secondly, and this might just be me, but the idea of Taniel condoning the acts of the crusade dont sit well with me or my char. Taniel is the god of wisdom, you'd think he would be more enlightened than having people roast other people on his behalf. Should elves be played as creatures of such a god?
I personally think of Taniel as the old-fashioned, sleep-on-the-stone-floor and pray hard kind of god. It's a hard, tough, strict and rigid religion with no extra points for fluffyness. Smite your enemy, 100% dedication to Taniel and no bullshit (sorry for the bad language). I do agree however that elves should perhaps be more understanding than to agree with the burning of people, however, this is Geas elves. I am not sure they map 1:1 with Tolkien elves. The features are the same, but the culture and background might be different. I would assume there might be some inherent differences (obviously since it's Taniel himself who commands those kill/burn orders).

But yes, it is a question I would be interested to hear an answer to myself. What are the elves and their god in geas, really?
gojin wrote:That being said... The gods are hard coded now, ie - Karma, and some of their likes/dislikes(even if I disagree w/ them) have been defined. The gods talk to the crusade(or do they?) and hence the crusade's actions are what the gods tell them to do(maybe?). So are the gods defined and do the cruxies rp them the way everyone is supposed to be play them? Has the answer been a very obvious 'YES' and Im just really really slow?

Yes or No is cool either way. I want to stick to Geas' motiff and can deal with the rp aspect of the gods being defined fairly easy. I also want to make sure Im not one player holding up progress.
I think that not thinking of, say, burning people as something good will "hold up the progress" because that is more or less truth in an OOC perspective. But that does not mean there is not room to jiggle with the ideals and interpretations. There is always the soft and diplomatic way, and I think that it really works better, even in Geas, if you want results.

When it comes to the Crusaders for example, it's easy to critize (really much harder to agree skillfully). I would say nothing is untouchable, and absolutely not the Crusaders or their methods. Though I hate the "modern" way of attacking them by speaking of democratic rights and whatnot.

And just in case it sounded like I critized you, I find your RP is nothing but most enjoyable!

User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#9 Post by luminier » Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:29 pm

alot of chars talk about how lumi is almost like a coin. one side hes the nice yet brash and boastful guy and one side hes the crusader ready for swift justice and no questions.

my crusader side tends to take alot of flak from some character because they think what i do is absolutely horrible, then i back it up with either it's orders, i do this because they are evil and such needs to be rooted out, or give examples about person X and everyone thought they were good and look what happened in the end.

yet no matter people rp lumi to be a two faced hellion. which i find quite interesting. it seems alot of the people that dislike the crusade use modern reasons. while this stems from their superior ooc intelligence, iunno how well it is supposed to fit in the mud. but it always seems to provide a interesting enough rp battle so im cool with it either way. it took me a while to realize this back when i was getting hunted, and after lots of IC and OOC talks i finally got to realizing it.
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

Zengo
Professional
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:38 pm

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#10 Post by Zengo » Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:33 pm

luminier wrote:it seems alot of the people that dislike the crusade use modern reasons. while this stems from their superior ooc intelligence, iunno how well it is supposed to fit in the mud.
Yes, I commonly see lots of characters trying to bring modern day morale relativity into the mud. I just do not see how this can fit into GEAS. There are good and evil things. They are clearly defined. You can try to justify certain things based on todays standards, but that has no bearing in a fantasy world.

Backstabbing Rangers, Peace loving Asrals, People who think Sathonites are "good guys"........I personally do not see how any of those can be justifiable. However, they seem common at times.

I see GEAS as the world our characters live in. The characters were created for the world, not the world for the characters. It doesn't conform to our standards, we should conform to its standards.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#11 Post by luminier » Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:46 pm

im genuinely sorry that i essentially "forced" the wizards to code something new for the crusade (the gods telling them to hunt me) because i didn't rp properly. but ive learned from my mistakes. and im not saying joining the crusade would solve everyones problems, but if you decide to take an evil action 9 times out of 10 crusaders will find out. and we will serve justice.

im sorry if that makes it unfun, but it is what we were designed to do. and hey if it's honestly that horrible, im sure every guild could team up against the crusaders and i guess the taniel clergy too. maybe win, it would be interesting =P
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

Zengo
Professional
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:38 pm

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#12 Post by Zengo » Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:47 pm

Not sure what you are apologizing for.

You seem to be apologizing to people because their actions have consequences..........!!!

Also, as long as I can remember the Gods have ALWAYS told the Crusaders to hunt their enemies when they pray. Even calling them by name. Not simply saying "Go hunt our enemies" but much more explicit.

isengoo
Champion
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:38 pm

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#13 Post by isengoo » Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:57 pm

Boy, it sure would be great if other guilds had that sort of divine inspiration.

User avatar
eirikeld
Professional
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:47 am
Location: West Coast, USA

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#14 Post by eirikeld » Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:05 am

I will weigh in for the druids, as none others have. Playing a druid, I have really pushed some limits on combat / killing.

Quite simply, any life that Kerlorin takes, no matter what it is, he suffers for it. He feels a loss of his connection to nature, and is ordered to perform penance. This applies to thildens [satho creatures], as well as gremlins [evil and destroying wild life flagrantly].

He kills one of those, and suffers. Penance is approximately 100 trees planted, and i have to grow those seeds, which takes IC time, work, and rest.

To this day, he is baffled that anyone can "kill in the name of Evren" when doing such is made so obviously wrong, given the above experiences.

I will have no problem modifying his views slightly, if his reality is made to be different. He is not the pacifist that some druids are, and would gladly kill a few select things, except that he is punished for it. He does not kill them, because it is his goddess' wishes that he does not.

I would greatly appreciate word from the wizards on this, as it appears that there is a direct conflict here.

Grindel
Veteran
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:26 am

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#15 Post by Grindel » Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:45 am

I do not think this is a question that can be discussed with the code in mind, and this mix of IC- and OOC-knowledge.

IC different groups may get different orders from the same deity. This is not unheared of in the real world, and every group is convinced it gets the wishes of a god right. ;-)

So just let crusaders kill in the name of Evren, and Druids mourn that. There are no unwanted inconsequences here and the resulting conflicts just offer some fine story for you to play. The real place to start this discussion is IC, if someone like Kerlorin sees such a "conflict".

User avatar
gojin
Master
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#16 Post by gojin » Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:49 am

I think that not thinking of, say, burning people as something good will "hold up the progress" because that is more or less truth in an OOC perspective.
This has always been a point of contention with me. Perhaps burning 'evils' was seen as a good act by the person doing so(which I doubt, ive had the experience of witnessing people abuse their power over others in the name of 'good' and can assure you they know the pleasure they get out of it is evil) but even during medievel times or the inquisitions do you think the average person thought it a good act? Or were they just helpless to stop it or even speak against it?

Even if the average person were to agree with it, would the average elf? I always thought of the elven race as a bit more enlightened than humans per say. Or would Taniel approve of it... I guess he does since he orders it done.

But anyways, if Taniel is giving the orders to burn <x person> then Its fairly impossible to argue against Taniel wanting such things done in his name. This more or less answers my question about the gods being defined by code though the situation with Evren is still curious.

Thanks,

PO Goj

adanath
Champion
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:36 am
Location: Lynchburg, VA

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#17 Post by adanath » Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:49 am

This is not real life. This is not the inquisition. This is the mud, and in the mud far greater and more outright evils and holy things exist and persist. You are fooled if you believe Taniel commands it alone. Evren does as well. They are gods and wield different guilds for different reasons. The Crusaders are not an outreach arm of the Gods. They are a punishment and execution arm of the Gods. They destroy evil, this is their sole purpose, and despite that other players and characters in game may try to bring moral relativity into the picture, it is very black and white. Whereas in real life it is seen that burning of a person is incredibly cruel and malicious. In the mud it is the only thing that can purify a soul. I can expound upon it more later, yet I fail to see the ooc relevance, as much of this should be and can be gleaned ic. If you are trying to use ooc moral thinking etc, then stop, this isn't the real world, it is the mud.

User avatar
Abharsair
Site Admin
Posts: 901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Regensburg, Germany
Contact:

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#18 Post by Abharsair » Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:19 am

It's intentional that gods aren't clearly defined without any wiggle space. This would make some of the roleplay where gods are involved quite one-dimensional and bland, and that's why we usually interfere only if something gets out of control, and is blatantly contrary to all which is currently "fact".

As with the Geas gods, our RL deities tend to have different aspects depending on who you ask. Someone already mentioned the Old Testament and New Testament. But even if you follow the same scripture, it's also a matter of interpretation. E.g. worshiping a loving and forgiving god (according to the newer parts of the Bible), but going on a Crusade to whack some Saracens, because they "clearly don't count".

So the same can be applied to our Geas deities. Naturally, one could say that the clergy of a deity is the ultimate authority on that god (and for the most part they are), but even then a rebel worshiper could blame some "mistakes" on human error and religious zeal.

Concerning Evren, well, there are basically two very different religious views on what a proper Evren follower is. However, none of those views stems from an official Evren clergy, and none of them is 100% correct. I'd say each group follows a different aspect of Evren. While the Druids follow the love and life aspect, the Crusaders follow the Archenemy of Sathonys and protecting her Creation by force aspect, which couldn't be done without the necessary violence. Personally I like that diversity if it is roleplayed properly, and as long as modern RL values aren't dragged into a medieval, gritty and violent fantasy world.
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."

User avatar
gojin
Master
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#19 Post by gojin » Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:50 pm

They destroy evil, this is their sole purpose, and despite that other players and characters in game may try to bring moral relativity into the picture, it is very black and white.
It may be black and white for the cruxies but not necessarily so(at least id hope so) for your random char. I was attempting to discuss how your random char is supposed to view the gods and what is in theme and what is unthematic.
If you are trying to use ooc moral thinking etc, then stop, this isn't the real world, it is the mud.
What I am trying to do is gleam an idea or a better understanding of the way things are in the mud so I can understand how my char understands the world. I hope that makes sense. I can only start with my own moral standards then mold those to fit the mud world.

I am not trying to debate anything that should be discussed IC. I do plenty of that IG. What I wanted to discuss was if the hard-coded aspects of the deities make different beliefs unthematic.
we usually interfere only if something gets out of control, and is blatantly contrary to all which is currently "fact".
This more or less answers my concerns.

Liranne
Beginner
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:05 am

Re: Talking Gods/Defining Gods

#20 Post by Liranne » Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:41 am

I have a question for the people who play their faith/race in an atypical fashion: why? What is the motivation besides 'I want to do something new'?

Most of the information about Gods can be obtained in game and this is generally considered canon throughout the game. I would like to see more information available regarding the gods. As someone just mentioned, subjective terms like wisdom, come into play. Alot of people have modeled Taniel after a Judeo-Christian God and I am guilty of that same thing. I am not certain that this is accurate because of the dynamics of the races of the MUD.

In comparing other RPI MUDs, alot of background is fleshed out. I think this is what is needed to assist the player base rp as opposed to roll-play.

Post Reply