As I was lying in bed last night I decided that it might be interesting to develop a campaign setting where there are no gods – or at least, where the gods don't actually exist. There's still religion, of course, but it's just, you know, false.
The question is, how can I compensate for the loss of priests as a viable class? I mean, who wants to play a priest if they can't heal and turn undead and whatnot?
What sorts of adaptations would I need to make to the d20 rules?
I've only just started thinking about this, so none of my ideas are well-developed at all. But sooner or later a new – and hopefully somewhat original – world will develop from these preliminary musings, gods or no. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Well twink, I have never even PLAYED paper D&D, I am curious.
Does magic exist at all in this world? If so, how does it work?
Cause if it does exist, just change the name of the class from priest to "Healing Mage" and problem solved .
If it doesn't work, then you need to replace your mage classes too, and you'd have to change the rules a ton.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Two ideas:
You could keep priests, but have them be mistaken about the source of their power. As long as no gods show up in your world, how can the inhabitants *really* know if they exist or not?
I remember in DarkSun, all of the priests were either priests of Earth, Air, Fire, or Earth.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
See, I feel like if there's any kind of supernatural anything in your world, you have proven the existence of some god there. It seems that you can't have magic but no gods.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
You could alter clerical magic so that it too was powered by the words and components used. Clerics could give credit to their gods, but in reality they would be just another brand of wizard. The cool thing about this, is that it would more closely match the reality of priests in many early earth cultures.
They knew they were doing tricks, but giving credit to the gods kept them in power. It would be a very cynical world. I like it. Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
PSI, I am baffled by your equating ANYTHING supernatural with the existence of a god.
I mean, supernatural is just a long word for 'thing we can't currently explain'. How does that de facto prove the existence of a god?
1000 years ago, eclipses were supernatural events. They certainly did not prove the existence of god.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
But I am not talking about things that may have a rational explanation somewhere. What about things that do NOT have a rational explanation at all?
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Prove that such a thing exists.
You can't. Many people believe that everything has a rational explanation. We just haven't found them all yet.
In D&D, magic has a rational explanation for why it works. It's just that the practitioners don't really understand it.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I think it would be cool to have priests that have powers that differ from Wizards, but is not derived from the supernatural.
Priests can still "heal" by providing spiritual comfort; "inspire" by rallying other players with powerful sermons (kill the infidels!); "tithe" by taking contributions from other players; "strike fear" into enemies by describing the power of their gods; and finally, priests can "confound" villagers with their fancy religious relics.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Beren, that's cool for role playing and story stuff. The problem comes in when the guy who confounds villagers with his relics runs into the guy who can actually create a fireball.
Fireball guy wins. Relic guys sits and smokes.
Not much fun mechanically.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Does magic exist at all in this world? If so, how does it work? << (Xav)
I think it does. I like wizards too much to leave them by the wayside. What I can't decide is how common it's going to be... that will probably vary from one region to the next.
>> I remember in DarkSun, all of the priests were either priests of Earth, Air, Fire, or Earth. << (mph)
Hm... and wizards were the same as normal, with schools?
>> See, I feel like if there's any kind of supernatural anything in your world, you have proven the existence of some god there. It seems that you can't have magic but no gods. <<
I disagree. The premise of wizardly magic is that through study you can learn how to bend the laws of the universe to your will in very small regions of space. It's a very human art, IMO.
>> It would be a very cynical world. I like it. << (Slash)
I thought you might. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: In D&D, magic has a rational explanation for why it works. It's just that the practitioners don't really understand it.
Oh, I didn't know this.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Slash, I forgot the most powerful priestly weapon of all: "guiltify."
The priest will snuff out the fireball guy with the weight of his guilty conscience. Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
PSI:
See Twinky's explanation above about 'bending the laws of the universe'.
You are just not a big enough nerd, PSI. How could you know this nerdy stuff?
[ April 07, 2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
Given that it's hypothesized that religion in Meatspace probably originates from the necessity of improving the morale of and asserting authority over a clan, you could give the priests the ability to, say, enhance the fighting fervor of soldiers or the working morale of citizens.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: You are just not a big enough nerd, PSI.
Thank God for small favors.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Well, if the gods don't exist but religion still does, these priests need to be awfully Charismatic to attract and hold onto their congregations. If you save the major magic for your wizards and there are no gods, priests will have to seem more like tricksters/charlatans. Perhaps some minor Charm/Bend Will powers. Combining various skills from bards, thieves(slight of hand tpe things to fool the masses), and alchemists(maybe they're great at potions, ie. Holy Water) would make them the class I am imagining. Maybe they're also better at creating magic items(relics).
On the other hand, maybe I'm totally off base. Maybe, despite the lack of gods, their fanatical devotion to a cause lends them great strength or the ability to take more damage than less fervent characters.
Give us more info on how you're viewing them Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Religion still works in our world, doesn't it?
...but seriously, though, I did a lot of talking with Slash this afternoon and he came up with some great ideas (not to mention names and flavour suggestions). I think the way to go is to give priests the same powers that they have in conventional D&D, but to have them stem from a slightly different source. In conventional D&D, the priest prays to his or her god and the god grants the priest spells for the day. My priests will gain their power through study, just like wizards – but unlike wizards what they study are their holy texts and their material components are symbols of religious significance.
This gets around the rules problem quite nicely while still giving me the flavour that I want.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hmm...
The thing is, the D&D world has magic all wrong. They've equated magic with science.
In reality, all of the traditional wizards were priests.
:shrug:
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
One of the things I like least about D&D, in fact, is that even priestly magic is treated like science.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If wizardly magic were rare, I'd agree with you, Scott. But in a world where it's comparatively common I think it makes the most sense to have the wizards be the scientists.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Can I sign up for Twink's eventual game? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I mean, supernatural is just a long word for 'thing we can't currently explain'.
That's assuming an awful lot, isn't it?
Dagonee
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I think using the magic system in the Wizard of Earth Sea would work beautifuly. Basically, everything has a "true name", and whoever knows the true name of something controls it. There are lots of healings and earth type magic (even explorations into the undead realm), but there are no Gods.
Has anyone else read the Earthsea Trilogy? I find it better then Tolkien for my tastes, and it is the only truely original fantasy I have read--apart from LOTR.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
to continue on thoughts of this, even though twinky's decided on one..
I admit, I only have a rudimentary understanding of the D&D ruleset. Lets say that wizards have the ability to manipulate the physical in order to do their bidding. With spell components, for example, they can 'call out' the properties they want.
Priests, on the other hand, manipulate the connections between living things, the energy lines. Through these lines, they can heal and do charismatic changes like Fear and Provoke (or whatever spells they have).
[ April 08, 2004, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
If y'all are still awake, I'd like to invite you over to the urbanity thread for a little b-day celebration. If you can make it that would be swell.
apologies for the interuption.
fallow
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Can I sign up for Twink's eventual game? <<
*puts Rakeesh on list*
Now my list has one entry. ETA sometime this summer, I think. I still need to get a better feel for the 3E rules before I start telling people what they can and can't do.
Edit: I liked Earthsea, though it's been a long time. In my world, words and names will definitely have power.
[ April 08, 2004, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Dagonee:
It assumes no more than the idea that supernatural has no natural explanation.
As I said, 1000 years ago eclipses were supernatural events. The most learned men of the time would have scoffed at you if you explained what actually causes them. They KNEW that it was a dragon eating the sun, or whatever.
I find that the causes people choose to assign to unexplainable events are mostly of equal validity with dragons eating the sun. Or, at least, equally provable.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't know, Twink-- the idea that a pearl and a couple words can bestow knowledge about an object or device that otherwise could not be gotten. . . Doesn't seem that scientific to me. . .
If TSR had, in the beginning, made divine magic and arcane magic the same, I doubt Jack Chick would have any problem with them at all. The magic-user class is just game developers bowing to the demands of an athiestic public.
Tom, I'm very interested in your comments-- and having been an inconsistant prescence in the RPG world, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you explain a little more of your point of view?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Who was the philosopher that stated that God was the thing above which nothing was more powerful? Wouldn't magic be considered 'God' in this world?
Of course, it could be an inactive god. . . which of course means no clerics. But its adherants would be obsessed with things like natural balance, etc.
:rambling:
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'd also love to play in your game twinky.
Suneun, that's a *fascinating* idea. I really like that a lot.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
thanks =) I was worried it was tossed aside as some d&d newbie absurdity.
Oh, nice diffEq. I burst out laughing in the clusters.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It assumes no more than the idea that supernatural has no natural explanation.
Exactly. Which is the heart of the materialist/non-materialist debate. Which means you've assumed the side you believe in, stuck it into the definition at the heart of the debate, and declared the controversy over.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Alexa: There are gods in the Earthsea trilogy-- the dark gods Tanar worships, for example. (Going by the audio books, here-- I don't have the correct spelling of the names).
And Seagoy who spoke the first words and is Creator of Earthsea. Although no one is shown worshipping Seagoy, the feeling is that he is a god.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Hmmm... twinky.
Your idea is the exact opposite of the idea my son (18) is trying to do in his development of a campaign (think "Christian" D&D, if you will) 'Tis most difficult...
Farmgirl
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Farmgirl, you might want to suggest he read the first part of the Silmarillion if he hasn't - it provides a pretty good roadmap to a kind of "Christian paganism," in that all the "gods" are beings expressly created by God and in no way in competition to him. In this scenario, "good" characters might align themselves with one of the pantheon, but with the clear understanding that such a being was a servant of God and not to be worshipped. It is considered to be pre-Incarnation, so it's consistent with Christianity, not expressly Christian. If that makes sense.
C.S. Lewis's "That Hideous Strength" also explores this concept in a more modern setting.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I remember reading a campaign module written by Iron Crown Enterprises, back in the day they were doing the Rolemaster and Middle-Earth stuff. It was a Robin-Hood type campaign where magic was real. The problem was that if you did any type of magic, the Church cared a great deal. If you were on your side, then it was a miracle. If you were against them, then it was witchcraft.
It thought it was pretty interesting, but more like anti-christian D&D.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I don't know, Twink-- the idea that a pearl and a couple words can bestow knowledge about an object or device that otherwise could not be gotten. . . Doesn't seem that scientific to me. . .
The essence of science is using repeatable methods to understand and quantify how the world works. In a universe where magic works, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to say that magic is a part of the natural world (as seen by science). And since D&D's version of arcane spells is entirely repeatable and has quantifiable results, I don't see where it fails to be scientific.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Agreed. If you think about it, what makes gravity or magnitism not magic? Because we think we understand how they work. But as to the *why* -- why gravity? All explinations sound like magic to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, I'm very interested in your comments-- and having been an inconsistant prescence in the RPG world, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you explain a little more of your point of view?"
Sure. In D&D, magic always works -- and, if you go by the written rules, it always works the same way every time, down to the distance you can shoot a lightning bolt or the number of square feet covered by your stinking fog. You can identify magic items by crushing a pearl and spending some spell energy, and you'll always get the primary attribute of the item.
There's some randomness, but no actual WONDER -- particularly since spellcasters are actually encouraged to know the exact effects of their spells and to cast them in the most efficacious ways.
Now, you can argue that this is okay for wizardly magic; alchemy and spellcraft basically ARE the sciences of the D&D environment.
But think about priestly magic, as written. It behaves EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. You know roughly how much you're going to heal someone when you lay on hands, and can do it a certain number of times a day. If there's a plague, you can cure disease -- up to the limit of the number of prayers to that effect that you made that morning; your god won't give you any EXTRA miracles, even if you've used 'em all up and come across a really sick child.
Divine magic, like wizardly magic, is still dispelled by Dispel Magic and suppressed by anti-magic fields. It sometimes requires components (even if just a holy symbol), and you always know its duration and area of effect.
Again, you can make excuses for this for wizardly magic; that's just the way the world works. But with DIVINE magic, how can you possibly argue that your god -- no matter how good or how evil or how interested in what you're actually doing -- will only let you turn or control undead a specific number of times a day, the SAME number of times every day, even if you're up against an army of the undead? Why wouldn't a god let you heal a little bit more when you need it? Does it really count as a miracle when it's just wizardly magic by another name and a slightly different power source?
Gods in D&D basically ARE power sources, unless you do something interesting with them; the Dark Sun and Ravenloft settings were actually explicit about this, and I've got something similar going on in my game.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I’d always assumed that channeling divine magic was terribly taxing on a mortal body. There’s only so much punishment you can stand and by the time you’ve used up your spells you’re fried. Mind you, I also always thought channeling the power of a God should be painful, even if you are only tapping into a small portion of their power, which is why Cadfael’s healing always hurts so much. But then, I freely admit that this was just the first thing I latched on to in order to justify the fact that the Gods were as fickle and reproducible as Tom is saying.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
The problem with having a more "realistic" view of divine magic/miracles is that you end up with PCs that are either way too powerful (because they have what amounts to an unlimited number of spells) or not powerful enough (because miracles are not an everyday occurance). The D&D implementation of divine magic may not be great in terms of storytelling, but it does balance out the character classes that use it.
There are ways you could explain away the limited number of divine spells per day, possibly even the precise effects of the spells. I've always thought that it makes sense for magic to take something from the user, some amount of energy and effort, so saying that the amount of divine magic that can be directed through one character per time interval--say, a day--should be correlated to the amount of experience that character has makes sense in such a paradigm. You could also explain it in terms of the god granting the magic. That is, the god providing the power is either very fair-minded or doesn't care enough to go out of its way.
D&D doesn't make any of this explicit, but you could argue that it just leaves more room for the DM to be creative.
[Edit: Yeah, what he said.]
[ April 08, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Dagonee:
On the issue of supernatural versus natural, I will add only this.
While the issue may never be perfectly resolved, there is this. One side of that issue keeps retreating, and one side keeps advancing. I like the side that is advancing.
Or do you still think a dragon is eating the sun when an eclipse occurs?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> I don't know, Twink-- the idea that a pearl and a couple words can bestow knowledge about an object or device that otherwise could not be gotten. . . Doesn't seem that scientific to me. . . << (Scott)
Saxon responded to this point very well.
>> If TSR had, in the beginning, made divine magic and arcane magic the same, I doubt Jack Chick would have any problem with them at all. The magic-user class is just game developers bowing to the demands of an athiestic public. <<
Heh heh. That might be true if atheists weren't a tiny, tiny minority
>> Who was the philosopher that stated that God was the thing above which nothing was more powerful? <<
That's the first step of the ontological argument for the existence of God, put forward by Anselm (among others) – to define God as "that than which nothing can be greater." The second step is to declare that since existence is greater than non-existence, God must thus exist.
No, in my world, the people will worship the false gods of the clerics because the clerics weild a great deal of political and social power (not to mention because of the "miracles" that they can work).
The world is named Hadim.
>> There's some randomness, but no actual WONDER -- particularly since spellcasters are actually encouraged to know the exact effects of their spells and to cast them in the most efficacious ways. << (Tom)
I expect, though, that it's pretty tough to create wonder with polyhedral dice. I mean, either the cleric players know about the effects of the miracles they can work, in which case they're wizards of a different stripe (like in my world, especially since the source of their power isn't divine), or they don't – in which case, to be fair, nobody should be aware of exact numbers regarding what their character can do either. I mean, how does a fighter know that his sword will always inflict 1-8 points of this mysterious thing called "damage?"
Honestly, if I had my way, I'd hide all of the numbers from the players – abstract as much complexity away from them as possible. Sadly, there's no easy way to make that work.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My brother and I were talking about this -- having a campaign where all numbers are known by the DM and not the players. In this campaign, the players would not be allowed to use any game mechanics vocabulary words. It would be very hard for the DM, but I think that it would be very fun to play, as long as you trust your DM to be fair.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Re: Abstracting complexity
Didn't I keep track of the hit points of all the characters in my campaign? I'm pretty sure I remember doing this, although I don't know that I did it particularly *well*. It felt sloppy to me.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Indeed you did, BtL. One of the many things I liked about your campaign.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Well, in PBEM, the DM tracks and rolls basically everything.
I do tend to include some numbers in my written turns, but mostly because people are usually interested. You can role play up some aspects of the numbers.
Also, players tend to like seeing that they nailed the guy for a whopping 20 points of damage, rather than read that they, 'hit him really hard'.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What is PBEM?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Play by e-mail. That's how Tom and Slash and FlyingCow (and ultimately, likely me as well) run their games.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Or do you still think a dragon is eating the sun when an eclipse occurs?
Wouldn't that be a natural explanation? Just a wrong one, kind of like phlostigen...
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Yeah, it would be natural if there were dragons running around.
But in that worldview, dragons were supernatural creatures, apparently with an appetite for the sun. You never actually SAW a dragon. You just saw them exercise their appetites.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
The thing I love about Earthsea and Out of the Silent Planet series are how they both have the West as the direction of Heaven. But then, I'm a Tolkien fanatic. Long live the True West.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So mistakes on one side are OK, but on the other aren't? Not very consistent, Slash.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Dagonee, What on earth are you talking about?
Do you have an actual argument to present? Or are you just wanking here?
Science (or materialism) is continuing to explain things. The supernatural gets smaller and smaller as human progress continues.
And, to address your 'consistency' claim, science never says 'this is an unexplainable mystery' when dealing with something and then try to attribute it to some supernatural force. It just says, 'we think it might work this way, but we are still trying to figure it out'.
It is only the spiritualists who are satisfied to claim that something has a supernatural origin and leave it at that.
Which is why the piece of reality that the spiritualists are laying claim to shrinks every day.
No more priests banging drums to chase away the dragon that eats the sun.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're the one who dismissed the beliefs of the majority of human beings throughout the history of the world that there is a world beyond the natural. You never acknowledge it, but immediately move onto this ridiculous advancment theory and attempt to support by selecting the most ridiculous example you can. Fair debating tactic for you and not for me? Why?
How many people believed an eclipse was a dragon eating the sun? When was this belief a majority view? You're be absolutely ridiculous.
Science in no way shrinks the bounds of the supernatural. The reaon people called particular events "miracles" is because they were recognized as being outside the natural order. Which meant such people had an implicit understanding that there were repeating natural laws that underscore science.
The fact that they didn't know as much about these physical processes is an accident of chornology - our theories today will look ridiculous in some ways to scientists 100 years from now.
Dagonee
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Dagonee, that entirely misses my point.
Science relies on developing a greater understanding to advance itself. Trying to figure out how things work is part of it. Everything is theory until it is provable.
The supernatural relies on NOT being able to figure out how it works. It is never provable. As such, it's domain can never grow, only contract. No religious leader ever speaks of their 'theory on how god wants to be worshipped' then goes off experimenting to try and prove it.
The dragon thing was the majority opinion in china some centuries ago. And yes, they banged drums to drive the monster away and keep it from eating the sun. My point in using this illustration is that once the real reason for eclipses were discovered, they were taken out of the realm of the spiritual and the religious, and placed into the realm of the physical and explainable. It is just an example of an ongoing process.
There are recent examples as well. One well documented one being the experiments that conclusively proved that the catholic cracker is still just a cracker when it hits a persons stomach. Oops, there goes transubstantiation.
Each of these things takes another bite out of the spiritualist mystery, and places another chunk into provable human understanding.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There are recent examples as well. One well documented one being the experiments that conclusively proved that the catholic cracker is still just a cracker when it hits a persons stomach. Oops, there goes transubstantiation.
Well, if we ever needed proof you don't know what the hell you are talking about, here it is. Transubstantiation has NEVER been interpreted such that a physical, detectable change occurs in the bread.
You should learn about things before you spout off.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Transubstantiation has NEVER been interpreted such that a physical, detectable change occurs in the bread."
I was under the impression that the Catholics killed a harge number of people who said otherwise, a few hundred years ago.
BTW, someone who really knows stuff should know better than accusing Slash of not knowing stuff. Just a tip.
---------
What you're missing, Dag, is that once a belief becomes testable fact, it ceases to be superstition and becomes science. In other words, all the truth of all the religions in the world will ultimately be a science -- but not the other way around.
[ April 08, 2004, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, your impression is quite wrong.
Slash is utterly wrong in what he said about transubstantiation. The substance changes in a non-detectable way. Do you think priests throughout the ages failed to notice that the bread still felt and tasted like bread and the wine still felt and tasted like wine (and was intoxicating as well)?
quote:What you're missing, Dag, is that once a belief becomes testable fact, it ceases to be superstition and becomes science. In other words, all the truth of all the religions in the world will ultimately be a science -- but not the other way around.
And what your missing is that a large portion or "reality" exists outside the realm of what we call nature. Hence the term "supernatural." And these will never be provable with methodologies limited to space and time.
It's just as easy to say that all the aspects of science will be seen to be mere subsets of the supernatural.
Dagonee
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Yeah, thanks Tom. Dag, it was indeed interpreted that way for a very long time. Maybe before you accuse people of not knowing things, you should actually know those things.
And now you are all worked up. Instead of addressing any of my ideas, you leaped to attack what you incorrectly perceived as the single weak link in my post. Come on, you're better than that. But I remember now that you once said you are incapable of backing down, so I will do it for you. My point has been made, and I stand by it. But I won't keep belaboring it.
Once again, Tom beat me to succinctness. His short synopsis is indeed the sum of my point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, it was indeed interpreted that way for a very long time.
No - it was not EVER interpreted in such a way that there would be detectable changes. Again, the belief is that the entire body of Christ is present in each wafer. Obviously, they knew that the change occurred in a manner not perceivable to our senses. No priest has ever been surprised by these "scientific analyses."
And it's not a minor point - it represents the heart of the attitude you expressed in your original post I responded to - that supernatural just means we don't know the natural explanation for something. If you define supernatural that way, then of course we're not arguing about anything real. But the validity of the definition depends on the resolution of the dispute.
Dagonee
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Ok, I'm looking for links to medievel doctrine that did in fact teach that the bread changed in a substantial way. Though, I will grant that this has not been the modern interpretation for some time.
But this goes back to the original point again. The bread 'changes' in some mysterious and entirely unprovable way. This leave a person literally nothing on which to hang his hat, other than that someone tells them it changes.
And that is the fundamental difference. Science would never make a claim like that. And the number of things that it is possible to make unsubstantiated claims about will shrink as our understanding of the universe grows. At some point, it may be possible to prove that the bread doesn't even change on some quantum level after ingestion.
Though, even that may not be enough to alter the opinion of the die hard faithful.
I appreciate the less aggressive tone of your last response, Dag. Which is why I gave you the respect of replying. I know that you have a lot invested in your beliefs, so it may be difficult to not take such things personally.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But this goes back to the original point again. The bread 'changes' in some mysterious and entirely unprovable way. This leave a person literally nothing on which to hang his hat, other than that someone tells them it changes.
Stating it this way is VERY different from saying "I mean, supernatural is just a long word for 'thing we can't currently explain'." And I agree that proving the supernatural exists is necessary but not sufficient to prove God exists.
Catholics don't see the lack of something to hang their hat on as a defect.
When you're doing your research, don't just find the word substance and immediately post it - substance is being used very differently in these descriptions than it is in the scientific sense. You'll need to read up on "accidents" as well.
Dagonee
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
What proves that the supernatural exists to you?
Mysterious bread changes would certainly qualify as a supernatural event, but as you agree, it is literally impossible to prove. Is it enough for you that someone told you that it happens?
I mean, if that's enough, then I am not going to argue it. Faith is an impossible opponent, and one that I never box with.
But you can understand why without such faith, ANY claim of a supernatural element in the universe will be greeted by great skepticism?Which is the problem. Such beliefs demand equal respect with science, and yet refuse to be held to any of the same standards. I mean, at that point you can claim literally anything.
Including Tom's giant pink pandas creating the universe. (was it giant pink pandas tom?)
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
When did this thread get all poopy?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Actually, it all stemmed from your post about supernatural occurances requiring gods Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Slash - it's not that I want to convinve you that what I believe is true - at least in this discussion . It's that I want to you to acknowledge what it is people who believe in the supernaturalist actually are believing in. Or at least not misstate what it is that we believe in.
Put simply, this belief is that the supernatural is distinct from the set of natural phenonoma that we cannot explain yet. That is, events for which we don't know the cause could, with perfect knowledge, be divided into two categories: 1.) those that have unknown natural explanations, and 2.) those caused by the temporary alteration of natural laws by some force outside of nature. Of course, without perfect knowledge, we can't always assign an event to one category or the other correctly.
Science will decrease the number of things in category 1. It will also decrease the number of things which have been incorrectly placed in category 2. Neither of these shrink the realm of the supernatural - just our perception of what's in that realm.
Again, I'm not asking you to believe this. Just to realize that the word supernatural encompasses much more than how you described it on page 1.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
twinky Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Got it. Your assertion is accepted with the conditions you attached.
But then you have to see the other side. That those of us on the other side think everything in group two has been incorrectly placed there.
And that is the side I made my statement from. And, from that side, the statement is entirely accurate. You can't get mad because I lack the 'faith' needed to believe anything is correctly placed in your second category.
Just like I don't get mad when people place all sorts of things in that category that I find ridiculous. And, believe me, that happens a lot more on this bulletin board than the other way around.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Science will decrease the number of things in category 1. It will also decrease the number of things which have been incorrectly placed in category 2. Neither of these shrink the realm of the supernatural - just our perception of what's in that realm.
Then would taking Slash's original statement and putting it in the realm of perception make it completely accurate? That, over time, the realm of what is perceived to be supernatural has been steadily decreasing and the realm of what is perceived to be natural or scientific has been increasing?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't even understand what the heck this argument is about. You're both saying essentially the same thing. Slash thinks that all supernatural things have a rational explanation that can be found by science. Dagonee thinks that all supernatural things have a rational explanation, but it just may be that the explanation is God. The only difference is that Slash doesn't believe that God could be the rational explanation, which we already knew.
Is that right?
[ April 08, 2004, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's a difference between placing things in the wrong category, or even claiming one category is entirely empty, and changing the definition of one of the categories.
It's the difference between saying "ghosts don't exist" and "the word 'ghost' means shapes that people make up out of their imagination."
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Then would taking Slash's original statement and putting it in the realm of perception make it completely accurate? That, over time, the realm of what is perceived to be supernatural has been steadily decreasing and the realm of what is perceived to be natural or scientific has been increasing?
Probably. But I think there’s less of that going on than he thinks.
quote: don't even understand what the heck this argument is about. You're both saying essentially the same thing. Slash thinks that all supernatural things have a rational explanation that can be found by science. Dagonee thinks that all supernatural things have a rational explanation, but it just may be that the explanation is God.
Is that right?
Not really – I mean, that’s an accurate summary of the corresponding beliefs, but the argument was about the definition of supernatural. See my preceding post.
Dagonee
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
It's amazing how many of these things turn into semantic arguments. Ah well. Dag, I understand your perception of what I was saying. But I still think I'm right.
Oh, and I think both your statements about ghosts would be entirely accurate too.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The problem that I have with the magic system in D&D and other role-playing games is that it generally grants power without having to work for it. OSC covers this in 'How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy.' There is no price for magic-- other than the cost of spell components, I suppose. It can be argued that the mage class is forced to forgo physical prowess; but that is compensated for by being the most powerful class of all at high levels.
What I would love is for an RPG setting where magic COSTS. For example, in my story (shameless plug) Blackberry Witch, in order to use magic, Nina has to bleed out almost all of her blood. This to make a magic strong enough to charm a demon another wizard created.
What I would like to play is a world where magic is treated as it was traditionally known to exist-- as a rarity. An accomplished wizard would have to spend hours and hours drawing out hexes or making voodoo dolls or whatever, just to lay a simple curse.
And no freakin' fireballs. Seriously-- the only fireballs created in the history of 'magic' have been those made by gods.
You didn't see Gandalf throwing around lightning, did you?
Huh?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
*spanks everyone*
*eats a green bean*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I had a campaign where official magic was very legalistic - members of this had double casting time with zero subtlety, every spell had at least verbal and somatic components, and the use of magic outside this order was strictly forbidden.
Then I let my characters have magic outside those rules, with the caveat that they had to journey outside the land to find any spells. It made them really powerful compared to the general populace, and hated by the local ruling council. It was much closer to a superhero setting with battles between powerful beings taking place amongst mere mortals.
It was quite fun, but it was hard to let them find enough spells in a manner consistent with the story.
Dagonee
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Speaking as someone who’s read the tortuous explanations medieval theologians wrote to explain how something could change into something else with absolutely no change detectable to any human sense or science, Dag’s right about transubstantiation. The change has always been understood as real, but not physical/material/detectable. It’s built into the word, where substance means the reality of a thing, apart from the way it looks, feels, tastes, smells, breaks apart under chemical analysis, or any other examination. No detectable change, even on a quantum level.
[ April 08, 2004, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Okay, I have rough outlines of a kingdom's capital city sketched out. Things are coming together.
I just can't decide how freeform to make things. I kind of just want to gather up some players and turn them loose in my world to see what happens. Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Responding to DKW:
At that point I start wondering if the emperor is wearing any clothes at all!
[ April 08, 2004, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> The problem that I have with the magic system in D&D and other role-playing games is that it generally grants power without having to work for it. <<
Ironically, this is precisely how I feel about the monk classes. Give up weapons and armour, and suddenly you can stun one-ton crocodiles with your pinky finger.
I'd like to devise a magic system like the one found in Steven Brust's books or Guy Gavriel Kay's books, where magic-users have a finite amount of power that they project in various ways rather than casting specific spells. But I don't see any easy way to do it, which means it would be a lot of work – thus I probably won't.
I dunno. I like the D&D wizard. In all honesty I think they're my favourite class in the game to play, because the plethora of spells makes playing them very interesting.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
What if they have to lose a body part for each spell they do?
Oh wait, too Hart's Hope.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:At that point I start wondering if the emperor is wearing any clothes at all!
Well, certainly, this isn't the place to start believing in supernatural events, since it takes as a prequesite believing in pretty much all of Christian doctrine.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Here is my second – very rough, mind you – draft of what folks who live in Khadanira know about the extent of the world.
Edit: I'm thinking I'll change the scale to two squares = 100 km.
[ April 08, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
NOW it comes out-- twink's jealous that Mission stopped a one ton lizard by striking it once; while Sa'id, poor miserable, tortured soul, didn't even make it growl with his finger-o'-flame.
HAHAHAAA!
EDIT: Seriously, though-- if I hit you in the right place, hard enough, you're going to be stunned. Although some of the other monk abilities are unrealistic, this one isn't.
As long as I'm lamenting RPG's, the damage system sucks. Legally, I can be down to 1 hp left, and I have full attack capacity. Edge of death, and my character can attack with his full strength. It makes no sense at all.
The best damage system I've seen was in Top Secret (best RPG system out there, bar none). You'd roll a d10 for where the damage was inflicted-- hand, torso, left leg, right leg, etc-- and depending on what weapon you were using, you'd roll for that. If you got a hand shot off, it was gone-- damage was drawn from a random pool of hit points, it had consequences.
I miss Top Secret. . .
[ April 08, 2004, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
RIght. Or, to translate: the monk is a class that was added to the game for munchkins.
Edit:
Don't worry, I'm mostly kidding. I used to get annoyed with munchkin monks, though, which is why I've never played one. But you've done a fantastic job with Mission and so now I'm mildly interested in the class again.
I agree with you on damage. A friend of mine devised a relatively simple damage localization system for an RPG of his creation that worked very well, and I liked it. I used to be interested in doing similar rules adaptations myself, but now I'm too lazy – I just want to get the world built and (probably) a game going.
[ April 08, 2004, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
'Realistic' and 'D&D Character Class' don't even exist on the same planet. You gotta get over that quick if you want to have any fun playing the game.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
All right, my map has been sufficiently revised, with trade neighbors for Khadanira to the north and west across the ocean.
Now to refine the political and social landscape, toss in some history and mythology, and decide what I'm going to do with this world of mine.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Legally, I can be down to 1 hp left, and I have full attack capacity. Edge of death, and my character can attack with his full strength. It makes no sense at all.
If you have 1 HP left, you're not really on the edge of death. You don't die until you get to -10 HP.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Top Secret (best RPG system out there, bar none)."
*gags self with spoon* Oooookay. That might be true for people who stopped playing RPGs in the mid-'80s, perhaps....
[ April 08, 2004, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What's the best system now?
By "best," I mean the system that most embodies the following traits while strongly encouraging good roleplaying:
Simplicity
Balance
Flexibility
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
FlyingCow really likes white wolf a lot.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Indeed, though I've never gotten to know it at all.
Posted by StallingCow (Member # 6401) on :
Well, yeah, it also helps that I write for White Wolf and know their system inside and out.
It's FAR more flexible than the D&D system, though that flexibility requires that the Storyteller really be on top of things.
But, since experience is not gained through bashing random monsters, and there's no such thing as a "random" encounter, it's a lot more story-centered.
Then again, good DMs are story centered, but White Wolf basically requires that center. Sure, you can hack and slash if you want, but it's not the way experience is rewarded.
When it comes down to it, though, the WW skill system trumps the D&D one hands down. And the d10 dice system trumps the d20 dice system pretty handily, too, imo.
However, I *am* biased. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hm. I will have to investigate this rule set.
Edit: Wait, are their rules tied to worlds/games?
[ April 08, 2004, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by StallingCow (Member # 6401) on :
Here's a primer.
d10 Rules
Instead of a 20 sided die (and the various and sundry 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 siders), all action is on the d10. All of it. No need for various dice. It's all d10s, all the time, baby.
Instead of skill ranks that can, essentially, go up to infinity, and specific skills that have rigid descriptions and requirements, the d10 system streamlines things.
Skill usage You have Attributes, and Abilities. Attributes are divided into Physical, Social and Mental. Abilities are divided into Talents, Skills, and Knowledges.
Each of these traits is ranked from 1 to 5 dots. For any given action, you need to pick one Attribute and one Ability, and add the dots. You then roll that many d10 dice. Simple.
F'rinstance. To jump down from a tree, I'd roll my Dexterity + Athletics. I have three dots in Dex, and two in Athletics, so I roll five dice.
Standard difficulty is 6, which means a roll of 6 or higher on a die is a success, and a roll of 5 or less is a failure. A roll of 1 is a botch, and cancels out a success. You look at your dice, check your numbers, and figure out if you succeeded.
Flexibility Storytellers can adjust this, though. They can set the difficulty higher, or require a greater number of successes. (Obviously, picking a standard lock is a lot less complicated than cracking a safe, and this is reflected in the difficulty and success requirements).
Now, Dexterity + Athletics can be used for jumping from the tree, climbing a wall, performing a backflip, throwing a rock at a security camera, jumping a chasm, or keeping balance on shifting ground. It's WIDE OPEN, and subject only to the Storyteller's interpretation.
Similarly, Stamina + Athletics would be used for long distance running, swimming or the like. Strength + Athletics for maintaing a wrestling pin. Etc.
Then of course, there are all the possibilities with other combinations. Charisma + Performance, Manipulation + Performance, Dexterity + Performance, Wits + Performance, and so on, and so on... anything a player can think of, there's a skill combination calling for it.
Thing is, does the player have enough dots in those traits to make an attempt worthwhile? There's no random Attribute generation, it's all chosen based on player choice.
Choice If I want a slow witted bruiser, I'll set Physical Attributes as primary, and I'll get 7 dots to distribute. Then I'll set Social as Secondary, and get 5 dots to distribute. Finally, I'll pick Mental as Tertiary, and get 3 dots to distribute.
If I want a politician, I'll arrange the order Social/Mental/Physical. If I want a swashbuckling fighter, maybe Social/Physical/Mental. Lots of choices.
Of course, you prioritize your Talents, Skills, and Knowledges the same way. So, if you want to be a physical person, you'd likely look at physical traits and talents. If you want to be a scientist, then you'd gravitate toward mental traits and knowledges. It's totally flexible to a player's wants.
Lost Opportunities One problem, though. The White Wolf line of games just ended. Almost all of them. Kaput, finis, done. Granted, they're revamping the system (making it better, and fixing small issues that came up over the last 12 years) and releasing a new set of books in the fall, but that's a few months away.
That's actually what I've been working on with my writing, and why the Segreda stuff is delayed.
I hope this helped you out a bit, twinky.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
All right, the link now points to draft three of the map, which is the final, I think. I'll get around to niceifying it sometime.
Edit: Thanks for the info. Seems intuitive enough. Very cool!
[ April 08, 2004, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Anybody ever play the Amber diceless roll playing sytem? I bought the book for it years ago, and it looked interesting, but I couldn't find anybody to play with at that point, so I never got to actually try it out.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If I recall correctly, Tom, you didn't like Power Pack either. Goes to show how much YOU know.
As it so happens, I did stop playing RPG's in the mid-eighties-- the last module I bought was the Top Secret variation FREELancers.
[ April 09, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Actually, Jake, I was just about to mention the Amber system. It's one of my personal favorites, despite the fact that I have very little real experience with it. I never GMed a game, and I only played through about half a campaign. I just liked the fact that there were no dice.
In terms of coolness of world, I think my favorite would have to be Skyrealms of Jorune, which I owned but never played. The world was cool enough that I got hours of entertainment just reading through the contents of the box over and over again.
And possibly the most fun I ever had was playing Paranoia. I remember nothing about the rules, and I suspect that playing with a different group than my wacky high school chums would have been less fun, but as it was it was hilarious.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Most fun I had was Teenagers from Outer Space. It was a great game to kick back and make harmless mayhem.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Surprisingly enough, I'm almost ready to send out the player call. I'll be posting the backdrop either today or this weekend, at which point I'll be ready.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)