On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 20:04:02 -0700, David Johnson wrote:

[Replying to me]

>Very pleased to see you turning your attention to this again. I'm looking
>forward to a "Religion" issue of Freelance Traveller in the not too distant
>future. ?

Well, I don't know how "near" that future is, but it's definitely in the
cards...

>> The sections at the end, "Generating Religions", "Examples", and "Using
>> Religion In Your Game" are as yet unwritten, and your thoughts and ideas
>> for these sections would be welcome.
>
>I will say here that it occurs to me that it might be useful to focus on
>"Using Religion In Your Game" going forward. Speaking of DGP, I am reminded
>here of Joe Fugate's comments on Knightfall (in MegaTraveller Journal #4)
>that it reflected his "philosophy of 'fun to play' rather than just 'fun to
>read.'"

Yes, I have to acknowledge that that section is largely independent of the
_generation_ of the religion(s) used; there are a number of basic ideas
that don't require fully defining the religion.

On the other side of the question, though, is whether the use of the
religion in play can really be independent of the definition of the
religion. One can, for example, generate an 'unusual custom' per DGP's
_World Builders' Handbook_ pp.75-77 and claim it as a 'devotional
activity', but you lose verisimilitude if you just use it in isolation -
you need a cultural context to place it in. That can be generated through
the Q-and-A process I outlined in
https://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/preproom/buildculture.html -
but even with that, you might want to have more information about the
religion - something like the profile that the document from this thread
generates - to help establish the context, and perhaps suggest other
behaviors for the character, whether specifically devotional activities or
not.

>As you mention in different places throughout the "model" here, most
>in-game religions are going to be syncretic. Syncretism is what will give
>them verisimilitude during play. In play, that verisimilitude will be
>what's more "fun to play" no matter how "fun to read" the religion model
>material might be.

Here, I sort of have to disagree with you. The verisimilitude, I think,
comes mostly from how 'straight' the devotee character and his/her
activities are played, and how 'straight' the religion in question is
defined. As an example, I don't see Pastafarianism ever being taken
seriously. However, a religion that I would call "Elementism" is portrayed
in Diane Duane's _The Romulan Way_ as an 'organic' religion, and it doesn't
feel like it's 'fake' and it's definitely not 'played for laughs'. Where
devotional activities are portrayed, they feel like they're reasonable in
context, and consistent with how the religion has been defined - and Duane
states 'in-universe' that it all started as the Vulcan/proto-Romulan
equivalent of an internet joke/meme. (Incidentally, her entire _Rihanssu_
cycle - five novels, of which _The Romulan Way_ is the second - is an
excellent read.)

>>    Religion/Philosophy

>Here, I think, is a good example of "fun to read" but I'm wondering about
>"fun to play." I'm not sure the distinction you're making between religion
>and philosophy, based primarily on the "Deitic Principle" concept, matters
>much when it comes to play in a science-fiction role-playing game, because
>that "Deitic Principle" bit is going to be very little science and almost
>entirely fiction. This has some compelling implications for "fun to play"
>which don't exist (as much) in a fantasy role-playing game where that
>"Dietic Principle" can actively intervene. . . .

This is part of the 'Prep Room' side of the document, rather than the
'Doing It My Way' side - that is, it doesn't necessarily have any direct
utility in play, but it may help the referee build a better picture of the
religion (generalized term as used in the document). Yes, this feeds the
'fun to read' side of things more than the 'fun to play' - but 'fun to
read' can generate ideas that become 'fun to play'.

>>    Deitic Principle

>So, in a science-fiction game what will be important from a "fun to play"
>perspective is not the Deitic Principle's "ability to intervene" but rather
>what players, NPCs and the society more generally believe about such
>"interventions."

Yes. A devotee who believes that the Deitic Principle is personal and
interventionist will have a different attitude from an atheist in the same
situation. They might even end up taking the same actions in response to
the same stimulus, but the thought process that leads to the response may
well be different, and result in differing responses later on.

>>    It should be noted that the existence of a Deitic Principle may
>>    be implied by some beliefs (such as acceptance of supernatural
>>    occurrences and/or reincarnation), even if it is otherwise explicitly
>>    denied.
>
>Denied or not, such occurrences will not happen in a science-fiction game.

This depends on how 'hard' your SF is. If you decided to run an adventure
in the Akor-Neb timeline of H.Beam Piper's "Last Enemy" from the Paratime
stories, reincarnation would be an established fact. Under the definitions
from this document, both Volitionalism and Statisticalism would end up
being 'religions' (and implicitly 'deitic religions') as well as political
movements, at least until Hadron Dalla proves that Volitionalism is fact.

Can Akor-Neb-style reincarnation be useful in a game? Here, I have to give
you 'fun to read' vs. 'fun to play'; I don't see how even Volitional
reincarnation can be used sensibly within a game. However, some of the
ancillary attitudes that proven reincarnation - whether Volitionalist or
Statisticalist - would engender could very well become a factor in play,
for example, the attitude toward death and homicide.

>What will matter will be what characters in the game believe will happen
>(or has happened), especially in circumstances where what they believe is
>at odds, in some manner, with what actually happens. Understood in this
>light, "faith" or "devotion" becomes especially poignant in terms of game
>play because it will be the lens through which characters "make sense" of
>what happens.

And thus influences their immediate and future actions, and/or sanity or
stress if you use add-on rules for them. Defining this, though may require
a clearer picture of the religion as a whole, since beliefs themselves may
'interact', and devotional activities do require a 'devotional context'.

>>    Devotional Activity

>Here is a central concept that will be extremely important for game play.
>What will "carrying the kirpan," for example, mean for how that character
>interacts with others? What will a character "doing this thing" mean for
>how other characters interact with them? Eating rituals and other
>devotional acts will mostly be just cultural "colour" from a game play
>perspective. What will matter will be how devout characters interact with
>others who don't practice those rituals and how others who don't practice
>those rituals interact with the devout. These "interactive beliefs" will be
>much more important, in terms of game play, than the specifics of what the
>devotional activities mean to those who practice them.

Definitely a game-play issue, yes - and as much dependent on the attitudes
and beliefs of the 'others' as of the focus character. Again, though, a
picture of what these reactions will be may require a more complete picture
of the religion. That suggests that even though much of the material
generated under the ideas presented in this document are more 'fun to read'
than 'fun to play', it's still useful for coming up with a valid picture
for the 'fun to play' part.

>>    Supernatural [Occurrences/Manifestations]
>>
>>    Events or actions that [are held to] fall outside natural law (or
>>    secular science). These are considered to necessarily imply the
>>    existence of a Deitic Principle; for natural law to be 'violated' would
>>    require an entity with volition to cause the violation - essentially,
>>    the definition of the Deitic Principle.

>But, in a science-fiction game, these won't actually exist. From a game
>play perspective, what will matter here are the implications for believers'
>beliefs in "supernatural things" when interacting with non-believers who
>don't share those beliefs (and vice versa).

See above; this is essentially a repeat of the discussion above regarding
the implicit Deitic Principle.

>> Characteristics of Religions
>>
>>    Model
>>
>>    The goal for any religion is to provide a common worldview to bind a
>>    society into a cohesive whole.

>A huge potential conflict exists here, from a game play perspective,
>between believers and non-believers, regardless of the "model." If I don't
>share your "worldview" for our "society" I'm really not going to care much
>for the details of the model. Likewise, the model for "how to be" in the
>religion won't matter much when interacting with others who are not part of
>the religion. (This, of course, is why religious wars can be so bloody.)

It's not here that the conflict potential exists, but in an aspect that I
didn't account for - and which needs to be accounted for but which I don't
have a good name for at the moment. Specifically, it addresses whether the
religion is 'live and let live' with respect to others, or 'proselytising
or witnessing' or 'convert the nonbeliever at sword-point'. That's not
really related to the model as described here, and may not even be properly
a function of the religion per se, but instead a function of clerical
interpretation of scripture - for example, within recorded history, there
have been times when Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have gone through
periods of militancy, putting opponents to the sword, and periods and sects
where 'live and let live' was the general attitude. Not to mention
intermediate periods of internecine warfare and 'Cuius regio, eius
religio'.

>>                                   Part of that common worldview involves
>>    the rules for interacting with the religion itself. We call this the
>>    Model of the religion, and have identified three basic possibilities:
>>
>>        Propitiatory

>>        Ethical

>>        Transcendental

>This is "fun to read." (I mean that genuinely.) But what will any of his
>have to do with how a Free Trader crew interacts with starport officials
>and startown locals who have a (different) religion (or philosophy)? What
>does it have to do with how the starport officials and startown locals will
>interact with the Free Trader crew?

Directly, not necessarily anything - but knowing this about a religion
might inform the player or referee as far as things like characteristic
phrasing

>>                          Occasionally, this is interpreted to focus on
>>        becoming "more/better than human" or to develop abilities that are
>>        considered exceptional (for example, psionics). (For individuals
>>        other than humans, substitute appropriate species identifier, e.g.,
>>        "more/better than Vargr/Aslan/Virushi/Gurvin/etc.)

>[Side note: here was where you switched from talking about a "person" and
>instead mentioned a "human." Rather than telling your reader to read
>"human" as "Vargr/Aslan/etc." stick with person -- or better yet sophont --
>in your writing. It may help you in thinking about what you're writing
>about in terms of game play.]

This was actually deliberate, as the phrases 'more than human' and 'better
than human' often come up in discussions of transcendance and
'transhumanism'. In a multispecies setting like the OTU, one should
admittedly broaden such phrases, but I saw doing that as "kicking the
reader out of the mindset" of the discussion. Honestly, I don't think there
is a good solution to the question.

>>        A Note on Hybridization

>From a game play perspective, won't it be the case that the more "organic"
>a religion is, the more verisimilitude there will be in game play? In other
>words, when you get to "Using Religion In Your Game," the more "organic" --
>and syncretic -- the better?

That actually goes back to the definition of 'organic', and whether time
and its effects are enough to change a 'synthetic' religion to an 'organic'
one. I didn't make the assumption that it would; a carefully designed
religion that becomes core to a society over hundreds of years is still
synthetic. I'm not adamant about the point, however, and an argument could
be made that (for example) while Romulan "Elementism" as discussed above
started out as synthetic, by the time of the novel, it had become organic
to the Romulans.

>> Even 'designed' religions may
>>        have 'mixed' aspects, as the designers will often take acceptable
>>        aspects of other religions into their own for multiple reasons,
>>        including increasing the "comfort levels" of the devotees
>>        (familiarity of ritual) or deception (influence non-devotees and
>>        prospective devotees toward the belief that the new religion is a
>>        variation/reinterpretation of an older, more acceptable one).
>
>This seems like it might be a good intro to the "Using Religion In Your Game" section. ?
>
>>        It is possible that an evaluation of a model might result in two
>>        models appearing to be codominant (that is, of equal importance,
>>        rather than one being vestiges of a historical change). Such cases
>>        may be religions that are transitioning between the two models, and
>>        thus the codominance should be considered unstable or transitory.
>>        It is also possible that such a religion is synthetic (i.e.,
>>        deliberately created, not naturally developed) or syncretic (the
>>        result of two dissimilar religions being combined, either
>>        deliberately or organically).

>This reads a bit like comparative religions tract. Everything presented
>here as a potential "shortcoming" (e.g. "unstable," "transitory") is
>actually great stuff from a "fun to play" perspective.

I don't quite see it, though I won't argue the point - inspiration comes
from where you find it, and just because I don't see it doesn't mean it's
not there.

When I say 'unstable' or 'transitory' in this part of the discussion, I'm
not necessarily talking about the short term, where great-grandpa grumbles
about not liking this newfangled ethics stuff; the old propitiatory ways
were just fine - it would be more like the First Survey said that the main
religion on the world was a propitiatory religion called Ecksism, the
recontact team of the early Second Survey finds that Ecksism is showing
co-dominance of propitiatory and ethical models, and the Third Survey
definitively notes that Ecksism is an Ethical model religion, with some
devotional activities clearly held over from a time when it was probably a
propitiatory religion.

>Do you mean to tell my character that when she crosses the extrality line
>the "shaveheads" in startown are going to interact with her differently
>than the way she just figured out how to interact with the same
>"shaveheads" who processed her landing clearances and arranged to off-load
>her cargo in the starport?

Probably not just from crossing the extrality line - but it's not out of
the question that some of what she "knows" from dealing with the
"shaveheads" of Thisworld can cause problems with the "shaveheads" of
Thatworld, perhaps because of a schism, perhaps just because they've been
out of contact and haven't been able to "resynch" doctrine and practice. If
you've played old computer games, EA had one called "Starflight II" where
the Tandalou Eshvay and Tandalou Eshvara were actually at odds because of
differing interpretation of the same scripture. Doing with the Eshvara
things that got you "in" with the Eshvay (or vice-versa) would turn out to
be counterproductive.

>>    Deitic Structure
>>
>>    The Deitic Structure of a religion describes the "shape" of the Deitic
>>    Principle. When evaluating a religion for its Deitic Structure, look at
>>    actual practice, rather than the religion's own doctrinal claims;
>>    historical syncretism resulting from accommodation of rituals from
>>    converts answering the call of proselytism may have in practice changed
>>    the Deitic Structure.

>Does his matter one bit from a game perspective (other than the fact that
>some religionists might not act the way they say they should act)?

Not directly, but it can be a factor in how a character is ultimately
played - does she thank the deity directly when concluding a deal, or does
she invoke the intercessor spirit of bargaining to relay the thanks?
Scripture and doctrine say that there is only one deity, omniscient,
omnipotent, and omnipresent, and makes no mention of any sort of
departmental or hierarchical organization of the Deitic Principle, but
invoking intercessor spirits is, in practice, common.

While this document is written principally to generate a "Library Data"
entry, it's ultimately less about informing the _character_ than it is
informing the _player_, so that s/he can play the character with more
depth. What the character believes may or may not be relevant to the 'real
world' of the game, but it _is_ relevant to how the character reacts to it
and/or tries to influence it. And perhaps how non-believers react to the
believers.

In her _Kushiel's Legacy_ series, Jacqueline Carey writes a society whose
religion is essentially an inversion of Zoroastrianism. This leads
generally to a dark - virtually nihilist - perspective on the world - quite
different from any of the other religions that play a part in the series.
The interactions between followers of that religion and those not following
the religion are certainly influenced by the religion and by the outsiders'
perception thereof.

>>    Deitic Distance

>Some interesting implications for game play here too, especially keeping in
>mind that this is all about the beliefs of the religionists themselves, not
>about what is actually happening, as experienced/understood by
>non-believers.

Again, the game-play aspects arise because of the reactions of the
characters to each other; the description of the religion is to inform the
_player_ about the character's likely reactions to various situations.

One thing that _isn't_ specified - and perhaps should be - is the general
attitude between the believer community and the Deitic Principle - is the
latter (or components thereof, in a multitheistic or dualistic structure)
viewed as benign, malign, mischevious, ...? Also, to what degree do
believers have agency? If the Deitic Principle is malign or mischevious,
can the believer's own action stand against the D.P.'s action? Does the
D.P. help those who help themselves? Is all the universe helpless to stand
against the D.P.'s decisions to act? Each of these situations can lead to a
different response from a character, from fatalism ("The Universal
Principle does what it does; all is fated evermore") to 'activism' ("We are
commanded to make the world more perfect; it is only through our Right
Action that this can happen") to ... whatever.

>>    Clerical Structure

>I'm having trouble understanding how this will matter much for game play
>(unless the game situation is unfolding entirely amongst a community of
>believers). To outsiders, is this any different than whether there are
>executive, legislative and judicial elements of the planetary governing
>authority? Or what the hierarchy is in the local Starport Authority
>detachment?

>>    Clerical Role

>Also having trouble understanding the implications for game play here.
>Perhaps a few examples would be a good way to start the "Using Religion In
>Your Game" section.

I believe that "Cleric" is a possible career in the current version(s) of
_Traveller_; a person who is obviously a cleric for a religion may well
generate a different reaction, even from non-believers, than a 'lay' member
would. Whether that different reaction is more positive or more negative
would depend on other factors, such as (but certainly not limited to) the
react-er's own religion.

>>    Influence

>Lots if implications for game play here. Those are three very different
>planets on the other side of the extrality line. . . .

Indeed. And not just in terms of reactions between believers and
non-believers, but even in terms of how local non-believers may react
socially to various situations - for example, in much of the US, how often
have you heard a person who professes to be Jewish (but perhaps not
strongly observant and definitely not Orthodox Jewish) react to frustration
with an utterance like "ohferchrissakes!"? That's an effect of the wide
influence that Christianity has on the wider society. And a mild expletive
that Spacer Joe picked up a few planets ago might well get him into big
trouble on this one, for blasphemy.

>>    Openness

>>    Accessibility

>Lots of game play here. Religionists with an "openess" like that of
>Charlemagne toward the Saxons are going to be a scary group, especially if
>their "accessibility" is low. . . .

OK, that's not how I think of these two categories. I see these as
'catering' to the _voluntary_ convert or to the researcher/student.

For real-world examples:

Judaism is somewhat 'closed'; while not actually preventing conversion, it
does take study to 'qualify' for conversion, and the rabbi will attempt to
discourage it (albeit in a somewhat pro-forma manner). On the other hand,
it's fairly accessible; the Jewish versions of Scripture and doctrine are
widely available, and most Jews who are well-schooled in them (not just
rabbis) will be willing to discuss them with non-believers who express a
respectful interest.

There is another religion, however, that is often viewed as a cult and has
been proscribed in some countries. This religion eagerly welcomes converts
(and the more money a convert has, the more eagerly they're welcomed) and
goes 'all out' to bring the convert 'into the fold'. That's _very_ 'Open'.
They're _not_ 'Accessible', however; their scripture and doctrinal
documents are held closely under copyright, not generally available to
scholars or non-believers, and unauthorized dissemination, even if not
directly copied, is vigorously challenged - more often than not,
successfully - in court.

I agree that I should focus somewhat more immediately on the 'Using in
Gaming' section, though my initial workup of this document left me thinking
that the use in-game would have been somewhat obvious. Note that this
document doesn't actually have to be procedurally 'heavy' in the final
analysis; one could, for example, 'work backward' from an Unusual Custom as
generated in DGP's _World Builders' Handbook_ and come up with the society
or religion that would have that Custom, using this document as a guideline
to looking at what factors might be involved in arriving at that Custom.

®Traveller is a registered trademark of
Mongoose Publishing, 1977-2025. Use of
the trademark in this notice and in the
referenced materials is not intended to
infringe or devalue the trademark.

--
Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
Freelance Traveller
    The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller® Resource
xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com
http://www.freelancetraveller.com

Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
enterprises for hosting services:

onCloud/CyberWeb Enterprises (http://www.oncloud.io)